The Gun Control Debate Thread

[tshile]

2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I'm probably the closest to fitting this description that I know of on this site.  And I don't think I'm too bad when it comes to some common sense rules.

 

You're willing to discuss it and explain your opinions. You're significantly better than the people Im referring to

 

(And I like the people I'm referring to, they just get crazy about the left taking their guns away)

[TheGreatBuzz]

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

 

(And I like the people I'm referring to, they just get crazy about the left taking their guns away)

I'll admit I'm slightly scared of this.  I'm also scared of heights. I just know that neither one are really justifiable fears.

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

1.  For a yearly license, I'm not going to give much except the most basic level of training and mental checks.

2. I think the government (state/federal) should bear at least the majority of the cost.

3.  It already is.  It would be a federal license but I'm fine with the state helping enforce it.

4.  Disagree.  I don think there is a need.  They get a lot more info knowing if the driver has a criminal record.

5.  Definitely against this.  It would defeat the whole point of a federal CC license.  (I'm also open to debate if conceal carry or open carry is better.  I see good arguments for both.)

6. No problem here.

 

4.  In many states, they are currently getting at least some of that information.  You'd actually be taking information away from the cops.

 

5.  The purpose of the federal CC permit would give you the ability to carry the gun across state lines and if you have moved to another state, actually keep your CC permit.  If you move to or travel to NJ, good look getting a CC permit (it is essentially impossible unless you actually work in security).

 

If you are coming to visit NJ, you might have to go through some process of notifying them, but you'd actually be able to carry a concealed weapon, and if you moved to NJ, you'd actually be able to have a CC permit.

 

Right now, neither of those things are happening in most cases.

Edited January 10, 2017 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

6 hours ago, tshile said:

 

I get the more robust standards for permits. I get the tax thing.

 

But I don't think you're going to get much out this one here. Every piece of research I've ever seen done has shown that the people that have concealed carry permits are not a meaningful portion of the the problem, in fact they're the slightest little sliver of the problem (If you define the problem as being convincted of a crime, even ones not related to guns, that's more serious than a moving violation.)

 

The gun control people always want to go after the concealed carry people and I have never seen justification for why that is. It always seems to be "I just want to know if you have a gun, and can't if you can carry it concealed."

 

meanwhile, all the data shows the people you need to be concerned about are the people that carry guns concealed without permits...

 

do you have data that suggests permit holds are in any way a statistically relevant part of the problem?

 

(i'm excluding states that give you a permit when you're born)

 

I think you'd get a ton if you you got a database of all gun owners/purchasers... if you're going to give out a federal license that supersedes state's licenses on concealed carry, i think you need to up your ask to something more reasonable here.

 

you can always negotiate down to a database of only permit owners

 

edit: I realized you were specific about concealed permits and those are not a right, so i removed that...

 

 

I don't think I'm going to get much out of it, which is why I'm not asking for much.  I'm essentially asking for a functional ATF, something that will likely be a small tax, and a little more data.

 

Most of the things I've done (e.g. the notification if you are going to be in a state for a while) are essentially to protect the police and the permit holder from accidents/confusing situations and people being shot unnecessarily.  I want to limit cases where police that are not used to interacting with people holding concealed weapons from having issues.

 

People with concealed permits, where there is actually regular permitting (realistically, I could go probably go to every other year on the license), aren't much of an issue so it should be a relatively easy thing to sell.

 

The other idea that was presented (I don't know by who) of allowing anybody to go into any store in the country and buy any gun with a federal license is a much harder thing to sell and so you'd have to require more.

 

(I honestly don't see how I could do that based on what I know.  One of the effective gun laws that I know of required that people visit local police to get a license.  Going to national licensing would presumably remove that, and I don't see anything about letting anybody go into any gun store and buy a gun that would actually lower gun violence.  And I have 0 faith in a Republican administration actually enforcing the law.  Realistically, that's a dream for pro-gun people and the gun industry.  As somebody that wants to see us work to reduce gun deaths and crime, I'm not sure what I'd get out of it, )

 

**EDIT**

Or even a Democratic one that is working with a Republican Congress, which is what we've seen where the ATF and Justice Dept have essentially abandoned enforcing the federal straw purchases laws.

Edited January 10, 2017 by PeterMP

[TheGreatBuzz]

58 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

4.  In many states, they are currently getting at least some of that information.  You'd actually be taking information away from the cops.

 

5.  The purpose of the federal CC permit would give you the ability to carry the gun across state lines and if you have moved to another state, actually keep your CC permit.  If you move to or travel to NJ, good look getting a CC permit (it is essentially impossible unless you actually work in security).

 

If you are coming to visit NJ, you might have to go through some process of notifying them, but you'd actually be able to carry a concealed weapon, and if you moved to NJ, you'd actually be able to have a CC permit.

 

Right now, neither of those things are happening in most cases.

4.  I'm fine with that.  I don't believe they need that info.  Now if a state wants a duty to inform law, I could see that as reasonable.  I can explain how that works for us permit holders if you'd like.  But I believe a cop knowing that a person has a gun before they go to the car will only increase tensions before they even get there, especially with junior officers.

