How to get meaningful gun reform passed

[Scooter]

[Econoline]

I just found this over on Daily Kos (I know, I know...liberal propaganda, right? Just *READ* the damn post before judging it, huh?) and it seems like a reasonable attempt to get a conversation started, so I thought I'd bring it over here and give it a try. This is only the opening post; follow the link in the headline to see all the subsequent responses--some very good, some not so much.

SUN OCT 18, 2015 AT 08:00 AM PDT
Let's listen to each other on the topic of guns

by Mark E Andersen for Daily Kos

Last week I wrote an essay titled, "Nobody is going to take your precious guns!" It was meant to be a takedown of the National Rifle Association talking point that President Obama and those of us on the left want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens.

I watched carefully as the comments rolled in, and read every single one. Some were thoughtful. Others, well—let's just say I am disappointed by both those on the right and the left on this issue. There was a lot of talk about taking guns by those on the gun control side, further stoking the fears of the those in the gun rights camp that the end goal is to take the guns away.

Meanwhile, those in the gun rights camp said "No" to any idea proposed by the gun control side, in some cases getting lost in the semantics of firearm terminology to sidetrack any real discussion. What I learned from reading the comments was that each side in the debate was talking past the other side, and everyone bounced off the walls to end up back in the same place they started.

In the previous essay I wrote that there were, as of 2007, an estimated 270 million privately owned guns in America. That number seemed low, so I did some additional research and found some newer numbers from 2012. Keep in mind this is only an estimate, and we will likely never know just how many privately owned firearms exist in this country. That being said, as of 2012 it is estimated that there are 347 million privately owned firearms in America today. That represents roughly one gun for every man, woman, and child in America.

We are, whether we like it or not, a well-armed populace. Which brings me to the point I tried making last Sunday: No one is going to come and take anyone's guns away from them. With the number of firearms in this country and the diverse population that owns them, it's simply not possible for the U.S. government to come around and take weapons away from citizens. The only way it could happen is if the Army started kicking down doors and taking them away. No matter how you feel about guns, I think you have to agree that you do not want to see the Army kicking doors down in this country.

We have a problem with gun violence in this country. The numbers don't lie. See them below.

• [I'm going to skip over the statistics he posts; we've all already seen them, and they won't change anyone's mind.]

We need to stop talking past each other. Saying you want to take all guns away from gun owners—or saying that criminals don't follow the the law so what is the point—are not solutions. Bumper sticker slogans are not going to solve the problem of gun violence in America.

I would like to use this diary as a starting point for a discussion on the issue of gun violence. I would ask that some commenting ground rules be followed. Any proposal has to be workable nationwide. For example, banning the sale of certain types of handguns in a large city will not work, because all you have to do is drive to a different municipality and purchase the banned handgun. No comments about taking guns away—it will not happen regardless of how passionate you are about it. It will only stoke the fears of gun owners, and play into the hands of the NRA. No comments that get lost in the semantics of gun terminology. If someone says clip instead of magazine: Let it go. It serves no purpose to quibble about language. The same thing can be said if you state that someone knows nothing about guns. Just don't say it. Again, it serves no purpose other than poking someone with a sharp stick, and I don't know of too many folks that like being poked with a sharp stick.

I will limit my participation in comments to asking for clarification on a point. I will be reading comments and taking notes on them. I want to hear from both sides on this. What are your suggestions to cut down on gun violence? I will then take what is in comments, sent to me via Kosmail, or sent to me in a Tweet, if they are reasonable, and put them in a part two diary next week.

The only way this works is if everyone is civil and brings real ideas to the table. If all you have to add is, "Take away all guns," or, "Arm everyone," then you are not a part of the solution. I cannot stop you from commenting; however, those suggestions are not realistic and will not make it into next week's diary. Also, this is not a debate on the meaning of the Second Amendment. The question is simply:

• "What can we do as a society to reduce the incidents of gun violence?"

There are some very smart people here on both sides of the gun debate. Instead of talking past each other, let's actually listen to each other and hear what the other side says. Maybe together, we can actually come up with a solution.

