The Big Gun Control Thread

I don't think we have evidence enough to make your last claim realistic. In my mind the first things we have to do are come down hard with universal background checks, give the ATF some teeth, and restart some serious, in-depth research about the effects of the proliferation of firearms on our society.

Paleocon wrote:

I just don't think we should be looking at solutions for problems that are statistically not in evidence.

According to your rhetoric, white women being scared of big black guns is a very statistically relevant problem, being that you've mentioned in most of your recent posts.

Jonman wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I just don't think we should be looking at solutions for problems that are statistically not in evidence.

According to your rhetoric, white women being scared of big black guns is a very statistically relevant problem, being that you've mentioned in most of your recent posts.

And the most appropriate solution for that problem is for them to get over it.

Paleocon wrote:

And, again, I go back to my unanswered question: "what is an assault weapon?".

So far, I get a lot of folks talking about how "everyone knows" what one is, but no one is able to say what it is other than a black rifle that scares suburban white women. Then, when they actually pass an ineffectual law that addresses the cosmetic aspects that pander to their emotional buttons and recieve the predictable results, they blame the gun lobby for "watering down" the law they crafted.

Seriously. If you want to do something about crime, do something about crime. If you're upset that folks have firearms with cosmetic features that scare you, don't be upset when the laws you write do absolutely no good.

edit: And there are folks that don't think the average American should have unfettered access to miniturized computing power that is smaller and more capable than the most advanced nuclear weapons guidance systems of the 1980's. I am fair certain that the Founding Fathers never would have anticipated that either.

I'll answer your's if you answer mine...

My comedic answer is an assault rifle is whatever the NRA and gun enthusiasts say isn't an assault rifle.

My real answer is that given the ingenuity of gun manufacturers it is essentially impossible to define what is or isn't an assault rifle based on cosmetic aspects because those will be changed before the next issue of Guns and Ammo hits the newsstand. Specify a barrel length and manufacturer's will weasel around that length. Specify a type of grip or caliber of round and they'll do the same.

Instead, the focus should be almost entirely on the magazine capacity. I'd prefer a law that would restrict semiautomatic rifles to a fixed capacity of about three rounds. That way gun aficionados can have their Seal Team/SWAT look-alike weapon, but it can't be used to shoot up a mall, school, or office.

Those limited number of bullets would still make the weapon useful for things like hunting. If you need more than three rounds, you probably shouldn't be hunting. I honestly don't care about the impact of the limited magazine on target or "sport" shooters because that's only a niche hobby and a classroom full of live kids far outweighs a small number of people having to take extra time to load their weapons. Nor do I care about the dubious claims of people who say that a high-powered semiautomatic rifle that shoots rounds that can easily penetrate common building materials and household appliances is the ideal weapon for protecting their home and loved ones (who are very likely behind those easily penetrated common building materials and household appliances).

I would also opt for having a commonsense approach for identifying assault rifles: a panel of non-gun owning citizens. If they can't tell the difference between a rifle a manufacturer wants to sell and a military weapon, then it's an assault rifle. It's obviously been designed to look like something black and scary.

And that leads me to my question, Paleocon.

Why is it that with all the numerous choices out there for gun owners that the most popular rifles are the ones that look exactly like military weapons? Even if you argue that firearm manufacturers are just giving consumers what they want, you're still left with the premise that gun owners are specifically going after military copycat weapons. What does that say about them and their mental state?

To clarify OG, are you defining rifle by cartridge or some other means?

OG_slinger wrote:

Why is it that with all the numerous choices out there for gun owners that the most popular rifles are the ones that look exactly like military weapons? Even if you argue that firearm manufacturers are just giving consumers what they want, you're still left with the premise that gun owners are specifically going after military copycat weapons. What does that say about them and their mental state?

Really? People who think military weapons look cool have a questionable mental state?

OG_slinger wrote:

Why is it that with all the numerous choices out there for gun owners that the most popular rifles are the ones that look exactly like military weapons? Even if you argue that firearm manufacturers are just giving consumers what they want, you're still left with the premise that gun owners are specifically going after military copycat weapons. What does that say about them and their mental state?

Well, for a good deal of gun collectors, the attraction of historical military firearms is a connection to the era of history. Among the most popular collectables include the M1 Garand of WW2 and the Korean conflict. In that sense, it is not terribly different from collecting classic automobiles, just cheaper and in many ways, more reverant. Calling it mental illness may appeal to your misplaced sense of moral outrage, but it is largely harmless. Moreover, as I have noted before, if we allow our society to define what freedoms we allow by necessity, we will find ourselves living in a very different society.

There are many people among us that don't think you "need" alcohol, automobiles capable of exceeding posted speed limits, literature that debases authority, or even computer games.

boogle wrote:

To clarify OG, are you defining rifle by cartridge or some other means?

