Reasonable Gun Laws?

A start:

Gun ownership requires an extensive safety course with periodic follow up.

Penalties for reckless use of firearms and/or improper storage of firearms should be severe regardless of whether injury or death results.

Very general, yes, but just a start.

Okay, well, since I mentioned that, I'll give my personal compromise (considering my real opinion is that guns should be illegal period, or perhaps only muzzle-loaders or guns that fire a single shot or two should be allowed).

Personally, I think if we're going to allow weapons, I would be willing to deal with having a single gun per home, one that didn't fire more than six or eight rounds. A handgun or a rifle, something like that. I think extended magazines should not be allowed, and I would also like to see a limit on the amount of ammunition a person could have at one time. I also think guns should be required to be in a lock box or safe.

For people who wanted to do skeet shooting or anything like that, I think it would be easy for gun rentals at ranges or places that people go to do any type of sport shooting. Guns could be rented and not taken off property (or owned and kept on property, much the way boats are often kept at lakes rather than taken home). People who shoot for sport would still be allowed to do that, but it would be in a way that prevented the guns from being allowed everywhere.

And while we're at it, I'd like to see smart guns become more common, though I do worry about how easy it would be for a bad guy to hack a smart gun. It would, however, prevent a kid from picking up a gun and shooting his year old sibling, as happened not long ago not far from where I live.

If we truly have guns for protection, which has been the argument of gun rights fans up until recently, then there isn't anything more a single gun that fires a few shots required.

Prozyan said:

A start:

Gun ownership requires an extensive safety course with periodic follow up.

Penalties for reckless use of firearms and/or improper storage of firearms should be severe regardless of whether injury or death results.

Very general, yes, but just a start.

Click to expand...

Also this. Safety courses should be mandatory, and I think background checks should be stronger as well. I also think that certain types of behavior or problems should be cause to take away a person's gun. For example, threatening someone or, say, holding a gun against your five year old's head and firing nine shots into the wall of your home should be a reason to not allow a person to have a gun.

ETA: If you think about it, we require a driving course and/or a test before you can get a driver's license. I think having a gun should also require a safety course, and then a test to show that you know how to properly use (or not use), care for, and store a gun.

A bit of a tangent and not of the scope of the question, but from a cultural point of view, I would certainly like to see a greater attachment of guns to sport moreso than personal defense.

I think one of the problems that make guns such a growing problem is that it is considered a lot like alcohol instead of a something comparable to a car. Some people want to raise the acceptability of guns, but we do not associate guns with anything other than aggression.

I'm not sure what the fix is either, but a couple of ideas come to mind:

- Maintaining license requirements for every gun purchased, like with driver's licenses so that private sales can be tracked and also so that it is on the gun owner to reconfirm her eligibility to own her guns. Transfer between family members and partners should be done legally, not just hey, want my gun?

- Requiring a meaningful training and safety course and examination for each gun owned. If you don't know how to make a gun safe, store it safely, and shoot it safely (e.g. don't point any gun, loaded or not, at someone else), then you have more to learn before you should have a gun.

Most of the gun owners I know, and respect, are very carefully about the handling and storage of their firearms. I want that ingrained in everyone, gun owner or not. It might be your right to own a firearm, but it damn sure carries a lot of responsibility.

I dunno. Maybe something akin to Australia's laws, which have been insanely successful in reducing the number of mass shootings post Port Arthur.

Prozyan and Katie's ideas sound good to me so far. I'd also like required secure storage in the home, whether or not there are children present. Would love to see something like a biometric trigger lock.

Others:
Restraining order = no more guns. Lots of hoops (and followup) involved if you want them back.
Figure out a mechanism to address things like HIPAA when it comes to background checks.
Go after straw sales. Up the penalties for sellers so it's not worth their while to risk it.

I've always liked MA's requirements. Minimum age of 18 or 21, clean criminal record, mandatory accredited firearms safety class, waiting period (processing time), background check, periodic renewal requirement and you need to justify why you want to own a gun. Unfortunately that bit is kind of subjective, but in many places it means that if you want it for personal protection without indication that you're in any particular danger your permit will be restricted or denied.

asroc said:

I've always liked MA's requirements. Minimum age of 18 or 21, clean criminal record, mandatory accredited firearms safety class, waiting period (processing time), background check, periodic renewal requirement and you need to justify why you want to own a gun. Unfortunately that bit is kind of subjective, but in many places it means that if you want it for personal protection without indication that you're in any particular danger your permit will be restricted or denied.

