How to Keep Guns out of "Bad Guy" Hands?

[Lohman446]

Do you have any cases to back up your opinion?

No I cannot.

Do me a favor and look at some of the pictures of Trayvon Martin. Assume a hypothetical individual who looks similar and is dressed in a hoodie enters a gun store. Let's assume this hypothetical individual has no criminal record, a successful school background, and is an overall upstanding member of the community.

Are you offering me the argument that a gun store the refused to sell to such an individual would not be in danger of suffering, at best, a media backlash?

[Lohman446]

How to Keep Guns out of "Bad Guy" Hands? It's simple - get a time machine, go back to 1787, and convince the drafters of the constitution to rewrite the second amendment to say "The people shall have no right to keep and bear arms".

Barring that, I'm afraid you are too late. Now 229 years later there are over 300,000,000 guns in circulation. There have and always will be Bad Guys, and Bad Guys have and will always find guns.

Some things are just out of our control, and all we can do is defend ourselves against them.

TomNJVA

And even that fails. We have seen countless times in history where those who wanted to use violence to bend others to their will have been willing to use the political mechanisms available to them to create a situation allowing them to gain power and do violence (though most often through the entities under control of the state and not directly by themselves). It is the reason the second amendment is there. It is an admission that not even complete weapon control applied to individual citizens can prevent the use of weapons and force to create morally unjust circumstances.

[Pond, James Pond]

I have addressed your within the context of this thread. Where we are discussing the law surrounding a civil right and criminal transgression of the law, the disincentives involved will be criminal penalties.

This thread deals with a social problem. That problem is presently mainly dealt with through the penal system. That does not mean I need to restrict my thoughts to the penal code. Similarly, we do not have to only view it through the penal code, particularly as the causes of said social problem are very varied indeed; that's why I have difficulties with the topic returning to that one aspect: punishment

Where your suggestion is more state spending on education, I can assure that the option hasn't been overlooked. In fact, it has been tried for decades.

OK: Now this is something that I would have liked to know more about. Why has it not been brought up sooner? - From my perspective this is far more relevant to the ideas I've been trying to put forward than just the relative strengths of the penal system.

That is incorrect. At post 59 I note the differences in population vis a vis scandinavia, your offered standard, and in post 76 some of the constraints on both criiminal law and educational reform in the US.

You've touched on it, then, but you've certainly been more interested in my views on punishment: at least that is the impression I've been getting.

Someone who asks you what you think isn't dismissing your offered idea.

From where I'm sitting, yes, it is.
As I alluded to above, your questions have been focussed not on my idea, but on what I hope to move away from with my idea. I even suggested alternative schemes regarding perception of a criminal's role and place in society (post 75). You've not referred to those either.

So if I say I don't like A because of X, Y, Z; I want to focus more on B. And you then ask "Why don't you like A?", "Got any better ideas than A?"
It does leave me the impression that my idea B is being dismissed....

Some may see a clarity in a disinclination to answer a question directly,

Interestingly, you've over-looked the rest of the questions I posed to you in my last post. If this is a discussion then questions, as well as answers, should go both ways.




All the same, I have given your query some thought and while perhaps not what you are looking for, here is what I would do if I have the authority/means:

First, a caveat: this is not a sweeping, one-size fits all approach. Any given case would need to be looked at individually as they are now.
E.g. Violent people, ie with a propensity for violence, would need to be treated differently to people who were perhaps involved in a violent incident but are not inherently inclined to violence. In relation to the OP, I imagine that not all "gun crime" involves someone getting wounded/killed.

Prisons:
Generally shorter sentences but in more austere (but not inhumane) conditions. Far greater emphasis on counselling, education, training and rehab (undo/weaken criminal mindset as well as improve prospects once released). Less TV, more books. More security and better paid and more vetting (reduce the chance of prison staff getting involved in facilitating drugs entering the environment). Further heavy emphasis on sports/physical activity (reduce aggression/stress).

Introduction of readjustment schemes such as "meet the victim" (Victims can challenge the inmate to justify their actions: has shown to break the separation of cause and effect of their actions by criminals and raise empathy within the perpetrator.), "community service" (especially if not imprisoned) so that offenders develop a sense of responsibility and involvement in the area they may once just have exploited.

An A.A. style sponsor system for support on the outside which hopefully would provide greater 1:1 support than a half-way house or stretched over-worked parole officer.

Cities Pt1:
NY Giuliani style policing in high crime/drug areas together with heavy tax benefit incentives for both companies and workforce who set-up in those areas. (create income opportunities previously only provided by the criminal element and revitalise local economies)

Cities Pt2:
Investment in greater drug rehabilitation facilities for drug affected areas, preferably allowing for treatment in an area away from the drug users home environment where behavioural triggers and stressors would be most prevalent.