Why? As Paleocon pointed out, trying to define those rifles by cosmetics is ineffective (and hopeless).

Specify a cartridge or caliber and manufacturers would just slightly change things so the new weapon wouldn't be covered by any law. Specify a barrel length or weapon length and the same would happen.

Perhaps the only definition I could get behind would be something tremendously broad, like a rifle is a firearm the requires two hands to use. But even then you'd have things like the Tec 9 that would slip past.

Stengah wrote:

Really? People who think military weapons look cool have a questionable mental state?

It's an entirely valid question to ask, Stengah. Doubly so when the pro-gun side often questions the mental state of the pro-gun side, claiming that those folks are overly-emotional and incapable of making rational decisions because they're too afraid of scary black rifles.

I'm simply stating that there's something further to explore when people who want to buy a rifle have virtually unlimited styles to chose from and yet they very frequently chose the one styled after a military weapon.

It also doesn't help when those weapons are typically found in the possession of people whose mental state I would very much question, like white supremacist "militias", doomsday preppers, apocalyptic religious cults, anti-government groups, mass murderers, and strapped to the backs of people at political rallies where most participant are in favor of violently overthrowing the government.

There's a big difference between thinking military weapons look cool and cleaning out a gun store of AR-15s in a panic because you're afraid the big, bad government is going to take away your guns.

Paleocon wrote:

Well, for a good deal of gun collectors, the attraction of historical military firearms is a connection to the era of history. Among the most popular collectables include the M1 Garand of WW2 and the Korean conflict. In that sense, it is not terribly different from collecting classic automobiles, just cheaper and in many ways, more reverant. Calling it mental illness may appeal to your misplaced sense of moral outrage, but it is largely harmless. Moreover, as I have noted before, if we allow our society to define what freedoms we allow by necessity, we will find ourselves living in a very different society.

As much as you would like to think this is about gun collectors and a few thousand M1 Garands, it's not. It's about the several hundred thousand AR and AK variants that are sold each year.

OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Well, for a good deal of gun collectors, the attraction of historical military firearms is a connection to the era of history. Among the most popular collectables include the M1 Garand of WW2 and the Korean conflict. In that sense, it is not terribly different from collecting classic automobiles, just cheaper and in many ways, more reverant. Calling it mental illness may appeal to your misplaced sense of moral outrage, but it is largely harmless. Moreover, as I have noted before, if we allow our society to define what freedoms we allow by necessity, we will find ourselves living in a very different society.

As much as you would like to think this is about gun collectors and a few thousand M1 Garands, it's not. It's about the several hundred thousand AR and AK variants that are sold each year.

Could we have an 'assault weapon' ban with the option to petition the government for exemptions in cases where there's some unique value (e.g., the historical value of Garands and old-time Colts) associated with the gun compared with the efficiency of the gun as a killing machine? Speaking of classic automobiles, we give those exemptions from stuff like emissions and safety standards, I think: could we do the same with certain guns?

OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Well, for a good deal of gun collectors, the attraction of historical military firearms is a connection to the era of history. Among the most popular collectables include the M1 Garand of WW2 and the Korean conflict. In that sense, it is not terribly different from collecting classic automobiles, just cheaper and in many ways, more reverant. Calling it mental illness may appeal to your misplaced sense of moral outrage, but it is largely harmless. Moreover, as I have noted before, if we allow our society to define what freedoms we allow by necessity, we will find ourselves living in a very different society.

As much as you would like to think this is about gun collectors and a few thousand M1 Garands, it's not. It's about the several hundred thousand AR and AK variants that are sold each year.

And as panic-inducing as that sounds, the number of deadly crimes committed with them is less that the number committed with baseball bats or pint glasses.

If your concern is truly with saving lives through the restriction of freedom, there are a LOT of longer poles in that tent. Excess speed, for instance, is a contributing factor in 14,000 highway deaths per year and yet I don't hear the clamor for restrictions on cars capable of exceeding the speed limit. And while we are questioning mental states, what does it say about someone when he or she purchases a car capable of exceeding the speed limit in spectacular fashion?

OG_slinger wrote:
Stengah wrote:

Really? People who think military weapons look cool have a questionable mental state?

It's an entirely valid question to ask, Stengah. Doubly so when the pro-gun side often questions the mental state of the pro-gun side, claiming that those folks are overly-emotional and incapable of making rational decisions because they're too afraid of scary black rifles.

I'm simply stating that there's something further to explore when people who want to buy a rifle have virtually unlimited styles to chose from and yet they very frequently chose the one styled after a military weapon.

