No Second Amendment in the UK

[VikingsGuy]

Seems like owning a gun is a privilege not a right for @devon deer, where citizens voluntarily allow the police to show up randomly and ask to check the safe. I have no problem with that approach, if it stopped mass shootings. It would cause quite a kerfuffle here to change to a Constitutional privledge with a lot of “from my cold dead hands”. I’m ok with that too, because they probably shouldn’t own a gun anyway. I wish at some point Americans could have a reasonable discussions on guns (or anything for that matter). But to your point, I think, maybe some consistency in defense of all the Amends would be a good starting point.

If we are going to save lives by surrendering both the 2A and the 4A to do it then I suggest we actually start with areas that cause many more deaths than the rare (and likely unpreventable) mass shooting with a long gun. I do not believe that this is a public safety question, it is a political wedge issue that drives engagement, tribalism, virtue signaling, money, and votes on both sides, but is not in the top ten areas to decrease deaths in US. Solving the mental health mess in the US, including the social stigma, would save many many more lives than door to door gun checks of otherwise law-abiding suburbanites. But mental health issues don't fit the 24-hour panic news cycle well - so no money in it for media or politicians.

 

[3855WIN]

That's pretty rough... though I'm probably going to have to sit out hunting the east coast this season because of Mass gun laws so I don't know if I would put US laws on a pedestal.

That’s ridiculous.

 

[Shangobango]

The thing you are missing Vike, is when it comes to 2A debates most logic flies out the door. Everything you have said is 100% true, and yet people will fear that the police would break down their door for confirmation, or say the law is pointless because it can't be properly enforced. But like you said, most laws are not enforced like that any way. Police don't break down your door to confirm you're not selling crack unless there is probable cause which gave a search warrant. Does that mean we should make crack legal just because there isn't 100% enforcement of the laws? Heck no, 100% compliance guarantees a police state like North Korea, or China.

I don't think requiring a safe would be any different from the millions of laws we currently have, and abide by. Will every one? no I don't think so, but a large portion of the law abiding society would and that would make a difference.

So is the government going to provide the safe or mandate that I must buy one?

What if someone can afford a firearm but can't afford a safe? Are they left with the option to either forego owning a firearm or become a criminal due to their income level? How is that not an infringement or discrimination?

I am sort of playing devils advocate there but I expect that those arguments would be made if this were brought up.

I am all for doing what we can to reduce firearm deaths but it should be done in a way that can actually be implemented on a wide scale. Requiring that firearms be locked away and expecting it to be implemented has no chance of coming to fruition any time soon in a vast majority of the country.

 

[SAJ-99]

If we are going to save lives by surrendering both the 2A and the 4A to do it then I suggest we actually start with areas that cause many more deaths than the rare (and likely unpreventable) mass shooting with a long gun. I do not believe that this is a public safety question, it is a political wedge issue that drives engagement, tribalism, virtue signaling, money, and votes on both sides, but is not in the top ten areas to decrease deaths in US. Solving the mental health mess in the US, including the social stigma, would save many many more lives than door to door gun checks of otherwise law-abiding suburbanites. But mental health issues don't fit the 24-hour panic news cycle well - so no money in it for media or politicians.

Chicken/egg problem. As soon as someone admits a mental health problem they have to check the box on the background check form- so no gun ownership after that. Finding two people to vouch for a person after that is real hard if the person is unstable in any way or even if they are not if there are repercussions on them if something happens. Let’s just admit that a lot of people in this country shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun because of mental health issues, but they do.

 

[seeth07]

Ah, yes. Punishing victims for the actions of criminals, great idea. That will eliminate crime.

I was just making the point that this is the only real way to enforce the law of requiring guns to be locked. I for one absolutely hate laws that require citizens to do things "in prevention" to avoid crimes from happening. Huge supporter of "guns don't kill people, people kill people". I personally will never lock up my guns as I enjoy the gun cabinet I made as teenager. 100s of hours working on that and its a big pride thing for me every time I look at it. My ammo isn't stored there and is in a closet hidden away so any visitors to my house (a child lets say) has no ability to cause an accident. Look at that, problem solves without a lock on the guns!