 

5. Maybe we are missing each other on how this federal license would work.  In my mind, the Feds would set a standard.  Anyone who has a license would be able to get state to state with it with no notification.  All state licenses for civilians would become null and void.  Some states would see their gun laws tighten and others would loosen due to this new across the board standard.  This should be embraced by both sides because of this.  

 

Edit: someone asked earlier.  I'd really like to see some stats on the numbers regarding gun crimes, gun violence, accidental shootings, etc for permit holders vs non- permit holders.

 

Edited January 10, 2017 by TheGreatBuzz

[Hersh]

4 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

I'd be interested to see how many people that have already owned a gun and instead went and bought one to kill themselves spur of the moment.  Like someone else said, make sure there is a problem before you try to fix it.

My main issue with waiting is gun show type things.  I go to a show and get a good deal, but then would have to go meet that dealer somewhere the next day, the deal isn't worth it anymore.

 

are you looking antique or new?  What's your budget?  Do you care more about looks or do you want to drive nails at 200 yards also?

 

I do think studying the cooling period is something that should be done and it would be great if the CDC could actually do that. 

 

I am thinking new. I'd be willing to spend on this particular item. Part of me thinks it should be something less powerful that I would take to a range and teach my son to use someday vs driving nails at 200 yards. 

[bcl05]

I've been thinking about the drunk driving analogy some more tonight.  Someone mentioned that it wasn't about the cars, and I don't think that's entirely right.  It seems to me that the dramatic reduction in drunk driving deaths have occurred by both changing the culture AND changing the cars.  We are far more condemning (thank goodness) of drunk driving than we were in the past.  We seek it out (check points) and prosecute it far more severely.  We arrest and prosecute people for drunk driving, before tragedies occur.  We don't wait for an accident  to arrest people for drunk driving.  This is a big difference from a few decades ago.  Over the same period, we've made cars far more safe than they were before.  Motor vehicle accident deaths have decreased more than motor vehicle accidents have.  We now have three-point belts, air bags, crumple zones, etc etc etc.  Cars today are far safer than they were decades ago.

 

All of this has lead to significant decreases in drunk driving (and motor vehicle accident in general) deaths than there were a decade or three ago.  We still have a significant problem with drunk driving (we still lose far too many people on the highways) but real, important progress has been made.

 

 

It seems to me that to solve the gun death problem a similar, multifaceted approach is needed.  We need to change the culture by reducing criminality - perhaps by addressing poverty/drug addiction, make violence more culturally unacceptable (address the celebration of violence in TV/movies/games), make gun carelessness a stigmatized, punished practice (seek it out, prosecute it at the occurrence of carelessness, not at the occurrence of tragedy - similar to drunk driving checkpoints).   Suicide is a big part of gun deaths, and it represents a failure of the mental health programs.  Depression is a treatable disease - we need to do a better job detecting and treating it.  At the same time, there must be a way to make guns safer.  Maybe its smart technology?  I don't know.  

 

The point is not to have the goal of reducing the number of guns.  Speaking as a far-left (not really, but in some areas, at least) liberal, I really don't care about guns.  I do care about gun violence and deaths.  I think we can all agree that 30,000+ deaths is far too many.  

 

I don't expect that any single (or combination of) legislation will eliminate gun violence and death.  The idea that anything we must address any and all problems to be worth doing  is a debate killer and a dumb argument.   But if we can get the number down to 15,000 dead Americans/year, we will have made a major and important difference.  If we can get down to 15k/year, we can open up debate at that point on how to get it down to 10k...

Edited January 10, 2017 by bcl05

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

4.  I'm fine with that.  I don't believe they need that info.  Now if a state wants a duty to inform law, I could see that as reasonable.  I can explain how that works for us permit holders if you'd like.  But I believe a cop knowing that a person has a gun before they go to the car will only increase tensions before they even get there, especially with junior officers.

 

5. Maybe we are missing each other on how this federal license would work.  In my mind, the Feds would set a standard.  Anyone who has a license would be able to get state to state with it with no notification.  All state licenses for civilians would become null and void.  Some states would see their gun laws tighten and others would loosen due to this new across the board standard.  This should be embraced by both sides because of this.  

 

Edit: someone asked earlier.  I'd really like to see some stats on the numbers regarding gun crimes, gun violence, accidental shootings, etc for permit holders vs non- permit holders.

 

 

I understand what you want.  I'm telling you what somebody like me could sign up for.  I'm giving you what you want with some limitations.  Essentially right now in states like NJ unless you are in the security business you chances of getting a concealed weapon are essentially zero.

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Edit: someone asked earlier.  I'd really like to see some stats on the numbers regarding gun crimes, gun violence, accidental shootings, etc for permit holders vs non- permit holders.

 

 

I don't think those stats exist at any meaningful level to compare actual permit holders, but:

 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2443681

 

(RTC = right to carry laws)

 

" Across the basic seven Index I crime categories, the strongest evidence of a statistically significant effect would be for aggravated assault, with 11 of 28 estimates suggesting that RTC laws increase this crime at the .10 confidence level. An omitted variable bias test on our preferred Table 8a results suggests that our estimated 8 percent increase in aggravated assaults from RTC laws may understate the true harmful impact of RTC laws on aggravated assault, which may explain why this finding is only significant at the .10 level in many of our models. Our analysis of the year-by-year impact of RTC laws also suggests that RTC laws increase aggravated assaults. Our analysis of admittedly imperfect gun aggravated assaults provides suggestive evidence that RTC laws may be associated with large increases in this crime, perhaps increasing such gun assaults by almost 33 percent. 