It also doesn't help when those weapons are typically found in the possession of people whose mental state I would very much question, like white supremacist "militias", doomsday preppers, apocalyptic religious cults, anti-government groups, mass murderers, and strapped to the backs of people at political rallies where most participant are in favor of violently overthrowing the government.

There's a big difference between thinking military weapons look cool and cleaning out a gun store of AR-15s in a panic because you're afraid the big, bad government is going to take away your guns.

Unlimited styles? How much would a truly custom-designed rifle cost? One that had the same function as an "assault weapon," but aesthetics different enough that you wouldn't recognize them as the same type of gun?

That aside, wouldn't the thorough background checks that were part of Edwin's suggestion be enough of a questioning of their mental state for you? Or is the default assumption going to be that one must be unbalanced to even want to own a gun like those?

CheezePavilion wrote:

Could we have an 'assault weapon' ban with the option to petition the government for exemptions in cases where there's some unique value (e.g., the historical value of Garands and old-time Colts) associated with the gun compared with the efficiency of the gun as a killing machine? Speaking of classic automobiles, we give those exemptions from stuff like emissions and safety standards, I think: could we do the same with certain guns?

Absolutely. And those owners shouldn't have any reason to object to registering those firearms since they're only owning them for their historic value.

Paleocon wrote:

And as panic-inducing as that sounds, the number of deadly crimes committed with them is less that the number committed with baseball bats or pint glasses.

If your concern is truly with saving lives through the restriction of freedom, there are a LOT of longer poles in that tent. Excess speed, for instance, is a contributing factor in 14,000 highway deaths per year and yet I don't hear the clamor for restrictions on cars capable of exceeding the speed limit.

I've already explained to you that people don't want to heavily restrict or outright ban assault rifles because they are used to commit lots of crimes. They want to do so because they don't think it's reasonable, wise, or even beneficial for society to allow its members easy access to high powered firearms with large magazines.

And since you seem hell bent on bringing up the same tired comparison of cars with assault rifles, you should really keep in mind that cars aren't designed to kill people, they provide massive social and economic benefits, and virtually every aspect of them is subjected to rigorous government oversight--from safety standards, to licensing, to motor vehicle laws, to how roads should be built, to how used oil and a spent battery should be disposed of. And the government invests millions and millions of dollars a year to study ways to make cars and car travel safer.

None of that happens for firearms. Firearm manufacturers have been exempted numerous regulations, the NRA has effectively crippled the only oversight agency, and the group has even banned *any* research of firearms that has the remotest possibility of painting firearms or gun owners in what they consider a bad light.

Even individual firearm owners have been exempted from what is considered reasonable oversight when it comes to cars. How safe would you feel if 40% of the drivers on the road didn't have a license because of a loophole that National Association of Hotrodders forced into the law books?

Paleocon wrote:

And while we are questioning mental states, what does it say about someone when he or she purchases a car capable of exceeding the speed limit in spectacular fashion?

The comparison you're trying to make just doesn't work, Paleocon.

That person still has to get a driver's licence. Which means they have to demonstrate that they are capable of operating the vehicle in a safe manner and show that their sh*t together mentally enough to demonstrate a working knowledge of motor vehicle law. Drivers even have to periodically demonstrate to the state that they are still physically and mentally capable of driving safely.

In many states drivers have to prove that they have insurance so if they have an accident--or do something f*cking stupid--that they can adequately compensate others for their screw-ups.

A car that is capable of exceeding the speed limit in a spectacular fashion isn't cheap. The person will have to be willing to shell out tens of thousands of dollars. And said car will have to be registered with the state (and that registration transferred if they sell it).

If, after all that, those people still chose to exceed the speed limit in a spectacular fashion then they will suffer the consequences. They'll get a ticket and have to pay a large fine. Their insurance rates will go up (or they'll be dropped). If they continue to speed or having the speeding result in an accident then they'll have their license to drive suspended or revoked and might even spend some time in jail.

OG_slinger wrote:

I've already explained to you that people don't want to heavily restrict or outright ban assault rifles because they are used to commit lots of crimes. They want to do so because they don't think it's reasonable, wise, or even beneficial for society to allow its members easy access to high powered firearms with large magazines.

So, basically, this whole "assault weapon" nonsense is just the "partial birth abortion" of the gun control debate. Got it.

Stengah wrote:

That aside, wouldn't the thorough background checks that were part of Edwin's suggestion be enough of a questioning of their mental state for you? Or is the default assumption going to be that one must be unbalanced to even want to own a gun like those?

You'll have to quote the specifics of his plan for me to comment on. I'm not digging through the thread to find it.

I believe I've already previously stated that anyone wanting to purchase a firearm (and not just an assault rifle) should be required to go through an extensive medical and mental evaluation to prove that they can safely and responsibly handle said firearm and that they're not a danger to themselves or society.