It seems to me that this is exactly the sort of conversation that should be started and encouraged. What do you think?

[wesw]

let s talk honestly then, econo. do you support repealing the 2nd amend.?

guin and sue have taken that position.

(oh, I remember guin making condescending comments about, 'no one is coming to take your guns' , too..., the truth will out...)

[Econoline]

Quick answer: NO. Full stop.

And anyone who answers YES to that question without also acknowledging that that's, politically, a completely impossible goal in any conceivable permutation of the current U.S. political system has got to be seriously delusional.

[wesw]

guin, sue..., econo just called you seriously delusional. would you like to respond to that?

(take that jake tapper!)

eta- I m sure that sue and guin are smarter than the repub candidates and will not take the bait.

[Econoline]

guin, sue..., econo just called you seriously delusional.

Only *IF* they don't realize that it's, politically, an impossible goal in the U.S. now or in the foreseeable future.

I could be in favor of free ponies for everyone, but you still wouldn't have to worry about stampeding pony herds trampling your petunias...

[oldr_n_wsr]

trampling your petunias...

Oh, the horror!

[Sue U]

guin, sue..., econo just called you seriously delusional.

Only *IF* they don't realize that it's, politically, an impossible goal in the U.S. now or in the foreseeable future.

I could be in favor of free ponies for everyone, but you still wouldn't have to worry about stampeding pony herds trampling your petunias...

I had to drag Guin pretty much kicking and screaming into the repeal camp (although a bottle of Cotes du Rhone goes a long way to help with that girl). But there is a point at which the reality of the enormous scale of gun violence in this country makes the argument for me.

Ten years ago I wouldn't have given marriage equality a snowball's chance in hell, either. But people can and do change their minds once they actually start thinking about an issue rather than just reacting on their prejudices, and even attitudes that seem immovably entrenched can be overcome in relatively short order.

As I have said before, the Second Amendment is now an anachronism that has long outlived whatever use it may have had. No amount of personal weaponry is ever going to repel a foreign invasion or overthrow a "tyrannical" central government. There is absolutely no rational contemporary public policy justification for enshrining gun ownership as a constitutional right. The constitution is not inerrant and untouchable sacred scripture, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with re-examining its provisions in light of a changed world. The simple fact is, fewer guns = fewer gun crimes, especially when we're talking about handguns.

But repeal of the Second Amendment doesn't mean that guns will be generally outlawed, especially in the case of rural owners and hunters. All it means is that state and local governments would be able to regulate ownership, type and use of firearms without fear of constitutional infraction. State and local governments could implement the type of regulations that are appropriate for their particular areas and populations. If my city wants to severely restrict or even outlaw handguns because they are routinely used in crime here, why shouldn't we be permitted to do so? I'm sure there are numerous legitimate reasons for gun ownership -- even handguns -- but that doesn't require a blanket constitutional "right" to ownership. What is wrong with making it a licensed privilege?

[wesw]

very well said sue. total bullshit, but well said bullshit.

[Sue U]

very well said sue. total bullshit, but well said bullshit.

So you have nothing substantive to say in response. Duly noted.

[Big RR]

Well Sue,

The constitution is not inerrant and untouchable sacred scripture, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with re-examining its provisions in light of a changed world.

is about the best invitation to have the discussion, although I have sincere doubts a repeal could ever succeed given the current state of public opinion. Add to that the fact that it would be next to impossible to control guns moving from a more permissive state to a less permissive one, and I think the amendment would have to do more than leaving it up to the states.

[Sue U]

Add to that the fact that it would be next to impossible to control guns moving from a more permissive state to a less permissive one, and I think the amendment would have to do more than leaving it up to the states.

We have effectively the same problem now, not only in guns but in liquor, cigarettes and other heavily regulated products. But that's an enforcement issue, not a legislative issue.