In addition to aggravated assault, the most plausible state models conducted over the entire 1979-2010 period provide evidence that RTC laws increase rape and robbery (but usually only at the .10 level). In contrast, for the period from 1999-2010 (which seeks to remove the confounding influence of the crack cocaine epidemic), the preferred state model (for those who accept the Wolfers proposition that one should not control for state trends) yields statistically significant evidence for only one crime – suggesting that RTC laws increase the rate of murder at the .05 significance level. It will be worth exploring whether other methodological approaches and/or additional years of data will confirm the results of this panel-data analysis and clarify some of the highly sensitive results and anomalies (such as the occasional estimates that RTC laws lead to higher rates of property crime) that have plagued this inquiry for over a decade. "

 

And

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/26/people-with-concealed-carry-permits-have-committed-at-least-29-mass-shootings-since-2007/?utm_term=.f46a2950595f

 

" On the other hand, the Violence Policy Center has documented 29 mass shootings of three or more people since 2007 where the perpetrator was himself a concealed carry permit holder. Remember Craig Hicks, the man who allegedly killed three of his neighbors earlier this year in a possible hate crime? Concealed-carry permit holder. The man who shot up DC's Navy Yard two years ago? Concealed-carry permit holder. The man who went on a rampage at the American Civic Association in Binghamton, N.Y., in 2009? Concealed-carry permit holder. "

 

(This does depend on how you define mass shooting, and the permit isn't relevant in most of the cases.  Just that the person was permitted.)

 

Though crime rates don't increase as concealed permits go up necessarily:

 

https://www.hindawi.com/archive/2015/803742/

 

" Do increases in concealed handgun licensing affect crime rates? Using county-level data, we found that the density of gun dealers and other contextual variables, rather than changing crime rates, had a significant effect on increases of the rates at which CHLs were issued. We also found no significant effect of CHL increases on changes in crime rates. This research suggests that the rate at which CHLs are issued and crime rates are independent of one another—crime does not drive CHLs; CHLs do not drive crime. "

 

But they don't appear to come down either.

[TheGreatBuzz]

9 hours ago, Hersh said:

 

I do think studying the cooling period is something that should be done and it would be great if the CDC could actually do that. 

 

I am thinking new. I'd be willing to spend on this particular item. Part of me thinks it should be something less powerful that I would take to a range and teach my son to use someday vs driving nails at 200 yards. 

I agree with the first line.  As for the second, I don't know you well enough to give great advice.  I will say that if it were me, I'd look for a lever action wood stock rifle.  To me, they are a very classic look.  If you buy one new, they won't be as pretty but there are a lot of things you can do with them.  A custom wood stock can look amazing for example.  But by the time you get it the way I picture it in my head, you could easily be in the $2500 range.  I don't know if that is what you had in mind.  The lever actions though are usually more prevalent in big bore so that may be a no go for you.  Are you open to the idea of a shotgun?  That would open up your options a lot.

7 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

I understand what you want.  I'm telling you what somebody like me could sign up for.  I'm giving you what you want with some limitations.  Essentially right now in states like NJ unless you are in the security business you chances of getting a concealed weapon are essentially zero.

We may be too far apart.  I get that I would be adding the ability to license in NJ but how many states would actually see their rights restrict because they currently don't require a license to carry in public? 

7 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

Though crime rates don't increase as concealed permits go up necessarily:

 

 

 

But they don't appear to come down either.

Didn't want to quote the whole block but I thought these two lines were the most important.  Right now it sounds like it's about an even balance (with the limited info we have) that permits don't effect crime rates either way.  Now I'm proposing more stringent requirements for permits so I would assume that would mean better people with guns and you could see a net positive from it.  Also, there would be a lot of people who could no longer carry a gun (unless they got a license) because their states currently don't require them to have a license.  Once this proposed nationwide license goes into effect, they would either have to get one which would require training, or not carry.  So again it should be a net positive.

[PeterMP]

40 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Didn't want to quote the whole block but I thought these two lines were the most important.  Right now it sounds like it's about an even balance (with the limited info we have) that permits don't effect crime rates either way.  Now I'm proposing more stringent requirements for permits so I would assume that would mean better people with guns and you could see a net positive from it.  Also, there would be a lot of people who could no longer carry a gun (unless they got a license) because their states currently don't require them to have a license.  Once this proposed nationwide license goes into effect, they would either have to get one which would require training, or not carry.  So again it should be a net positive.

 

In terms of gun crime, I'm not sure that's true.  There is no doubt that you are weakening RTC laws in NJ and doing seems to correspond to increased crime.

 

Increases in concealed permits doesn't seem to correspond to increased crime, but the state is actually keeping the requirements so you are getting the same quality of people, and it isn't clear that more people are actually carrying.  In states with already lenient concealed carry permits when there is an increase in permits, how many of the newly permitted people essentially never use it (I have a brother in law that did this for a period of time)?

 

In at least some states, like NJ, there's almost no doubt that you'd see an increase in people with concealed weapons and there is no doubt that those people in the past wouldn't have had concealed weapons.  It would be a real weakening of the RTC law and not simply an increase in conceal carry permits.