Those examinations should be conducted by doctors and mental health specialists who are completely independent of the gun industry and with outside oversight to ensure a flourishing sub-industry similar to the doctors who'll write pot prescriptions for anyone willing to pay a fee emerges.

Those examinations should be repeated every few years to catch declining mental health or substance abuse issues and, of course, gun owners should be entirely liable for all the costs associated with the system.

I'm not assuming anyone's mentally unbalanced to want to own a gun like that. I simply want reasonable assurances and proof that they *aren't* mentally unbalanced before we hand them a weapon--no strings attached--that can kill everyone in a theater, office, or classroom.

Paleocon wrote:

And as panic-inducing as that sounds, the number of deadly crimes committed with them is less that the number committed with baseball bats or pint glasses.

If your concern is truly with saving lives through the restriction of freedom, there are a LOT of longer poles in that tent. Excess speed, for instance, is a contributing factor in 14,000 highway deaths per year and yet I don't hear the clamor for restrictions on cars capable of exceeding the speed limit. And while we are questioning mental states, what does it say about someone when he or she purchases a car capable of exceeding the speed limit in spectacular fashion?

Actually, I'd be happy to have speed limiters of that nature enforced on cars for precisely that reason.

Paleocon wrote:

So, basically, this whole "assault weapon" nonsense is just the "partial birth abortion" of the gun control debate. Got it.

No, it's much more similar the debate over when a fetus is viable if were going to stick with the abortion comparison.

In the case of assault rifles, the discussion revolves around the size of the magazine. The pro-gun side wants high-capacity magazines and the gun control side would prefer much, much smaller magazines, preferably ones that are permanently installed.

I'd be willing to listen to any explanation of why the pro-gun crowd thinks 30-round magazines are essential. I actually think the burden of proof lies with them. Outside of the fact that the military weapons they copied had 30-round magazines, I've never heard any justification of what the pro-gun side thinks large capacity magazines are needed. Not convenient or efficient, but *needed*. That having a rifle with only three or five rounds instead of 15 or 30 makes it effectively worthless.

I've already said that my concerns over assault weapons would disappear if magazine sizes were heavily limited. I wouldn't care that AR-15s or similar military copycat weapons were flying off the shelves at record paces if I knew their magazines were permanently limited to a handful of rounds. Of course, I really doubt they'd be selling like hot cakes they were restricted in such a manner.

Did anyone post the Mother Jones article about mass shootings? They've done some interesting statistical analysis:

IMAGE(http://assets.motherjones.com/interactives/projects/2012/12/updated-mass-shootings/final_illegal2.png)

IMAGE(http://www.motherjones.com/files/new_guns_630_0228_0.png)

(I unfortunately came across this today after a shooting spree in my husband's hometown.)

OG_slinger wrote:

I believe I've already previously stated that anyone wanting to purchase a firearm (and not just an assault rifle) should be required to go through an extensive medical and mental evaluation to prove that they can safely and responsibly handle said firearm and that they're not a danger to themselves or society.

Those examinations should be conducted by doctors and mental health specialists who are completely independent of the gun industry and with outside oversight to ensure a flourishing sub-industry similar to the doctors who'll write pot prescriptions for anyone willing to pay a fee emerges.

Those examinations should be repeated every few years to catch declining mental health or substance abuse issues and, of course, gun owners should be entirely liable for all the costs associated with the system.

I'm not assuming anyone's mentally unbalanced to want to own a gun like that. I simply want reasonable assurances and proof that they *aren't* mentally unbalanced before we hand them a weapon--no strings attached--that can kill everyone in a theater, office, or classroom.

Can this be the screening process for parenting? I think it would lower the crime rate more.

Katy wrote:

(I unfortunately came across this today after a shooting spree in my husband's hometown.)

The second shooting occurred 4 blocks from where my mother currently lives. That happens to be the area I grew up in as well.

This loon basically had the entire Mohawk Valley in full on panic mode for most of the day.

OG_slinger wrote:
Stengah wrote:

That aside, wouldn't the thorough background checks that were part of Edwin's suggestion be enough of a questioning of their mental state for you? Or is the default assumption going to be that one must be unbalanced to even want to own a gun like those?

You'll have to quote the specifics of his plan for me to comment on. I'm not digging through the thread to find it.

I believe I've already previously stated that anyone wanting to purchase a firearm (and not just an assault rifle) should be required to go through an extensive medical and mental evaluation to prove that they can safely and responsibly handle said firearm and that they're not a danger to themselves or society.

Those examinations should be conducted by doctors and mental health specialists who are completely independent of the gun industry and with outside oversight to ensure a flourishing sub-industry similar to the doctors who'll write pot prescriptions for anyone willing to pay a fee emerges.