Many will cry: where's the money going to come from for all of this? but, of course, the costs would actually be investments as, if it worked, crime would drop, tax revenues rise and the associated costs of policing and prison population management would also drop. It may take a decade, but I doubt any such changes happen over night, but I feel the net result both financially and socially would be a gain

There you have them: my ideas for penal reform from a lay person's point of view. The greater focus education reform for the formative years I've already mentioned.

[Spats McGee]

I appreciate everyone's civility in discussing these difficult issues, but . . .

Can we please move away from attempting to solve all of the ills of society and try to return to the question(s) posed by the OP?

[Lohman446]

Trying to keep in mind what is reasonable... what does this community feel are the best (or even workable) policies to ensure 2A rights, while keeping guns out of the hands of "bad guys"? Not taking into consideration illegal gun buying/trading. Are the current laws, in your opinion working? Not effective enough? Too weak or too strong?

I am accepting the report by others that the ATF (or any other federal agency) does not pursue charges against those that misrepresent themselves on Form 4473 as a factual preposition.

There are two lines on that form that to me are important in firearm enforcement. One notes that repetitive purchase and sale of firearms of resale "for livelihood" without a FFL is a violation of law. The other notes that any false statement while purchasing a firearm is a violation of federal law.

The line about false statements is to me one of the easiest things to prosecute. You have an immense amount of identifying information, a handwriting sample, and a signature.

The line involving buying and selling for livelihood is a little trickier in that there are some arguments of definition one could make. I get that the ability to buy and sell firearms is looked upon as an individual right. In some states there is a limit to the number of cars you can sell in a year as an individual before you are considered a dealer and must be licensed as such - I'm not certain the same should not be applied to guns in some manner.

But in answer to the OPs question the large majority the large majority of gun control has come to rest on for 4473. If we cannot enforce the provisions of it we cannot enforce anything that rests on it.

Keep in mind we are discussing legal transactions done where the seller is interested in complying with the law.

So in my opinion its a question of enforcement.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by PJP

Interestingly, you've over-looked the rest of the questions I posed to you in my last post. If this is a discussion then questions, as well as answers, should go both ways.

Rather than being over-looked, the questions you pose in post 84 are answered directly in post 93. Feel free to seek clarification via PM.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Lohman446

One notes that repetitive purchase and sale of firearms of resale "for livelihood" without a FFL is a violation of law.

How common could that be? On the rare occasions I decide not to keep a firearm, I lose enough money in the resale to keep me from selling anything for another couple of years.

It isn't the kind of thing you could make up in volume.

[K_Mac]

I agree that enforcing the laws regarding 4473 is a good thing. The problem is violent criminals don't buy weapons at gun shops. They aquire them illegally. Strict enforcement is good, but it will not fix the problem.

We have to take guns out of the hands of violent offenders. Doing that will take a real commitment to enforcing current laws prohibiting possession of guns by criminals and the use of guns for criminal purposes. That is the easy part. The bigger problem is changing the culture of violence that is endemic in cities all over America.

[RaySendero]

Pond, James Pond wrote:

Right or wrong tree, the fact is the anti-gun lobby are thinking in those terms and I personally think it wise to do the same and, in doing so, find alternatives to theirs.

Otherwise you're forever singing to their tune and jumping to their beat.

James, Just step back and "LOOK" at this thread - Its a good example.

Many here are as you said; "forever singing to their tune and jumping to their beat".

Its not up to us to reach out to them! When they are just yanking our chain.

We need to keep repeating the truth:

AGAIN - Gun control doesn't work on "bad guys".

Their initial logical that "you can control bad guys by legislating gun control" is completely flawed!
That's why you keep going round and round.
That's why this thread is going round and round.

Gun control doesn't work on "bad guys"

[Pond, James Pond]

Their initial logical that "you can control bad guys by legislating gun control" is completely flawed!
That's why you keep going round and round.
That's why this thread is going round and round.

This is why, from the outset, I decided to view it as something beyond purely gun crime because, as I see it, it can't be separated from crime as a whole. Certainly not if you hope to have a successful outcome.

But the fact remains that the pro-gun group has a reactionary role in this debate. It is always having to play catch-up to a new anti- initiative and I'd like to see the anti-s on the back foot for a change.

For me, this thread is about thinking like your opponent, you can anticipate and counter their possible tactics.
It doesn't mean that you agree with or acknowledge their logic, just that you're more prepared for its next manifestation...

[RaySendero]

I figured that was what you were doing.

My thinking is that:
When one starts debating a false logic statement or theory, you will unintentionally reinforce as true when its not.

[Lohman446]

James, Just step back and "LOOK" at this thread - Its a good example.

Many here are as you said; "forever singing to their tune and jumping to their beat".

Its not up to us to reach out to them! When they are just yanking our chain.

We need to keep repeating the truth:

AGAIN - Gun control doesn't work on "bad guys".