 

I also think you are going to see you are weakening the laws in the more populous states/localities.  Cities and states with urban populations tend to have more strict gun laws.  If you strengthen the RTC laws in ID, MN, SD, ND, OK, etc, and weaken them in CA strengthening them in all of those states is not going to offset the weakening in CA laws.  Heck, weakening the laws in NYC alone would probably at a population level would probably off set some of those states.

 

(Realistically, these two conclusions are based on one study each, and on a topic like this, I'd be very dubious of drawing any real strong conclusions based on a single study.  Repetition of results is a key part of the scientific method that far too many people forget in situations like this.  The best conclusion would be we don't know.)

Edited January 10, 2017 by PeterMP

[TheGreatBuzz]

I agree we really don't know.  And I'd be fine with some studies to try to get a better idea of the outcome.  But I fear any study won't be non-biased.  Like everything else today, the stats always get twisted to say what the party wants them to say. 

 

I will say I think I've given in a good bit from my side towards increasing gun control (and not saying you haven't from your side) but it sounds like we may be too far apart to come to an agreement.  Good discussion though.

[Popeman38]

10 hours ago, bcl05 said:

I've been thinking about the drunk driving analogy some more tonight.  Someone mentioned that it wasn't about the cars, and I don't think that's entirely right.  It seems to me that the dramatic reduction in drunk driving deaths have occurred by both changing the culture AND changing the cars.  We are far more condemning (thank goodness) of drunk driving than we were in the past.  We seek it out (check points) and prosecute it far more severely.  We arrest and prosecute people for drunk driving, before tragedies occur.  We don't wait for an accident  to arrest people for drunk driving.  This is a big difference from a few decades ago.  Over the same period, we've made cars far more safe than they were before.  Motor vehicle accident deaths have decreased more than motor vehicle accidents have.  We now have three-point belts, air bags, crumple zones, etc etc etc.  Cars today are far safer than they were decades ago.

This is a question that popped into my head when reading this. Why are we, as a society, OK with DUI checkpoints but not OK with stop and frisk? I'm not trying to be an ass or make some larger point, the question just popped into my head when reading your post.

[bcl05]

1 minute ago, Popeman38 said:

This is a question that popped into my head when reading this. Why are we, as a society, OK with DUI checkpoints but not OK with stop and frisk? I'm not trying to be an ass or make some larger point, the question just popped into my head when reading your post.

 

 

Hmmm.  I've never thought about it, really.  My first reaction is that DUI checkpoints are theoretically more non-biased - anyone driving on this road at this hour gets stopped.  The problem with stop-and-frisk isn't really the stopping and frisking (though there may be issues there too), but the way it was implemented in a biased and targeted way.  

 

But that's just a gut reaction.  

[Popeman38]

2 hours ago, bcl05 said:

 

 

Hmmm.  I've never thought about it, really.  My first reaction is that DUI checkpoints are theoretically more non-biased - anyone driving on this road at this hour gets stopped.  The problem with stop-and-frisk isn't really the stopping and frisking (though there may be issues there too), but the way it was implemented in a biased and targeted way.  

 

But that's just a gut reaction.  

OK, I am opposed to DUI checkpoints (and stop and frisk) because you are supposed to have probable cause to interact with someone. It seems too gestapo-esque to me to screen everyone hoping to catch that one.  Why are you stopping me?  Do you have reason to suspect that I'm drunk?  We had a checkpoint outside of my neighborhood EVERY New Year's Eve and it got really tiresome having to sit in line for 30 minutes to get home.  To the point we quit going out on New Year's Eve.  When we read the local paper to see the results, they never caught more than 3 or 4 out of the thousands of cars they screened, and some were for other reasons than DUI.

 

EDIT: I won't derail the gun control any further with my stream of consciousness thoughts on DUI checkpoints. Carry on...

Edited January 10, 2017 by Popeman38

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, Popeman38 said:

OK, I am opposed to DUI checkpoints (and stop and frisk) because you are supposed to have probable cause to interact with someone. It seems to gestapo-esque to me to screen everyone hoping to catch that one.  Why are you stopping me?  Do you have reason to suspect that I'm drunk?  We had a checkpoint outside of my neighborhood EVERY New Year's Eve and it got really tiresome having to sit in line for 30 minutes to get home.  To the point we quit going out on New Year's Eve.  When we read the local paper to see the results, they never caught more than 3 or 4 out of the thousands of cars they screened, and some were for other reasons than DUI.

 

EDIT: I won't derail the gun control any further with my stream of consciousness thoughts on DUI checkpoints. Carry on...

 

These have been taken to court.  I think there are 2 arguments:

 

1.  In driving, you have given up some rights.  You need a license, right?

2.  They aren't physically searching you.  If you are walking down the street, it is not illegal for the police to stop you and talk to you.  The problem with stop and frisk is not the stop part.  It is the frisk part.

 

(I agree DUI checkpoints are a pain.)

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I agree we really don't know.  And I'd be fine with some studies to try to get a better idea of the outcome.  But I fear any study won't be non-biased.  Like everything else today, the stats always get twisted to say what the party wants them to say. 