Those examinations should be repeated every few years to catch declining mental health or substance abuse issues and, of course, gun owners should be entirely liable for all the costs associated with the system.

I'm not assuming anyone's mentally unbalanced to want to own a gun like that. I simply want reasonable assurances and proof that they *aren't* mentally unbalanced before we hand them a weapon--no strings attached--that can kill everyone in a theater, office, or classroom.

This is Edwin's letter to his congress-critter then. He suggests that the rest of the country adopt similar regulations as Florida's Chapter 790.

Stengah wrote:

This is Edwin's letter to his congress-critter then. He suggests that the rest of the country adopt similar regulations as Florida's Chapter 790.

Florida? The state that brought Zimmerman and that jackass who shot up a car full of kids and killed one because he thought their music was too loud? The nation should be looking to them as a shining example of how we should manage firearms?

There isn't much in Florida's laws that gives me any comfort when it comes to purchasing a firearm and even less when it comes to issuing a concealed carry permit.

Florida is very similar to just about every state when it comes to the process of buying a gun. The buyer doesn't need any type of license, all they have to do is get a passing grade from the same flawed national background check system as everyone else.

That system is flawed because only 27 states actually bother to submit mental health data to the system even though weeding out the crazies is one of the ten very specific things the system was designed to do. And those states barely submit any data. Hell, 13 of them submitted less than 10 records from 2004 to 2011.

Perhaps if Florida changed its law so that it could charge more than $8 to conduct a background check the state (and others) could afford to properly screen people who want to buy a firearm. After all, it costs $48 to get a driver's license in Florida, so the state could (and should) charge more for background checks and use that extra funding to make sure that its Department of Health had adequate funds to collect and report on mental health records.

Florida is also similar to many other states when it comes to how quickly it has to let someone buy a gun, even when the state hasn't had enough time to properly complete the background check. Florida gives 24 hours (48 if something serious like the Department of Law Enforcement's computer system is down or there's a power failure). After that, the buyer has to be sold the weapon. It could turn out that the person is crazy, a drug user, committed a crime in another state, but Florida requires that they be given a gun because god forbid if they have to an extra wait a day or two.

There's no training, no mental examination, nothing.

Concealed carry is even more of a joke in Florida. The biggest reason for that is that it's not the Department of Law Enforcement that determines who can or cannot carry a concealed firearm, it's the Department of Agriculture. And putting the people responsible for freshly squeezed OJ in charge of issuing concealed carry permits leads to some exceptionally dangerous systemic problems.

The biggest one is Florida can't use the national background check system to review or double check the people who want to carry a firearm on them like most other states do because the Department of Agriculture isn't a law enforcement agency and is barred by federal law from having access to that data. Florida can only check state records before issuing a permit, which means that someone with a criminal record or mental health issue could move to Florida and easily be granted a concealed carry permit because the OJ Patrol can't properly screen them.

But, heck, you don't even have to live in Florida to get a concealed carry permit. More than 112,000 concealed carry permits the Department of Agriculture has issued (about 12% of the total) were given to people who lived out of state. Why would that be? Because Florida's concealed carry reciprocity laws mean a Floridian permit is good in most states. In short, people are gaming the system.

A slightly less big problem caused by the way Florida issues concealed carry permits is that it had led to some exceptionally serious process failures. For the last decade anyone who submitted fingerprints that were illegible were simply granted a concealed carry permit. That's because the Department of Agriculture thought that the Department of Law Enforcement was asking the FBI for additional help and the Department of Law Enforcement thought the Department of Agriculture was asking the FBI. The result, of course, was that no checks were performed and because no issues were found from the non-existent check, the concealed carry permit was issued.

Florida is also pretty danged permissive in what crimes will or won't prevent you from getting a concealed carry permit. Have a history of drug use serious enough to get you committed or convicted? Just wait three years and we'll give you a concealed carry permit. Beat up your wife or girlfriend, but had your adjudication of guilt withheld, sentence suspended, or simply paid to have your records sealed? Just wait three years and enjoy your firearm. Been committed to a mental institution? Don't worry, just wait five years and get a note from your doctor saying you're all better now and you can carry a gun everywhere you go. Heck, you can be arrested for drunk and disorderly multiple times a year and even shoot someone on your property while you're hammered (as long as you can convince the police it was self-defense *cough* f*cked up stand your ground laws *cough*) and you'll still be allowed to get a concealed carry permit.

While Florida does require firearm training for a concealed carry permit that requirement can be satisfied with a course that's just two and a half hour long. That's right. It takes more time to watch The Hobbit than it takes to be trained enough to carry a firearm practically anywhere you go. I would be exceptionally uncomfortable if my local police were given such inadequate training as would I if the DMV simply allowed everyone to drive after spending part of the Saturday morning taking a half-assed driving course.