Their initial logical that "you can control bad guys by legislating gun control" is completely flawed!
That's why you keep going round and round.
That's why this thread is going round and round.

Gun control doesn't work on "bad guys"

This is as poor of an argument as an argument that starts off with "not one more life" is. Are you ever going to stop 100% of gun violence? No you are not. You are also never going to stop 100% of traffic accidents. Since this is the case why bother having any traffic laws?

Yes those determined, competent, and willing to put malicious forethought into action are always going to be able to do violence against others. They don't even need a firearm to do so. A fact some mass killings (Oklahoma City, The World Trade Center) have demonstrated.

However there are cases where the mentally unstable have gotten hold of firearms they should not have (Sandy Hook). There are cases where (and I'm going by memory) those who were legally banned from gun ownership have managed to get others to do straw man purchases for them (the recent shooting at the lawn mower plant). There are cases where young family members have gained access to a firearm they should not have and accidentally shot others. These are things that it is possible to address through enforcement of laws and education of gun buyers.

While I find the need for gun legislation and restriction concerning and would prefer a Utopia where such restrictions are not needed failing to act because you cannot manage to stop 100% of the problem seems to me to end up being an argument in hyperbole. The expression I want to use, even if I don't find the need for gun control of any type good, is forgoing the good for the perfect.

[Shenna9220]

Bring back the hanging Judges of the late 1800's. They did good work and removed a lot of "Bad Guys" from sociaty. Crime in the west went down dramatically. They could use Chicago as a test.

[Lohman446]

Bring back the hanging Judges of the late 1800's. They did good work and removed a lot of "Bad Guys" from sociaty. Crime in the west went down dramatically. They could use Chicago as a test.

No. Look up the Haymarket affair. Giving any individual (or group for that matter) near unfettered power results in, at best, mistakes. At worst it results in the abuse of power for the protection or advancement of some individuals at great cost to the rest.

Any rights we are willing to concede to governmental authorities for others was must also be willing to concede to governmental authorities for ourselves, our children, and our grand children often in ways we could not have considered when we did it.

For those who want a more patriotic term to the discussion just replace my reference to the Haymarket affair with a reference to the Boston Massacre.

[JimPage]

I honestly don't think we can keep guns from the bad guys. If they want guns, they will find them. Punish those who use a gun illegally. Other than that, I don't think it's possible to do it practically.

[Brit]

To re-visit the gun store refusal.

Whilst helping a friend, who broke his leg, by running his Gun Store, Toronto Canada, in the 80s? Not good with dates.

A customer came in, at 5-30pm, we closed at 6, he came to claim his repaired Colt 45.

His bus trip was via a pub! And a few pints. I was born in a Pub in England. I know when to much to drive translates to way to much to head back home, on a Bus, with a Colt 45 in a work bag. So I said come back when you have not been drinking.

The customer went nuts! Screamed at me, when I told him if he did not leave, I would throw him into the Street, he left.

Long story short, owner of gun store sided with customer! I walked.

[RaySendero]

This is as poor of an argument as an argument that starts off with "not one more life" is. Are you ever going to stop 100% of gun violence? No you are not. You are also never going to stop 100% of traffic accidents. Since this is the case why bother having any traffic laws?

You absolutely don't get it- Do you!?


The reason traffic laws work is because law abiding people will obey these laws.

There are probably 20,000 gun laws already on the books across the country
and yet some Bad Guys still shoot there victims in a gun free zone.

Those Bad Guys have no intention to abide by the gun laws - Similar to
the "Get-Away Driver "in a bank heist will have no intention to abide by the traffic laws.


Gun control doesn't work on "bad guys".

Traffic control lights don't work on "get-away drivers".

[Lohman446]

You absolutely don't get it- Do you!?


The reason traffic laws work is because law abiding people will obey these laws.

There are probably 20,000 gun laws already on the books across the country
and yet some Bad Guys still shoot there victims in a gun free zone.

Those Bad Guys have no intention to abide by the gun laws - Similar to
the "Get-Away Driver "in a bank heist will have no intention to abide by the traffic laws.


Gun control doesn't work on "bad guys".

Traffic control lights don't work on "get-away drivers".

Are you offering the premise that absolutely no person with ill intent has been dissuaded or prevented from obtaining a firearm? That no criminal has ever committed a crime without a firearm because he or she could not readily access one? That all gun legislation is 100% (I reiterate perfectly 100%) ineffective?

Perhaps the answer is less legislation that is actually more effectively drawn and actually enforced. The 20,000 number is overwhelming. However I am simply not going to buy into any argument that holds that all gun legislation is 100% ineffective. Its as poor of an argument as the argument that uses the tag line "not one more life" which implies that any gun legislation could be 100% effective.

[Spats McGee]

I think this one's gone on long enough.