 

[VikingsGuy]

Chicken/egg problem. As soon as someone admits a mental health problem they have to check the box on the background check form- so no gun ownership after that. Finding two people to vouch for a person after that is real hard if the person is unstable in any way or even if they are not if there are repercussions on them if something happens. Let’s just admit that a lot of people in this country shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun because of mental health issues, but they do.

I was talking about the mental health mess more broadly than guns. Our system is a mess and many multiples of gun deaths and mountains of human misery are getting insufficient treatment - and the vast majority will have nothing to do with a gun.

As for the self-identification penalty with guns, we already address this in other parts of the health area. Those old enough to remember the early years of HIV may recall the debate - mandatory reporting of HIV positives vs concern it would just cause folks to avoid the tests and further amplify the problem. Maybe we should weight the expected outcomes from not requiring self-identification on the ATF form. Not sure what the studies would show, but we need to stop being so dogmatic about these issues and get past "but the children", "out of my cold dead hands" arguments and start using fact-based, research-based policy setting.

 

[SD_Prairie_Goat]

So is the government going to provide the safe or mandate that I must buy one?

What if someone can afford a firearm but can't afford a safe? Are they left with the option to either forego owning a firearm or become a criminal due to their income level? How is that not an infringement or discrimination?

I am sort of playing devils advocate there but I expect that those arguments would be made if this were brought up.

I am all for doing what we can to reduce firearm deaths but it should be done in a way that can actually be implemented on a wide scale. Requiring that firearms be locked away and expecting it to be implemented has no chance of coming to fruition any time soon in a vast majority of the country.

If they can afford an Iphone they can afford a safe


All joking aside, I get what you're saying, but with the cheap safes out on the market I don't honestly see this as an issue when your safe is a fraction of the firearm. I mean when you can get a stack on cheapo safe for $100, I don't see that being a hindrance when people spend far more for a firearm. It would be a mentality change for many people, going from my gun is my right, to my gun is my right but its my responsibility to keep it out of the wrong hands. If that means waiting to buy a gun until you have a safe then thats what it is.


I wouldn't look at it any different than car insurance from that stand point. Can't legally have one without the other. If you can't afford both you shouldn't have it.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Chicken/egg problem. As soon as someone admits a mental health problem they have to check the box on the background check form- so no gun ownership after that. Finding two people to vouch for a person after that is real hard if the person is unstable in any way or even if they are not if there are repercussions on them if something happens. Let’s just admit that a lot of people in this country shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun because of mental health issues, but they do.

Which disincentivizes people seeking help, exacerbating the problem.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Maybe we should weight the expected outcomes from not requiring self-identification on the ATF form.

Disqualifying question number 12 on the mass gun license app, to your point, is this question helpful. I'm not saying it is or isn't, I'm not sure to be honest.

 

[devon deer]

Seems like owning a gun is a privilege not a right for @devon deer, where citizens voluntarily allow the police to show up randomly and ask to check the safe.

That's about right to be honest, it is a privilege to be trusted with using a firearm in such a densely populated country as the UK.
Regarding the police, they can check the security at the time of application/renewal of the certificate, after that they can knock on the door at any time and request to see your security, but you don't have to let them in, they would need a search warrant if you refused, but if they 'suspected' illegal activity they have grounds, but they would need to be very sure of the ground they were on.
But I have nothing to hide, they can pop around anytime, not an issue with me.
Cheers
Richard

 

[Deleted member 28227]

So which alternative do you prefer.

This is my paradigm, as always subject to change, (maybe even by the end of the thread )

I think there is a bit of a slippery slope when it comes to gun laws. I represent this with the angle of the curve below. Per the diagram/my thinking it's pretty easy for WY to get to NJ level laws if they open the can of worms... but really hard for Mass to get up to Japan level laws (too much political capital, i.e. law of diminishing returns).

Green box is where gun laws actually start having a difference both in how it feels to an owner and on preventing gun deaths. Kinda hard to compare states/countries for "strictness" so just go with it, I was just trying to convey they idea that there is a spectrum with jurisdictions all along that spectrum.

So my thinking, if you aren't in the box, to some extent, why bother.

General things I've noticed. Europeans like taxes and doing things collectively (coasters are more amenable to it as well). American's hate taxes, prefer tolls to taxes... and we love Status, credit card status, airline status, etc.