I feel we've reached a point where way too much consideration has been given to the completely unfounded (and frankly paranoid) concerns of gun owners and that has resulted in a firearm purchasing and permitting system that has completely failed to do what it was supposed to do: keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people.

We should be designing a system that works, not purposefully gimping it because people think that someday, maybe, Uncle Sam might smash his way into their house and take all their guns.

Did you read the law, or the letter? Or did you just hear "Florida" and shut down?

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/sta...
From 1987 to 2011, 0.3% of Florida citizens who have been issue a concealed-carry permit have committed a crime (revoking the permit), and only 0.2% of those (.007% of all issued permits) were for crimes involving firearms. Many of your complaints would be addressed if the system was nationwide, and some of your information is flat-out wrong.

2. Within 24 working hours, the department shall determine the disposition of the indictment, information, or arrest and inform the licensee as to whether the potential buyer is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm. For purposes of this paragraph, “working hours” means the hours from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

That works out to just under three business days, assuming the request was put in at 8 a.m..

Florida is also pretty danged permissive in what crimes will or won't prevent you from getting a concealed carry permit. Have a history of drug use serious enough to get you committed or convicted? Just wait three years and we'll give you a concealed carry permit. Beat up your wife or girlfriend, but had your adjudication of guilt withheld, sentence suspended, or simply paid to have your records sealed? Just wait three years and enjoy your firearm. Been committed to a mental institution? Don't worry, just wait five years and get a note from your doctor saying you're all better now and you can carry a gun everywhere you go. Heck, you can be arrested for drunk and disorderly multiple times a year and even shoot someone on your property while you're hammered (as long as you can convince the police it was self-defense *cough* f*cked up stand your ground laws *cough*) and you'll still be allowed to get a concealed carry permit.

Yeah, everyone knows that no one can ever be rehabilitated.

We should be designing a system that works, not purposefully gimping it because people think that someday, maybe, Uncle Sam might smash his way into their house and take all their guns.

This is what we're trying to do. These suggestions are in addition to fixing the background check issues, allowing research to actually be done, and giving the various departments the ability to enforce the laws already on the books. Title 790 wouldn't be adopted whole as it definitely needs things tweaked, but it's a very good starting point.

Stengah wrote:

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/sta...
From 1987 to 2011, 0.3% of Florida citizens who have been issue a concealed-carry permit have committed a crime (revoking the permit), and only 0.2% of those (.007% of all issued permits) were for crimes involving firearms. Many of your complaints would be addressed if the system was nationwide, and some of your information is flat-out wrong.

Did you consider that the threshold for revoking an issued concealed carry permit is so high and that makes the numbers so low?

While you talk about rehabilitation, I still have to point out that you'd need to be arrested three times in a year for drunk and disorderly before you'd get your concealed carry permit revoked because you were a "habitual" abuser of alcohol. You could be arrested for D&D twice a year for your entire life and the State of Florida would consider you a model citizen when it comes to carrying a firearm. Personally, I'd say that getting arrested for D&D more than once in your life means you have a problem with booze and shouldn't ever be allowed to own a firearm, let alone carrying one practically everywhere (ironically, bars are one of the few places you can't carry a concealed weapon in Florida).

And I'd have to ask what are the stats for the 112,000+ non-Florida citizens that the state gave a concealed carry permit? Oh, that's right. The Department of Agriculture doesn't have the authority to get criminal data from other states. Tell me again why the department in charge of farmers is handing out permits to carry concealed firearms (and why this should be the model the rest of the country follows)?

And, no, none of my issues would be addressed because I don't believe citizens should be allowed to pack heat in public to begin with. It's 2013, not the Wild West of the 1840s. Our society is pretty danged stable and peaceful and we have a functioning law enforcement and justice systems. The average citizen doesn't need to carry a concealed weapon and most certainly 5% of Florida's population doesn't need one. Not to mention that even just a few decades ago, concealed carry was something that even the NRA didn't support.

Stengah wrote:

That works out to just under three business days, assuming the request was put in at 8 a.m.

My error.

Still, no one should be allowed to purchase a firearm until all the information required for a background check comes back clean. If someone has to wait a few extra days, so be it.

Stengah wrote:

Yeah, everyone knows that no one can ever be rehabilitated.

Yeah, everyone knows that victims of domestic violence do so well when a firearm is involved. Oh, wait, that's right. The presence of a firearm increases a woman's risk of being killed by their partner by five fold. And the risk of committing suicide (60% of which are done by firearms) also goes up five fold when a firearm is around.