 

I will say I think I've given in a good bit from my side towards increasing gun control (and not saying you haven't from your side) but it sounds like we may be too far apart to come to an agreement.  Good discussion though.

 

I think I've given you something that at best I can hope can be gun crime neutral and that's assuming the Republicans don't turn around in the next few years and screw it up (e.g. start adding riders back onto the ATF budget, slash the ATF budget in a year or two, change it again so the ATF director has to be appointed and refuse to appoint anybody, etc).

 

There's no real reason to believe it will actually reduce gun crime.  In that sense, I feel like I am giving you something that you want (maybe not exactly the way you want it) without having a high amount of certainty that I'm going to get any real benefit.

Edited January 10, 2017 by PeterMP

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 hours ago, Popeman38 said:

This is a question that popped into my head when reading this. Why are we, as a society, OK with DUI checkpoints but not OK with stop and frisk? I'm not trying to be an ass or make some larger point, the question just popped into my head when reading your post.

I believe the justification is that by driving a car you are giving implied consent to a breathalyzer.  That's why in most places you can refuse to blow but it's an automatic suspension of your license, even if it is later proven you weren't drunk.  ***Note:  I'm not a lawyer, this is just my laymans understanding.

2 hours ago, Popeman38 said:

OK, I am opposed to DUI checkpoints (and stop and frisk) because you are supposed to have probable cause to interact with someone. It seems too gestapo-esque to me to screen everyone hoping to catch that one.  Why are you stopping me?  Do you have reason to suspect that I'm drunk?  

I am also.  You don't have to have probable cause to interact with someone in the sense the police can walk up and ask you a question.  Demanding an answer without probably cause I think is wrong (which is what a check point is doing in my opinion).  I finally just got my case dismissed where an officer arrested me because I told him I didn't want to answer his questions until I spoke to a lawyer (I was a witness, not the suspect or victim).  The judge ruled I still had the right.  It cost me $3,000 to prove it though.

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

2.  They aren't physically searching you.  If you are walking down the street, it is not illegal for the police to stop you and talk to you.  The problem with stop and frisk is not the stop part.  It is the frisk part.

 

In my opinion, the stop part is wrong also if you are demanding they answer.  Again, I'm no lawyer though.  I believe I have the right to say I don't want to speak with them and go on my merry way unless they arrest me.  And if they do that, they should have probably cause.

54 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I think I've given you something that at best I can hope can be gun crime neutral and that's assuming the Republicans don't turn around in the next few years and screw it up (e.g. start adding riders back onto the ATF budget, slash the ATF budget in a year or two, change it again so the ATF director has to be appointed and refuse to appoint anybody, etc).

 

There's no real reason to believe it will actually reduce gun crime.  In that sense, I feel like I am giving you something that you want (maybe not exactly the way you want it) without having a high amount of certainty that I'm going to get any real benefit.

Just so I know we are still on the same sticking point, I'm stuck on the notification of when I cross a state line for more than 24 hours with my weapon and the officers getting notified by their computer every time they pull someone over with a license.  You feel that by giving in to a nationwide CC license that would require some states that don't allow most people to have a weapon to now allow it if they passed the requirements, you are giving enough to make the part I am opposed to reasonable?  Is that a pretty decent sum up of where we are at?  Not trying to make an argument here, I'm legit trying to make sure I understand the current positions.

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Just so I know we are still on the same sticking point, I'm stuck on the notification of when I cross a state line for more than 24 hours with my weapon and the officers getting notified by their computer every time they pull someone over with a license.  You feel that by giving in to a nationwide CC license that would require some states that don't allow most people to have a weapon to now allow it if they passed the requirements, you are giving enough to make the part I am opposed to reasonable?  Is that a pretty decent sum up of where we are at?  Not trying to make an argument here, I'm legit trying to make sure I understand the current positions.

 

I'm not tied to 24 hours.  I could go to 48 hours.  I can't see going out to weeks.  

 

I also could go to having to renew licenses every other year and even do something like after having a license for 10 consecutive years go to every 5 years (I'm assuming you are going to start them at 18 or 21).

 

Yes, there would have to be a system for police to get data on whether you have a CC license when you are pulled over.  This is already done in many states.

 

The other issue that got dropped that we disagreed on is paying for it.  Looking, many states now charge a fee for the license.  I'm not sure how much of the cost they are covering with the fee.  I'd be willing to get rid of the fee for the CC license and put it as a tax on guns which would spread it out to every gun owner and not just people getting a CC license.

 

Like I said, realistically, I'm not expecting what we are talking about causing a reduction in gun violence.  There's no piece here where there is existing data that shows it would reduce gun violence so from my perspective, I'm giving you something you want and not really getting anything for sure back.

Edited January 10, 2017 by PeterMP

[TheGreatBuzz]

46 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I'm not tied to 24 hours.  I could go to 48 hours.  I can't see going out to weeks.  

 

I also could go to having to renew licenses every other year and even do something like after having a license for 10 consecutive years go to every 5 years (I'm assuming you are going to start them at 18 or 21).

 

Yes, there would have to be a system for police to get data on whether you have a CC license when you are pulled over.  This is already done in many states.

 

The other issue that got dropped that we disagreed on is paying for it.  Looking, many states now charge a fee for the license.  I'm not sure how much of the cost they are covering with the fee.  I'd be willing to get rid of the fee for the CC license and put it as a tax on guns which would spread it out to every gun owner and not just people getting a CC license.