Therefore, I think if laws are going to do squat (and I hate ineffective laws) we as a country need to trend towards the green box in our own way a way that respects our values.

My preference would be for a federal level TSA precheck style gun licensing system.

It would be very onerous and rigorous, but completely voluntary. The license would allow; concealed carry in all 50 states, purchase/ownership in every state, allow possession of suppressors (without all the trust bs), and you would get to skip background checks at purchase you just have to show your license and move on. For online purchase, you would enter your license number then use facial recognition on your phone, so it would in effect allow home delivery of firearms, and private transfers without FFL.
It would requires background checks, classes, firearm registration, proof of secure storage (inspection official), etc. No grandfathering in.

This would not replace or preempt any current state system, WY gets to do their thing MA gets to do theirs. There is still the regular line at the airport, there is just a fast lane for those of us who are truly responsible and willing to prove it. If you like your gun laws you can keep your gun laws.

I honestly think the people that would be compliant in your mandatory storage law would be the kinda folks that get his type license.

 

[VikingsGuy]

This is my paradigm, as always subject to change, (maybe even by the end of the thread )



My preference would be for a federal level TSA precheck style gun licensing system.

It would be very onerous and rigorous, but completely voluntary. The license would allow; concealed carry in all 50 states, purchase/ownership in every state, allow possession of suppressors (without all the trust bs), and you would get to skip background checks at purchase you just have to show your license and move on. For online purchase, you would enter your license number then use facial recognition on your phone, so it would in effect allow home delivery of firearms, and private transfers without FFL.
It would requires background checks, classes, firearm registration, proof of secure storage (inspection official), etc. No grandfathering in.

This would not replace or preempt any current state system, WY gets to do their thing MA gets to do theirs. There is still the regular line at the airport, there is just a fast lane for those of us who are truly responsible and willing to prove it. If you like your gun laws you can keep your gun laws.

I would agree with your proposal if you included: (a) the renewal window would be at least 10 years out; (b) it is a shall-issue license that has some reasonable time frames to get yes/no answer; and (c) states and localities could not impinge on these "rights" - otherwise why bother getting a federal "50-state carry" and "right for online purchases" if the state could just take it away with a "but not here" local rule. Maybe these were implied in your suggestion, but I think they are important clarifications to the idea.

Heck, I would go further. For the "un-pre-checked", universal background checks in all cases, mandatory basic safety class and legal liability for damage/deaths that could have been avoided with simple gun safe usage. (before we freak out about the last point, it is simply a restatement of basic tort law already - just clarifying that "foreseeability of potential harm" from unlocked unattended firearms is presumed.

And then that's it - no AR-fear mongering, no magazine size bs, no red flags beyond the already existing civil commitment processes, keep the tort protection for firearms manufacturers, disallow public accommodation and financial services discrimination against 2A rights, etc. States could dabble around the edges for the "un-pre-checked" folks, but once you jump through all the fed hoops, the states/towns get out of your hair. Per your TSA example, the state of MN does not place additional rules for boarding a plane in MN.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I would agree with your proposal if you included: (a) the renewal window would be at least 10 years out; (b) it is a shall-issue license that has some reasonable time frames to get yes/no answer; and (c) states and localities could not impinge on these "rights" - otherwise why bother getting a federal "50-state carry" and "right for online purchases" if the state could just take it away with a "but not here" local rule. Maybe these were implied in your suggestion, but I think they are important clarifications to the idea.

Heck, I would go further. For the "un-pre-checked", universal background checks in all cases, mandatory basic safety class and legal liability for damage/deaths that could have been avoided with simple gun safe usage. (before we freak out about the last point, it is simply a restatement of basic tort law already - just clarifying that "foreseeability of potential harm" from unlocked unattended firearms is presumed.

And then that's it - no AR-fear mongering, no magazine size bs, no red flags beyond the already existing civil commitment processes, keep the tort protection for firearms manufacturers, disallow public accommodation and financial services discrimination against 2A rights, etc. States could dabble around the edges for the "un-pre-checked" folks, but once you jump through all the fed hoops, the states/towns get out of your hair. Per your TSA example, the state of MN does not place additional rules for boarding a plane in MN.

Yes to all the points.

 

[SAJ-99]

I was talking about the mental health mess more broadly than guns. Our system is a mess and many multiples of gun deaths and mountains of human misery are getting insufficient treatment - and the vast majority will have nothing to do with a gun.