So as much as I'm all for rehabilitation and second chances, I'm also not going to ignore the reality that firearms are a tremendous risk factor. And as much as someone might claim that they only hit their girlfriend that one time because of extenuating circumstances, they should never be allowed own a firearm, let alone carry one concealed. The risk to society is just too great.

Stengah wrote:

This is what we're trying to do. These suggestions are in addition to fixing the background check issues, allowing research to actually be done, and giving the various departments the ability to enforce the laws already on the books. Title 790 wouldn't be adopted whole as it definitely needs things tweaked, but it's a very good starting point.

How much money have you, Edwin, and others like you spread amongst Congress?

The NRA dropped $20 million into the election coffers of various Congress Critters last November and spent another $3 million on direct lobbying efforts year.

And the NRA doesn't support fixing the gun show loophole, allowing research into gun safety to be conducted, or doing anything. Nor does Gun Owners of America (the second largest gun lobby). Am I supposed to believe that you guys are going to help get reforms passed that the two largest gun rights groups--one of which is considered only rivaled by the lobbying behemoth AARP--absolutely hate and have vowed to torpedo?

Gun owners have a big problem and it's the lobbying groups that represent them. Once you guys stop giving them money (both directly and from what gun manufacturers kick in from their revenues) and they stop being listened to, I'll start believing that gun owners are willing to listen to reason.

But even then I have to recognize that your views, which you probably consider moderate, really aren't. Prior to the extremist coup that happened in the mid-70s, the NRA didn't support concealed carry nor the idea that every American should be able to own an assault rifle.

When I said your complaints would be addressed, I meant the ones you specifically raised about how the FL Dept. of Agriculture isn't able to or isn't allowed to do proper background checks, and the fingerprint issue.

And I'd have to ask what are the stats for the 112,000+ non-Florida citizens that the state gave a concealed carry permit? Oh, that's right. The Department of Agriculture doesn't have the authority to get criminal data from other states. Tell me again why the department in charge of farmers is handing out permits to carry concealed firearms (and why this should be the model the rest of the country follows)?

If it were a federal program this issue wouldn't exist.

Yeah, everyone knows that victims of domestic violence do so well when a firearm is involved. Oh, wait, that's right. The presence of a firearm increases a woman's risk of being killed by their partner by five fold. And the risk of committing suicide (60% of which are done by firearms) also goes up five fold when a firearm is around.

So as much as I'm all for rehabilitation and second chances, I'm also not going to ignore the reality that firearms are a tremendous risk factor. And as much as someone might claim that they only hit their girlfriend that one time because of extenuating circumstances, they should never be allowed own a firearm, let alone carry one concealed. The risk to society is just too great.

Did you not look at the link I posted that said that only .007% of people issued concealed weapons permits from 1987 to 2011 committed a crime involving a firearm? 168 out of 2,426,621, and spread out over 24 years.

How much money have you, Edwin, and others like you spread amongst Congress?

The NRA dropped $20 million into the election coffers of various Congress Critters last November and spent another $3 million on direct lobbying efforts year.

And the NRA doesn't support fixing the gun show loophole, allowing research into gun safety to be conducted, or doing anything. Nor does Gun Owners of America (the second largest gun lobby). Am I supposed to believe that you guys are going to help get reforms passed that the two largest gun rights groups--one of which is considered only rivaled by the lobbying behemoth AARP--absolutely hate and have vowed to torpedo?

Gun owners have a big problem and it's the lobbying groups that represent them. Once you guys stop giving them money (both directly and from what gun manufacturers kick in from their revenues) and they stop being listened to, I'll start believing that gun owners are willing to listen to reason.

But even then I have to recognize that your views, which you probably consider moderate, really aren't. Prior to the extremist coup that happened in the mid-70s, the NRA didn't support concealed carry nor the idea that every American should be able to own an assault rifle.

We're clearly not going to get reform help from you, as you're more interested in ridiculing & snarking at others than working with them against the NRA. You do understand that what we want are for these requirements be for every gun purchase, not just concealed weapons, right?

OG_slinger wrote:

While you talk about rehabilitation, I still have to point out that you'd need to be arrested three times in a year for drunk and disorderly before you'd get your concealed carry permit revoked because you were a "habitual" abuser of alcohol. You could be arrested for D&D twice a year for your entire life and the State of Florida would consider you a model citizen when it comes to carrying a firearm. Personally, I'd say that getting arrested for D&D more than once in your life means you have a problem with booze and shouldn't ever be allowed to own a firearm, let alone carrying one practically everywhere (ironically, bars are one of the few places you can't carry a concealed weapon in Florida).

lol you're a doc now too? Is that arrested or arrested and charged?