 

Like I said, realistically, I'm not expecting what we are talking about causing a reduction in gun violence.  There's no piece here where there is existing data that shows it would reduce gun violence so from my perspective, I'm giving you something you want and not really getting anything for sure back.

The time line I'm pretty much totally against.  I'm assuming in your world this would have to be tied to my vehicle.  That's the only way a cop would know before walking up to my vehicle.  The thought occurred to me that if it is a federal license then there would be a federal database.  So the police could find out when running my ID.  That's fine with me.  But I'm totally against having to notify a state when I carry there for less than 30 days or so.  I live on a border and routinely travel to nearby states.  No way am I going to constantly be doing that notification.  

 

The length of the license would need to be tied to how invasive the check to get the license is.  I'd be open to some sort of tiered system as discussed earlier.

 

paying for it, I would consider a small fee for the license but it couldn't be more than $35 or so and that would have to include the mental and background checks, required training, and everything.  The cost to exercise a right should not be born by the citizen.  I liken it to charging a fee to vote.  If you make it cost prohibitive, you will end up with only the well off being able to afford to exercise a right.  I can afford it but many can't and I don't think that is right.  I'd also be against any more increase in taxes on guns.  It is taxed enough.  Maybe look at how the current taxes are spent.

 

Remember if this were all to be put in place, the only civilians with guns in public would be the people with these federal licenses.  That means they would have had training, a background check, and mental health check.  I believe that would cut down on gun deaths and that has been the whole point of this.  Now currently I don't have to jump through near as many hoops to carry my weapon and I am agreeing to add a bunch of hoops.  I believe I am the one giving up a good bit.

 

if we could atually hammer out the basis of a decent agreement that I could sign off on, I would be more than willing to type it up and send it to my representatives.  Now where it would go from there I can't say but I'm not just doing this for fun.  I'd really push a deal that I could agree with.

[PeterMP]

24 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

The time line I'm pretty much totally against.  I'm assuming in your world this would have to be tied to my vehicle.  That's the only way a cop would know before walking up to my vehicle.  The thought occurred to me that if it is a federal license then there would be a federal database.  So the police could find out when running my ID.  That's fine with me.  But I'm totally against having to notify a state when I carry there for less than 30 days or so.  I live on a border and routinely travel to nearby states.  No way am I going to constantly be doing that notification.  

 

The length of the license would need to be tied to how invasive the check to get the license is.  I'd be open to some sort of tiered system as discussed earlier.

 

paying for it, I would consider a small fee for the license but it couldn't be more than $35 or so and that would have to include the mental and background checks, required training, and everything.  The cost to exercise a right should not be born by the citizen.  I liken it to charging a fee to vote.  If you make it cost prohibitive, you will end up with only the well off being able to afford to exercise a right.  I can afford it but many can't and I don't think that is right.  I'd also be against any more increase in taxes on guns.  It is taxed enough.  Maybe look at how the current taxes are spent.

 

Remember if this were all to be put in place, the only civilians with guns in public would be the people with these federal licenses.  That means they would have had training, a background check, and mental health check.  I believe that would cut down on gun deaths and that has been the whole point of this.  Now currently I don't have to jump through near as many hoops to carry my weapon and I am agreeing to add a bunch of hoops.  I believe I am the one giving up a good bit.

 

if we could atually hammer out the basis of a decent agreement that I could sign off on, I would be more than willing to type it up and send it to my representatives.  Now where it would go from there I can't say but I'm not just doing this for fun.  I'd really push a deal that I could agree with.

 

Obviously, your plate is tied to registration, which is tied to your name.  Certainly, my understanding is that in most cases when cops approach a car, they have some idea of who the owner of the car is.  It isn't absolute in that other people do drive other people's cars, but it certainly gives the cops some idea of who is likely in the car.

 

How often do you travel to one of those border states for more than 24 hours?  I cross a state border every day to go work and cross another one for most trips to the mall, but I'm not there for 24 hours.  I'm not staying in another state for more than 24 hours more than once a month.

 

Being able to carry a concealed weapon (across state lines) isn't a right.

 

People already have to pass background checks (for the most part) to even get guns legally, and in many states and urban areas to legally carry a gun in public now you need the other things (and even more).  Especially in more populated areas where gun violence is more wide spread.  As somebody in NJ, those things give me nothing.

 

I don't know how much it would be to cover costs, but given that we have places that can't put healthy drinking water into taps or run schools that give people a reasonable education based on society's current technology, I can't see picking up the tab so that it is easier for people to carry guns across the state lines.

 

There is no real reason to believe what we are discussing for the most part is going to decrease gun violence.  In the areas that have the most people and have the most gun violence, you are weakening the right to carry laws and that's actually been tied to increases in gun violence.

 

IF the ATF can actually do something to put a dent in straw purchases, that might help.

The extra data might help identify things that might lower gun crime in the future (which of course then would still have to be passed to become laws).

Edited January 10, 2017 by PeterMP

[just654]

I am with Buzz, I feel like we have made great strides to hammering something out, both sides have to be willing to listen. I think that is the major problem on both sides. 