Click to expand...

I think I've said this before but when we moved from Florida to Massachusetts, my husband had to register his guns. After he'd completed most of the steps in the process, I asked him what he thought of it as compared to Florida and he said nothing he was required to do was unreasonable and he felt Florida was too lax.

Okay, we can have freely as many of the guns that they had at the time the constitution was written as we want. I'm actually perfectly okay with that.

The constitution was written at a time when the weapons we have now were unthinkable. It was also designed to allow militias when we didn't have a standing army, which we do now. Also, if you look at gun laws throughout US history, the laws we have now are much more lax than in the past, in spite of the constitution being the same.

raburrell said:

Others:
Restraining order = no more guns. Lots of hoops (and followup) involved if you want them back.
Figure out a mechanism to address things like HIPAA when it comes to background checks.
Go after straw sales. Up the penalties for sellers so it's not worth their while to risk it.

Click to expand...

The bolded seems to me to be the biggie. As most of the horror stories we hear have ties to mental illness.

Here's a question, if I have a driver's license and then I have an accident or illness that makes it dangerous to drive, legally blind, or maybe siezures that happen all the time without warning, is there a way for my drivers license to be revoked? Can't something similar be done for guns?

ETA: Maybe we could also try to limit behavior like this?

robjvargas said:

I hate comparisons to driving. Driving is a privilege, not a constitutionally defined right. And while we may a court redefine that someday, it's still a right.

I'm tired of the "no you don't, or you'd agree with me" responses that I personally have received (in general, not here), but I really do get how dangerous guns are. The danger, IMO, of merely ignoring a constitutional right is just as large, even if not so immediate.

Click to expand...

I think the problem is, a lot of people don't get how dangerous guns really are. Right has to be hand-in-hand with responsibility and in this country, I see a lot of attitudes that center around the idea that because gun ownership is enshrined in the Constitution, citizens are automatically due their guns. I find that mentality disturbing.

I would like to see a shift in societal expectations to: yes, barring psychological red flags and criminal records, you have the right to own one or more guns IF you follow the rules to get one.

Rules being licensing the gun, showing hands-on control of safety and use of said gun, having to renew license and show continued knowledge of safety and control, and so forth.

Vince524 said:

Here's a question, if I have a driver's license and then I have an accident or illness that makes it dangerous to drive, legally blind, or maybe siezures that happen all the time without warning, is there a way for my drivers license to be revoked? Can't something similar be done for guns?

Click to expand...

Yes. I have seizures. When I started being treated for epilepsy, my neurologist had to report my condition to the DMV, who then rescinded my license. I had to reapply after I was seizure-free for three contiguous months. In other states it can be 6 months-1 year. I had to get a letter from my doctor stating that as far as he knew, I had been seizure-free for that time. Next time I have a seizure, it all starts again. Some of this is contingent on self-reporting, but if you seek medical help, your PCP, neurologist or ER docs are mandated to report to the DMV.

If someone other than me (say family) reports my seizures to the DMV, they have to investigate.

All interesting speculation, but unfortunately pointless.

After the unbelievably horrific shooting of children at Sandy Hook many of us believed that finally something would be done concerning gun regulation. At the very least, a universal background check law, supported by anywhere from 80 to 90% of the population.

Remember the outcome?

"Senate rejects background checks on gun purchases in 54-46 vote"

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/294571-senate-rejects-tougher-background-checks-on-gun-purchases

That vote was actually 56–44 in favor, but did not reach the new 60 vote requirement to move a bill through the Senate. What we are going to see is a continuation of a lot of talk, a lot of posturing, a lot of expressions of outrage, and absolutely nothing done about any kind of gun regulation whatsoever.

vsrenard said:

Yes. I have seizures. When I started being treated for epilepsy, my neurologist had to report my condition to the DMV, who then rescinded my license. I had to reapply after I was seizure-free for three contiguous months. In other states it can be 6 months-1 year. I had to get a letter from my doctor stating that as far as he knew, I had been seizure-free for that time. Next time I have a seizure, it all starts again. Some of this is contingent on self-reporting, but if you seek medical help, your PCP, neurologist or ER docs are mandated to report to the DMV.

If someone other than me (say family) reports my seizures to the DMV, they have to investigate.

Click to expand...

So why can't something similar be done for guns.

If a doctor treats you for a mental illness that has been known to result in violence, they report it, the guns are taken and you can request back after your doc approves with an appeals process if you feel you're being treated unfairly.

Vince524 said:

So why can't something similar be done for guns.

