Common Sense Gun Laws

[10-Ring]

2 minutes ago, n0rlf said:

Then how do you expect them to negotiate with you? Seems they have the same stance. A lot of people have suffered due to being unwilling to negotiate over the decades. If neither side will negotiate then nothing will ever change. We all know that nothing ever stays the same so I would recommend a different tact. 

My gun rights are not up for negotiation.  We already have enough gun laws that don't work, no need to pass more.  There are done people out there who will not rest until no private citizen is allowed to have a gun.  I don't care to bend to their wishes.  Gun control is a low hanging fruit and the fruit is rotten.  Getting rid of guns will not get rid of evil, and that is the ultimate goal of these people.  

[Garufa]

33 minutes ago, n0rlf said:

Then how do you expect them to negotiate with you? Seems they have the same stance. A lot of people have suffered due to being unwilling to negotiate over the decades. If neither side will negotiate then nothing will ever change. We all know that nothing ever stays the same so I would recommend a different tact. 

As far as gun laws go there no room left for negotiation.  You either accept universal background checks along with limits on the type of firearms owned and their capabilities or you accept it anyway. 

What do gun owners have to “give up” to prevent that?  Negotiation is giving and getting. There is not much left to give to prevent my two examples from being enacted....and they will be eventually.

Edited November 9, 2017 by Garufa

[Garufa]

18 hours ago, Steelharp said:

Hotgunz.com

I was thinking more along the lines of something that all LE agencies in the nation would provide data to...with a .gov extension.

[Oh Shoot]

4 minutes ago, Garufa said:

I was thinking more along the lines of something that all LE agencies in the nation would provide data to...with a .gov extension.

After about 9 years still only 14K entries.

- OS

[n0rlf]

34 minutes ago, 10-Ring said:

My gun rights are not up for negotiation.  We already have enough gun laws that don't work, no need to pass more.  There are done people out there who will not rest until no private citizen is allowed to have a gun.  I don't care to bend to their wishes.  Gun control is a low hanging fruit and the fruit is rotten.  Getting rid of guns will not get rid of evil, and that is the ultimate goal of these people.  

Now where did I say give anything up? Negotiate does not mean give something up. That is the first mistake. Remember, tact is the ability to tell someone to go to hell and make them happy to be on their way. Negotiation can be accomplished in such a way that you come out ahead. I am willing to give a little. I will trade off getting rid of restrictions over purchasing wait times or limits on the number of guns I can purchase in return for making us use a database to check firearms being reported stolen. Now, both of those are good for us and implemented correctly gives nothing away. Negotiation can be used for good results but when you outright declare you won't negotiate the other side wins by default. Negotiate but do not give in, Outlast them if nothing else it keeps the status quo. Sad but true. 

[DaveTN]

Also I don’t think we are in a position to have to negotiate. More and more people are understanding the only way to stop an active shooter is with another active shooter. Laws are changing for pro carry, not against.

[n0rlf]

Just now, DaveTN said:

Also I don’t think we are in a position to have to negotiate. More and more people are understanding the only way to stop an active shooter is with another active shooter. Laws are changing for pro carry, not against.

While I think we are not in a position to give anything up I think we should engage in discussion. Not doing so will get you nowhere. Plan ahead and negotiate an agreement that adds in that no further restrictions can ever be added without making any past agreements null and void. I am over simplifying obviously here to make a point. 

[gregintenn]

When I'm right, and especially when I'm winning, I'm not much for negotiating,

[DaveTN]

6 minutes ago, n0rlf said:

While I think we are not in a position to give anything up I think we should engage in discussion. Not doing so will get you nowhere. Plan ahead and negotiate an agreement that adds in that no further restrictions can ever be added without making any past agreements null and void. I am over simplifying obviously here to make a point. 

I have no problem in having a discussion about background checks with anyone. Like most Americans; I have no problem with them. However, I think if background checks are made mandatory; they should be free. They aren’t going to do anything one way or the other, so they shouldn’t be a payday for the state, Feds, or gun dealers.

[Omega]

53 minutes ago, n0rlf said:

Then how do you expect them to negotiate with you? Seems they have the same stance. A lot of people have suffered due to being unwilling to negotiate over the decades. If neither side will negotiate then nothing will ever change. We all know that nothing ever stays the same so I would recommend a different tact. 

The problem with negotiations with the left is that there is no give and take.  It's the whole piece of cake principle again:

https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-compromise-illustrated-guide-to-gun-control/

The gun grabbers don't want to compromise,  they want the whole cake, even if they have to take it one bite at a time. 

[n0rlf]

33 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

When I'm right, and especially when I'm winning, I'm not much for negotiating,

That is actually one of the best times to negotiate. You give me 5 dollars and I will only take 5 more. Otherwise I will take 25. They have done it well to us for years, now it is turning. Take what we can while we can get it and keep right on taking. Saying you will not even talk is not getting the most that you can. Give up something you could care less about to get more of what you do. I will give you a dog park and you will give me constitutional carry. Ok maybe we will not get that good a deal but it makes the point. 

[m16ty]

Personally, I won't sell a gun to somebody I don't know or have somebody I know vouch for without a HCP, especially somebody walking up to me at a gun show. I don't want that to be some sort of law though, that's just my personal stance so a gun used in a crime is less likely to come back on me. 

[JAB]

I am late to this party but here is my idea of 'common sense gun laws' for a free people whose country is supposedly built on the ideals of liberty:

1.  Any citizen or legal resident alien with no criminal record can legally purchase any firearm he or she wants.  With exceptions for heinous crimes such as murder or violent rape (in which case the person in question should be in prison, not standing in a gun store) those with a criminal history, even a felony, can have full gun ownership rights restored once a] their debt to society has been paid and b] subsequent to paying their debt to society a period of no less than ten years without any criminal activity has passed.

2. No firearm shall be used to shoot anyone else unless the party on the receiving end of the shooting commits an act or acts which justify said shooting

3. No firearm shall be used to commit a robbery or in conjunction with any other criminal act

4. Violation of 2 and/or 3 will result in a world of hurt

 

Yes, #1 means that potentially dangerous people can purchase firearms.  However, in a free society the trade off for freedom and liberty is that a person cannot be made to suffer consequences of actions that he or she might (or might not) take but has not, in fact, taken.  Being free isn't always necessarily safe.

Laws cannot prevent crimes.  Placing general restrictions on gun rights in an attempt to prevent crimes merely punishes those who would not have committed a crime in the first place.  We don't need more laws - or ANY laws, for that mater - to curb the rights of the law abiding.  What we need are consequences that will fall like a ton of bricks upon the heads of people who use guns in a criminal manner rather than a slap on the wrist and a, "Now, sonny, don't do it, again."

As for mass killing events, the answer to how to stop them is that we can't.  Look at other countries where guns are restricted - they use knives:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-26402367

29 dead, 130 injured and the only people shot were some of the attackers.

Heck, even in areas of this country where firearms are more restricted - they use vehicles:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/31/us/new-york-shots-fired/index.html

or even pressure cookers:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/boston-marathon-bomb-devices-made-pressure-cookers-filled-nails-ball-bearings-report-article-1.1318278

I mention this often but the worst school massacre in the history of the United States was carried out by a lone individual who didn't need a gun to do it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

No law will stop crazy and no consequence - preemptive or otherwise - will stop someone who is willing to die, or who maybe even wants to die, from carrying out an attack.  It is just that simple.

 

Edited January 3, 2018 by JAB