 

I would love to be able to send something to my Representatives 

[PeterMP]

You want what you want, then give me something I want.  Here are some things I'd like:

 

1.  I'd like everybody that gets a gun license to have to go to their local police (at least at the country level) and have the license approved before they buy a gun.  Doesn't matter if they passed the background check and mental health screening, the local police can deny it.  Not just concealed permit holders.  Everybody.  If you are denied, you can appeal to a judge, and the local police have go explain their reason for denying and the judge makes a decision.

 

2.  Right now about 50% of guns collected from crime scenes are believed to have been gotten through straw purchases.  I'd like to see that number drop by some significant amount (just guessing to say it is significant I'd guess it would have to come down to 40%).  That would indicate that we are drying up a cheap, easy, new source of guns for crimes.  I'd like to see a policy that states if we can't get that number down in some relatively small time frame (e.g. 3 years), something else significant to gun stores and the gun industry happens (e.g. gun purchases are limited to one person a year (all guns not just handguns), there is some significant tax increase on guns, profits of gun manufactures are negatively affected in a significant way (taxed, confiscated, whatever language you want to use).

 

(Though here, I do have the issue that if we don't hit that target in the time frame, I have 0 faith that the GOP just won't change the target or the time frame to hit the target.)

 

I'll think about and post some more if you want.

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

Obviously, your plate is tied to registration, which is tied to your name.  Certainly, my understanding is that in most cases when cops approach a car, they have some idea of who the owner of the car is.  It isn't absolute in that other people do drive other people's cars, but it certainly gives the cops some idea of who is likely in the car.

 

How often do you travel to one of those border states for more than 24 hours?  I cross a state border every day to go work and cross another one for most trips to the mall, but I'm not there for 24 hours.  I'm not staying in another state for more than 24 hours more than once a month.

 

Being able to carry a concealed weapon (across state lines) isn't a right.

 

People already have to pass background checks (for the most part) to even get guns legally, and in many states and urban areas to legally carry a gun in public now you need the other things (and even more).  Especially in more populated areas where gun violence is more wide spread.  As somebody in NJ, those things give me nothing.

 

I don't know how much it would be to cover costs, but given that we have places that can't put healthy drinking water into taps or run schools that give people a reasonable education based on society's current technology, I can't see picking up the tab so that it is easier for people to carry guns across the state lines.

 

There is no real reason to believe what we are discussing for the most part is going to decrease gun violence.  In the areas that have the most people and have the most gun violence, you are weakening the right to carry laws and that's actually been tied to increases in gun violence.

 

IF the ATF can actually do something to put a dent in straw purchases, that might help.

The extra data might help identify things that might lower gun crime in the future (which of course then would still have to be passed to become laws).

I would guess I travel to and stay in another state about once a month depending on the time of the year.  Sometimes more, sometimes less.

 

i agree carrying concealed isn't a right but I contend that, for the most part, carrying a weapon is.  Now I could go either way on open carry vs conceal carry.  I lean towards conceal carry because it tends to make others more comfortable and limits the size of weapon people carry.  It would prevent people from walking down the street with an AR.  We can renegotiate that part if you'd like but I figured you'd prefer conceal.  I'm not really invested on either.  But I won't budge that it is a right of a person to carry a weapon as long as they are sane, not criminals, etc.

 

background checks are not currently required for all guns.  Long guns don't need anything for example currently in many states.  I'd be fine with requiring background checks for all guns sales on all guns, period.  This would be both private and commercial sales essentially closing the gun show loophole.  I consider this a major olive branch to offset some of the other things you want that I won't budge on.

 

The Feds would have to pick up the cost.  With all the other dumb crap we spend money on, they can find it.  But I'm not willing to make a person pay much more than I previously stated.

 

The increase in funding I would tell the ATF to use that money to aggressively enforce these new laws and other laws on the books with emphasis on straw purchases.  I really do believe all this would cut down on gun crimes.  I'd also let the CDC start doing real,studies.

35 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

You want what you want, then give me something I want.  Here are some things I'd like:

 

1.  I'd like everybody that gets a gun license to have to go to their local police (at least at the country level) and have the license approved before they buy a gun.  Doesn't matter if they passed the background check and mental health screening, the local police can deny it.  Not just concealed permit holders.  Everybody.  If you are denied, you can appeal to a judge, and the local police have go explain their reason for denying and the judge makes a decision.

 

2.  Right now about 50% of guns collected from crime scenes are believed to have been gotten through straw purchases.  I'd like to see that number drop by some significant amount (just guessing to say it is significant I'd guess it would have to come down to 40%).  That would indicate that we are drying up a cheap, easy, new source of guns for crimes.  I'd like to see a policy that states if we can't get that number down in some relatively small time frame (e.g. 3 years), something else significant to gun stores and the gun industry happens (e.g. gun purchases are limited to one person a year (all guns not just handguns), there is some significant tax increase on guns, profits of gun manufactures are negatively affected in a significant way (taxed, confiscated, whatever language you want to use).

 

(Though here, I do have the issue that if we don't hit that target in the time frame, I have 0 faith that the GOP just won't change the target or the time frame to hit the target.)

 

I'll think about and post some more if you want.