As for the self-identification penalty with guns, we already address this in other parts of the health area. Those old enough to remember the early years of HIV may recall the debate - mandatory reporting of HIV positives vs concern it would just cause folks to avoid the tests and further amplify the problem. Maybe we should weight the expected outcomes from not requiring self-identification on the ATF form. Not sure what the studies would show, but we need to stop being so dogmatic about these issues and get past "but the children", "out of my cold dead hands" arguments and start using fact-based, research-based policy setting.

I agree, but mental health is a too large a problem to be solved. Mental health exists on a continuum, is not static, and is largely dependent on a subjective assessment. You can get an eye doctor to sign off on your vision or your primary doctor to sign off on your reaction time in order to get a drivers license, but neither of them is going to sign off on your ability to get a firmearm. They would push that to the mental health professional, and I highly doubt any of them would put their professional reputation on the line for a patient to own a gun. Maybe I would sign off a buddy who takes Prozac, but there has to be no repercussions to me doing that, and then what is the point? The government is also trying to avoid the number of veterans that would be disqualified from owning a firearm. leading down the rabbit hole of what their mental health before signing up and after. Did military service highlight a preexisting problem, cause the problem, or have no impact? weighing the logistics and consequences of the implementation is mind numbing, let's not even try to guess what the cost would be. The NRA's use of mental health is a distraction because they know it is unsolvable and the majority of the public might be willing to agree it is a problem but is unwilling to pay for it.

 

[Shangobango]

If they can afford an Iphone they can afford a safe


All joking aside, I get what you're saying, but with the cheap safes out on the market I don't honestly see this as an issue when your safe is a fraction of the firearm. I mean when you can get a stack on cheapo safe for $100, I don't see that being a hindrance when people spend far more for a firearm. It would be a mentality change for many people, going from my gun is my right, to my gun is my right but its my responsibility to keep it out of the wrong hands. If that means waiting to buy a gun until you have a safe then thats what it is.


I wouldn't look at it any different than car insurance from that stand point. Can't legally have one without the other. If you can't afford both you shouldn't have it.

The obvious rebuttal is that firearm ownership is protected as a right and ownership of a car is not.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I agree, but mental health is a too large a problem to be solved. Mental health exists on a continuum, is not static, and is largely dependent on a subjective assessment. You can get an eye doctor to sign off on your vision or your primary doctor to sign off on your reaction time in order to get a drivers license, but neither of them is going to sign off on your ability to get a firmearm. They would push that to the mental health professional, and I highly doubt any of them would put their professional reputation on the line for a patient to own a gun. Maybe I would sign off a buddy who takes Prozac, but there has to be no repercussions to me doing that, and then what is the point? The government is also trying to avoid the number of veterans that would be disqualified from owning a firearm. leading down the rabbit hole of what their mental health before signing up and after. Did military service highlight a preexisting problem, cause the problem, or have no impact? weighing the logistics and consequences of the implementation is mind numbing, let's not even try to guess what the cost would be. The NRA's use of mental health is a distraction because they know it is unsolvable and the majority of the public might be willing to agree it is a problem but is unwilling to pay for it.

All good points, but I am going a different direction with my remarks, but obviously not clearly.

What I am saying is that we should take the costs (fiscally, politically and public opinion) being (in my opinion) "wasted" in the current gun control conversation and instead turn all that energy/passion/money towards mental health without any reference or connection to gun control. That a nationwide effort on mental health issues (while never solving it) that would save far more lives and improve the quality of far more lives than even the most draconian gun control law. I am saying we are looking at the wrong problem all together. It is like if you have a high school kid that is getting all Ds academically and you spend your time fretting about the fact that they broke their iphone screen a second time this year. Gun control is not a material issue when compared to poverty, education reform, racial injustice, mental health, etc. But instead, 90% of our electioneering is about abortion and gun control - not because either makes this a better nation for most people, but because they drive the $$$ and votes of the most enraged. I am not saying they are unimportant issues, I am saying, that in comparison to our other problems we need to set them aside for a while and focus on some of these other issues. Even a 10% improvement in the mental health system would save more lives and bring more joy than 100% "success" in the gun control space.