Stengah wrote:

We're clearly not going to get reform help from you, as you're more interested in ridiculing & snarking at others than working with them against the NRA. You do understand that what we want are for these requirements be for every gun purchase, not just concealed weapons, right?

What reform? Taking one of the most permissive concealed carry programs and making that the national standard? That's something the NRA and GOA want. I'd think it would be clear from my posts in this thread that I'm going to be against pretty much anything that puts more guns on the street, regardless of whose hands they are in.

And, no, it wasn't clear from Edwin's letter that you guys want anything to change outside of expanding concealed carry. He cited Chapter 790 of Florida state law which is pretty representative for state laws covering the purchase of firearms. There's nothing in those statutes that have even a whiff of reform. There's no requirement for mental screenings before you can purchase a weapon. There's no requirement to register the firearm. There's no requirement for background checks on person-to-person firearm transfers. There's no requirement for serious firearm training or certification.

Like virtually all state laws, Chapter 790 bends over backwards to put guns in people's hands as quickly as possible. Fees are legislatively capped at ridiculously low levels. Firearms have to be sold to people, even if their background check isn't complete, if it takes more than a few days. And, of course, any background check information has to be destroyed almost instantly lest the big, bad government somehow use that information to take their guns.

ranalin wrote:

lol you're a doc now too? Is that arrested or arrested and charged?

Arrested, charged, and convicted.

Chapter 790.06 wrote:

(f) Does not chronically and habitually use alcoholic beverages or other substances to the extent that his or her normal faculties are impaired. It shall be presumed that an applicant chronically and habitually uses alcoholic beverages or other substances to the extent that his or her normal faculties are impaired if the applicant has been committed under chapter 397 or under the provisions of former chapter 396 or has been convicted under s. 790.151 or has been deemed a habitual offender under s. 856.011(3), or has had two or more convictions under s. 316.193 or similar laws of any other state, within the 3-year period immediately preceding the date on which the application is submitted;

Chapter 856.011 wrote:

(3) Any person who shall have been convicted or have forfeited collateral under the provisions of subsection (1) three times in the preceding 12 months shall be deemed a habitual offender and may be committed by the court to an appropriate treatment resource for a period of not more than 60 days.

I'm not a doc, but I really don't think you need to be one to acknowledge that someone who gets arrested for D&D multiple times a year probably has a substance abuse problem and the last thing they should be given is a gun, let alone a permit to carry one concealed.

Mike Hammond, the General Counsel for the Gun Owners of America, recently appeared on Crosstalk, a conservative Christian radio program, to discuss universal background checks for firearms. Apparently they lead directly to genocide.

Schneider: Let’s talk about this universal background check. Someone was drafting a letter to the president and they copied me in on the email, and here’s what they said, and I’d like to get your reaction to it. They said that the consequence of a background check can be reduced to a simple formula: Examination (universal background checks) leads to registration (local, state and federal databases), which leads to investigation (bureaucratic decisions regarding fitness or need to bear arms), and that leads to confiscation, which leads to tyrannization (the oppression and genocide against a subgroup, whether by its ethnicity, religion, political views or status or against the entirety of a state citizen). So they use examination, goes to registration to investigation, confiscation, and tyrannization or…

Hammond: Which leads to extermination. And I was actively involved in rebuilding the Polish Solidarity Trade Union, which ultimately overthrew communism in the Eastern Bloc, and I can say that both when I talked to these people, they said, you know, ‘The Soviets have all these tanks stationed in our country and we have nothing.’ And let me say that 40 years before in the Warsaw ghetto uprising, the Nazis, who the first thing they did when they came into power was ban firearms, they exterminated the Jews in Warsaw and they did so because the government was the only one who was armed. And, if you watch documentaries of that period, the people facing mass slaughter and saying, ‘We just, what do we do? We have no firearms.” And so ultimately, registration, confiscation, tyrannization has the real danger of leading to extermination.

It should also be noted that the pro-gun assertion that the Holocaust would have never happened had Jews been armed isn't supported by any credible historian. This, of course, means that the core argument pro-gun groups have against registering firearms (something that would greatly aid law enforcement and reduce the flow of weapons to criminals) is firmly grounded in what is essentially alt history fan fiction.

To be fair, universal public healthcare will also lead to Nazis. I do like the repeated reliance on wanting assault weapons to fight tanks. It is right there in the quote. So what if the Poles got their hands on small arms, when there are Tanks and Nukes over their heads?

The NRA has only themselves to blame. They got the Supreme Court to opine that local and state laws have no power over the second amendment, making this a purely federal area of the law-like commerce.

Someone else might have a better understanding of communist Russia, but my understanding is that guns weren't regulated very strictly under communism. The government knew where you lived, who your friends were, where your family was. What was the use of having a gun when the entire power of the state was against you?