If a doctor treats you for a mental illness that has been known to result in violence, they report it, the guns are taken and you can request back after your doc approves with an appeals process if you feel you're being treated unfairly.

Click to expand...

I think because gun ownership is a Constitutional right, where driving is not, the level of objection will be higher. Also, someone having seizures, whether motor or other (mine involved altered reality), driving clearly poses a danger to self and others. I would argue that seizures are good reason for not owning a gun, but that's neither here nor there.

Mental illness is less clear cut. Do we restrict guns for everyone who is, say, suffering from clinical depression? Will that affect whether people then seek treatment for depression?

Xelebes said:

A bit of a tangent and not of the scope of the question, but from a cultural point of view, I would certainly like to see a greater attachment of guns to sport moreso than personal defense.

I think one of the problems that make guns such a growing problem is that it is considered a lot like alcohol instead of a something comparable to a car. Some people want to raise the acceptability of guns, but we do not associate guns with anything other than aggression.

Click to expand...

I'm with this. I don't have much of a problem with guns, but the culture that tends to rally around guns worries me.

I don't feel that same worry nearly as much around cultures that keep guns for hunting and protection from wild animals rather than people.

robjvargas said:

I hate comparisons to driving. Driving is a privilege, not a constitutionally defined right. And while we may a court redefine that someday, it's still a right.

Click to expand...

Yep. And as long as it's a constitutionally defined right, every citizen should have the right to bear the kinds of arms that were available at the time the constitution was signed. Note that this does not include automatic or semi-automatic weapons of the sort typically employed in mass slayings.

And if you have a problem with that, please explain to me why I can't have an armed drone, which is simply another "arm" that I should have a right to bear, speaking strictly constitutionally.

Or an automatic weapon, or a rocket launcher, or a grenade launcher. We already set limits.

Every time the dangers of guns gets brought up, someone brings up how many people are killed by cars... and the strict regulations on cars clearly does not limit their availability or use. So let's regulate guns like cars.

* You can't operate one until you reach a minimum age, nor without a license that requires a written test and a competency check, and there are stiff penalties if you do.

* You have to carry insurance just in case your gun ends up being involved with harm or damage. (This is my favorite. Gives gun owners and insurance companies a very definite interest in making sure guns stay under the direct control of the ones that own them.)

* Your gun must be registered to you.

* The cops are allowed to double-check that the gun you're running around with is yours, and that you have a license and insurance.

* Home and business owners can regulate when, where, and how you may use your gun on their property.

* There are safety rules for public use of a gun that every gun owner must know and demonstrably be following at all times.

* YOU are responsible for everything that happens with a gun registered in your name unless you have filled out a police report noting that gun as lost or stolen.

* Infractions of gun laws carry fines, and multiple infractions (or a serious infraction) can result in a loss of your license.

* Certain unrelated crimes can result in a loss of your license. (Domestic violence being a major one.)

* Impounding of guns being operated without license, insurance, and registration until the owner can prove that they have all of the above and pay a fine.

Here's the thing:

Gun restrictions like we're talking about here would not have stopped the latest killer. There are plenty of mass shooters who would and could manage all of the above. But the domestic violence cases where a man finally murders his partner, the guns that are just "loose" without anyone being accountable for them that are later used in crimes, many of the accidental shootings... these are the sorts of things that could be limited in this way. Also, there would be an easy mechanism for financial compensation for those who are harmed or have property harmed by guns, and financial reasons for gun owners to make sure that their guns were not involved in either. And even if mental health care wasn't the help this latest shooter needed, it's still probably the best way to stop the *majority* of mass shooters.

Oh, add to the above:

* Limitations on SYG that prevent the shooter from initiating the confrontation and require *reasonable* fear.

* Limitations on the Castle Doctrine that disallow shooting someone who is currently fleeing the property or who a reasonable person would understand to pose no significant threat under the circumstances.

I agree with Monkey.

When gun rights activists draw the comparison of guns to cars, they also conveniently forget that nearly all car-related deaths are completely accidental, while the majority of gun deaths are quite purposeful, with of course the exception of those unfortunately frequent little incidents where a tot blows his sibling's head off because oopsie, someone forgot to unload their weapons and lock them away.

But to me it boils down to what is a car for and what does it let me accomplish vs. what is a gun for and what does it let me accomplish.

Cars are for travel. Guns are for killing people[SUP]*[/SUP].


*Yeah, I know, hunting rifles, bla bla bla, whatever, don't pick nits.