And a little further, are attempts at mental health flagging in the gun control space actually hurting our overall mental health system in a way that actually nets to more death and suffering than it may "prevent"?

 

[VikingsGuy]

The obvious rebuttal is that firearm ownership is protected as a right and ownership of a car is not.

And the further rebuttal is that every single constitutional right is subject to regulation and oversight to some extent, so the question is, "is this one such regulation allowable or not?"

 

[VikingsGuy]

I would agree with your proposal if you included: (a) the renewal window would be at least 10 years out; (b) it is a shall-issue license that has some reasonable time frames to get yes/no answer; and (c) states and localities could not impinge on these "rights" - otherwise why bother getting a federal "50-state carry" and "right for online purchases" if the state could just take it away with a "but not here" local rule. Maybe these were implied in your suggestion, but I think they are important clarifications to the idea.

Heck, I would go further. For the "un-pre-checked", universal background checks in all cases, mandatory basic safety class and legal liability for damage/deaths that could have been avoided with simple gun safe usage. (before we freak out about the last point, it is simply a restatement of basic tort law already - just clarifying that "foreseeability of potential harm" from unlocked unattended firearms is presumed.

And then that's it - no AR-fear mongering, no magazine size bs, no red flags beyond the already existing civil commitment processes, keep the tort protection for firearms manufacturers, disallow public accommodation and financial services discrimination against 2A rights, etc. States could dabble around the edges for the "un-pre-checked" folks, but once you jump through all the fed hoops, the states/towns get out of your hair. Per your TSA example, the state of MN does not place additional rules for boarding a plane in MN.

But maybe "Master Hunters" would be exempt from all limitations

 

[SAJ-99]

All good points, but I am going a different direction with my remarks, but obviously not clearly.

What I am saying is that we should take the costs (fiscally, politically and public opinion) being (in my opinion) "wasted" in the current gun control conversation and instead turn all that energy/passion/money towards mental health without any reference or connection to gun control. That a nationwide effort on mental health issues (while never solving it) that would save far more lives and improve the quality of far more lives than even the most draconian gun control law. I am saying we are looking at the wrong problem all together. It is like if you have a high school kid that is getting all Ds academically and you spend your time fretting about the fact that they broke their iphone screen a second time this year. Gun control is not a material issue when compared to poverty, education reform, racial injustice, mental health, etc. But instead, 90% of our electioneering is about abortion and gun control - not because either makes this a better nation for most people, but because they drive the $$$ and votes of the most enraged. I am not saying they are unimportant issues, I am saying, that in comparison to our other problems we need to set them aside for a while and focus on some of these other issues. Even a 10% improvement in the mental health system would save more lives and bring more joy than 100% "success" in the gun control space.

And a little further, are attempts at mental health flagging in the gun control space actually hurting our overall mental health system in a way that actually nets to more death and suffering than it may "prevent"?

If the UK has had 3 mass shootings in 60yrs, you can't simple say "draconian" gun laws don't work at preventing mass shootings. Unless they have figured out the mental health issue. Can't say for sure but my money is on 'no'.

As to the question on the form, hard to say the existence of the question is counterproductive. Probably just pointless. There are many "sales" that don't use the form, and people lie on that question and there is no cross referencing with health data so if the applicant says 'no' the only cross-check is through legal records. The process has more holes than swiss cheese.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Decouple mental health from gun control and destigmatize responsible behavior.

NRA could push for/ financially support suicide hotlines. Streamlined access to counselors. Support groups. Etc

Local gun ranges could provide voluntary gun storage, i.e. no questions asked if you don't want your gun in the house you can leave it there and retrieve it without any bs. Just like a gym locker at the Y. I'm sure there are some folks who recognize they are going through some shit, possibly have suicidal ideation, know that having a gun in the house isn't good for them, but at the same time don't want to hand their guns over to the cops never to be seen again or check themselves into a hospital. Same folks might always feel like shooting or hunting is their only outlet. They are totally fine at the range, or in the woods... but alone in bed at 2am thinking about shit maybe not. Give them a better way to make it through the day that doesn't involve upending their lives or flagging themselves as "crazy".

We have this all or nothing approach to mental health, you're either fine, or you're a nut who needs to be locked away.

Reaching out for help should not be treated as weakness, it's an act of personal responsibility, it should not be a disqualifier.