[Big RR]

But changing the constitution without providing for effective enforcement is an empty gesture IMHO. We do have the problem re taxed "sin" products, but enforcement is a much bigger problem when the law goes beyond paying a bit more to an outright ban on possession. There are still dry counties in the US, but none that have effectively banned the possession of alcohol. And many places which prohibit the sale of fireworks still have plenty of them illegally going off on July 4 based on out of state purchases. If we want the change to have any real effect, this would have to be considered and dealt with.

[Scooter]

If an operable gun is found in a state where it is not supposed to be, all assets of the manufacturer of the gun shall be forfeit to the federal government. Manufacturers would figure out quickly enough how to use GPS and other technologies to render a gun inoperable when it crosses the border of a state that bans it.

[Big RR]

Well that might work, but it is a bit of an overreach, don't you think?

[Sue U]

Not disagreeing with you, but enforcement is a separate issue; it would be a mistake to say we can't address the legislative side until there is a comprehensive enforcement side, and I'm not sure enforcement would be as big a problem as you imagine. Will there be leakage? Of course, in the same way there is leakage now with alcohol, tobacco and firearms. But there is already a federal agency set up to deal with the interstate trafficking aspects of those problems, and that agency can be used to assist the states in their own regulatory efforts.

No one is going to solve the gun problem immediately with one legislative act or with one enforcement mechanism. lt will take years and maybe decades to reduce the number of guns and bring their ownership under effective regulation. The point is to make a start, and the most serious problem to start with is handguns.

[Sue U]

Manufacturers would figure out quickly enough how to use GPS and other technologies to render a gun inoperable when it crosses the border of a state that bans it.

Hell, my cell phone carrier turned off my connection the moment I crossed the bridge into Canada, so they could make me buy an international plan.

It's not rocket science to track the sale and distribution of guns; we do the same for title and registration of automobiles. Closer monitoring of who owns what and where would be a good first step -- i.e., requiring licensing and registration of all firearms and their owners.

[Scooter]

Well that might work, but it is a bit of an overreach, don't you think?

My philosophy about reducing illegal behaviours is always to ask first - who profits?

If we were talking illegal immigration, I would say that attempting enforcement by deportation is less than useless, and that it is the employers of illegal immigrants that need to be targeted, and they need to be hit where it hurts. Confiscate any business that is found to have employed even one illegal immigrant, whether wittingly or not, and put the onus on the employer to prove that every employee they have ever had was legally entitled to work in the country, and no employer will ever hire illegal immigrants again. No jobs to be had, no more illegal immigration.

Same for guns. Make it completely ruinous for a gun manufacturer to allow their products to fall into the wrong hands, and they will make sure they do not.

[Big RR]

It's not rocket science to track the sale and distribution of guns; we do the same for title and registration of automobiles. Closer monitoring of who owns what and where would be a good first step -- i.e., requiring licensing and registration of all firearms.

the laws and mandating that the states pass a licensing/registration system, which I thought your proposed 2nd amendment repeal was supposed to replace. Left to their opwn devices, it is likely some states would mandate these things.

Will there be leakage? Of course, in the same way there is leakage now with alcohol, tobacco and firearms.

I think you're underestimating the backlash that would occur if some who wanted to own guns, and some who might have only considered it while it was legal, were suddenly prevented from doing so. I think it would make buying cigarettes from the native American reservations an almost nonexistent problem by comparison.

No one is going to solve the gun problem immediately with one legislative act or with one enforcement mechanism

True, but I do think you'd have to show some positive results are likely to get the responsible gun owners to support the repeal and likely give up some or all of their guns. If you tell them it will have a predictable effect, you may convince some to join in; otherwise most won't support it. Saying giving up a right is the first step of a decades long program to deal with gun violence is not going to win repeal a lot of supporters, and without them any repeal amendment will likely fail.

Scooter--while I agree with you in principle, blaming a manufacturer for the illicit use to which someone puts an otherwise lawful product offends me. If accepted, we could ultimately have many products indirectly banned this way. Some might like a world without sharp knives, alcohol, or cars, but I would not.

[Crackpot]

Do I need to point out that an electronical defeat and a mechanical defeat are two completely different things?