1.  Absolutely not.  The closest I could see if that your license request is routed through the police and they would have 48 hours to give input.  And there would have to be some sort of appeals process that takes no longer than 5 days with the benefit of the doubt going to the gun owner.  The police would have to prevent a very strong case against a person that passed everything else but they still didn't want to have a gun.

2.  I'm totally for cutting straw purchases and would make that a big part of the ATFs job. I wouldn't be willing to tie penalties into the law that would effect rights if a particular number isn't reached but would be for harsh prosecution (maybe government confiscating assets of business doing it) of businesses that help these straw purchases.

 

i wonder if this is how it works in DC.  Both sides get 90% of the way there but the details end up to far apart. 

[PeterMP]

7 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I would guess I travel to and stay in another state about once a month depending on the time of the year.  Sometimes more, sometimes less.

 

i agree carrying concealed isn't a right but I contend that, for the most part, carrying a weapon is.  Now I could go either way on open carry vs conceal carry.  I lean towards conceal carry because it tends to make others more comfortable and limits the size of weapon people carry.  It would prevent people from walking down the street with an AR.  We can renegotiate that part if you'd like but I figured you'd prefer conceal.  I'm not really invested on either.  But I won't budge that it is a right of a person to carry a weapon as long as they are sane, not criminals, etc.

 

background checks are not currently required for all guns.  Long guns don't need anything for example currently in many states.  I'd be fine with requiring background checks for all guns sales on all guns, period.  This would be both private and commercial sales essentially closing the gun show loophole.  I consider this a major olive branch to offset some of the other things you want that I won't budge on.

 

The Feds would have to pick up the cost.  With all the other dumb crap we spend money on, they can find it.  But I'm not willing to make a person pay much more than I previously stated.

 

The increase in funding I would tell the ATF to use that money to aggressively enforce these new laws and other laws on the books with emphasis on straw purchases.  I really do believe all this would cut down on gun crimes.  I'd also let the CDC start doing real,studies.

1.  Absolutely not.  The closest I could see if that your license request is routed through the police and they would have 48 hours to give input.  And there would have to be some sort of appeals process that takes no longer than 5 days with the benefit of the doubt going to the gun owner.  The police would have to prevent a very strong case against a person that passed everything else but they still didn't want to have a gun.

2.  I'm totally for cutting straw purchases and would make that a big part of the ATFs job. I wouldn't be willing to tie penalties into the law that would effect rights if a particular number isn't reached but would be for harsh prosecution (maybe government confiscating assets of business doing it) of businesses that help these straw purchases.

 

i wonder if this is how it works in DC.  Both sides get 90% of the way there but the details end up to far apart. 

 

1.  You might consider it a right, but if weapon = gun, the Supreme Court disagrees and has forever.  People really did have to check their guns at the local sheriffs office when entering town in some old western towns.  Your opinion is irrelevant.

 

2.  You might be for getting rid of straw purchases, but that doesn't really matter.  I don't doubt your good will really, but the gun manufactures and gun stores are making too much money, and the wider political system has shown that it does not have the political will to actually do anything about it for too long.  (I've posted this here before so you might have read it already, and I can find the old news stories on line if you want detailing it.  NYC tracks where guns that are found to be involved in crimes come from.  They were able to track them consistently to certain states and even in those states some gun stores really stood out as a lot of guns coming from those stores.  NYC told people about this data.  Nothing happened.  They kept seeing guns from crimes come from the same states (a lot of southern states) and to some extent the same stores.  So pretty early into his terms as mayor, Bloomberg hired some people to go into those stores in pairs.  In each case, it was a man and a woman.  The man talks to the clerk about the guns and the ammo.  Picks somethings out.  Then and only then the woman steps forward.  She gives her ID to pass the background check and credit card to pay the bill.  Then when they get the gun, the man takes possession of it and carries it out of the store.  The woman is present, but she's never touched the gun before or after the purchase or interacted with the clerk other than to pass the background check and pay for it.

 

Pretty clear straw purchase, right?  Bloomberg has these people that he's hired that will testify that is how it went done.  Bloomberg sues the stores.  The response of the (Republican) AG in the southern state that the gun stores were in was to send Bloomberg a letter saying if he did something like that again, he'd criminally prosecute the people he hired to buy the gun.  It wasn't that this awful this is happening and let us help you do something to stop it.  It was we don't want you acting to shut down this revenue stream.  The situation hasn't changed.)

 

For me to believe the ATF or anybody is actually going to do anything about straw purchases in these states, I need there to be some sort of stick, and even then I'd be dubious because as I said, when it came time to apply the stick I think the Republicans would change the metrics to avoid the stick actually being applied.

 

3.  The gun show loophole isn't as important as many people think because in many states (again is most of the states that have most of the population is has been shut down so to a large number of people it is shut down).  Can we go further?  Every gun transaction needs to be accompanied by a background check.  Giving a gun as a gift?  The person getting it has to background checked.  Somebody is inheriting a gun?  The executor of the will has to make sure that person is background checked.  Trading guns with somebody.  The people have to go through a background check.  Selling a gun to somebody over the internet?  You are responsible for making sure the person passed a background check.  And if you do any of those things and the person isn't checked, the person transferring the gun is criminally responsible.

 

But even then, I'm not sure I could count it much as a positive move to reduce crime because I doubt the feds would actually enforce it very rigorously.

Edited January 11, 2017 by PeterMP