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

[SailingOnBy]

**Warning** -- this is a gun control thread, please keep things civil and on topic --

I've been following the politics, debates and discussions of guns for a while now and have seen the extreme ends of both sides. IMO with most cases the extreme views are the ones that are holding back good, productive dialogue though.

My question is:

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?


For the sake of this argument I'm using a very broad definition of "gun control" from background checks all the way up to the ban/heavy restriction on fully auto weapons and pretty much everything in between.
Thanks for keeping it a civil and productive conversation

[eastbank]

heavy jail time for violent offenders carrying firearms work, if its carried out. 99.9 percent of the people owning firearms do not commit crimes, so the reg,s don,t effect crimminals at all. eastbank.

[JimPage]

Heavy jail time vs. letting them go free as is the custom now. What a novel idea! Maybe we should not be setting free those already convicted, too?

[Lohman446]

The current laws are not working because some of them are written in a way that prevent them from being enforced. To further complicate things the steps to insure compliance do not apply to sales between private individuals.

Lets talk about a scenario. Jake and Sally are dating. Both are in their early twenties and both come from upper middle class backgrounds. Jake has a documented history of schizophrenia that has been treated for several years including "voluntary" stays at more than one treatment facility when he was younger at the insistence of his parents. However he has run into a new "therapist" (perhaps under the guise of a religion) who has indicated to him that the drugs he is on are controlling him.

Jake openly tells his psychiatrist that he is going to stop taking these drugs Sally, dismayed at the news and the changes in Jake's demeanor, dumps him. At the next session Jake's psychiatrist is alarmed, based on Jake's statements, for Sally's safety. Following ethical and legal obligations the psychiatrist informs both Sally and the local police department.

The local police department, already overwhelmed, puts a file somewhere that it might get looked at someday. Even the best run police department looks into it but as no overt threat has been made can really do nothing. Meanwhile Sally, taking the threat seriously, decided to buy a handgun. She lives in an apartment building with a roommate and wants to be able to lock it away easily and for her situation a handgun makes some sense. By the way Sally's parents actually taught her about guns. She is capable enough to use one to defend herself but has simply not purchased one before now. For the sake of the story let's assume its a .38 special revolver like her grandpa taught her to use. Sally is told to come back in seven days after the required waiting period.

Jake meanwhile goes into a nearby gun store. For the sake of the story let's call it a national chain. He picks out a pump action shotgun or rifle with a limited magazine capacity and plenty of ammunition. The retailer does everything "right" according to law. Jake checks all the right boxes on form 4473, signs the retailer's additional statement about gun safety and certifies he is not purchasing the gun with the intent to do harm, and the retailer calls into NCIS for approval, which due to the voluntary nature of Jake's treatment, is given easily.

Let's complicate the story some. Jake's psychiatrist is in the store and see's him purchasing these weapons. Due to HIPAA standards Jake's psychiatrist is prohibited from sharing this information with the gun retailer. His call to the police results in some interest and a promise to have someone look into it after the weekend because the officer taking the call cannot figure out if any law has actually been broken (it hasn't yet). The psychiatrist's call to Sally (clearly allowed under professional guidelines) goes to voicemail.

The thing about that story is that the gun purchase was legal. The retailer did nothing wrong. Even if he sensed "something" was wrong a retailer who refuses to sell a gun to someone because of a feeling is eventually going to run afoul of discrimination lawsuits. Our current laws, even "evil black weapon" bans, do nothing to impact the outcome of the events.

If patience will bearing with me you can take another story about Kevin. Kevin is a dishonorably discharged veteran who was discharged for violent crimes while in the military. He has since been involved in several domestic situations and there are actually multiple restraining orders against him Kevin is very clearly legally barred from owning a gun and should be currently serving time in jail. In fact let us say he has served multiple jail terms. Kevin goes into a gun show a few cities away and simply looks around for one of those tables that says something of the effect "all prices include tax." This gives him a pretty good guess that the table is being run off the books and the seller is selling a "private collection" Kevin picks out any long gun he wants, or several, hands the man running it a stack of cash, and goes on his way.


Yes the system is broken HIPAA standards are a good start of showing how broken they are. The inability (or unwillingness) of private individuals to carry out an effective background check is also an issue. I think that private individuals should have the ability to call into NCIS, record the authorization information, and be freed of any liability associated to the sale. I'm of the leaning that I think it should be required. Go a step further and require all sales of firearms, except relative to relative, go through a dealer and you would help support your local dealer.

We may disagree on the exact steps and how each issue stands in regards to the Constitutional standards but we are playing the parts of fools if we think that current standards actually prevent people who should not own guns from owning them.

[BarryLee]

Progressively more jail time for bad guys who use guns, carry guns, steal guns, etc. There are predators in our society and these folks will never be rehabilitated. Like it or not there are certain people that need to be removed from society by long term incarceration. Sadly the trend now is to release felons and restore their rights so that they can vote and hand power to the ________ Party.

[Aguila Blanca]

There is no way for me to verify, but I repeatedly see commentary to the purported fact that there are now more than 20,000 (yes, that's twenty THOUSAND) gun laws in the U.S. Make it 20,001, because my state just enacted another one on Friday, and it's a typical feel-good law that will further burden many honest gun owners while doing nothing to accomplish its stated goal of saving lives.

So ... to answer your question "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'?":

Enforce some of those 20,001 existing gun laws. Just one example: The Federal 4473 that we have to fill out when buying a firearm from an FFL. It's a federal felony to lie on that form. Yet the federal government has stated that they can't be bothered to arrest and prosecute prohibited persons who lie on the 4473 and sign their name to it. Talk about a slam dunk prosecution! You have the person's name, you have the person's address, and you have the person's own signature attesting that the lie he/she committed by checking all the "No" boxes above is perjury.

I don't recall who made that statement -- it was either Holder or Biden, IIRC>

But the Feds are more interested in passing new laws rather than enforcing the ones we already have.

[osbornk]

I think that private individuals should have the ability to call into NCIS, record the authorization information, and be freed of any liability associated to the sale. I'm of the leaning that I think it should be required. Go a step further and require all sales of firearms, except relative to relative, go through a dealer and you would help support your local dealer.

We may disagree on the exact steps and how each issue stands in regards to the Constitutional standards but we are playing the parts of fools if we think that current standards actually prevent people who should not own guns from owning them.

I "slightly" disagree with some of your reasoning. For one thing, I don't think NCIS can free anyone from liability. Many of us know people who would easily pass the check but would never sell or loan them a gun because we are aware of a mental or medical problem that would make them dangerous to themselves or others. If evidence surfaces that shows you knew of the problem before you sold them a gun, I think you have a problem.

Requiring that all sales go through a dealer to "help support your local dealer" is even more troubling to me. For those of us who live in the sticks or many "gun free" cities, finding a local dealer is difficult after working hours and on weekends and if you find one, he may be one that robs you blind. Keep in mind that "help support your local dealer" is you giving the dealer your money. You can donate to them if you want but I don't want to be forced to support him.

You said current standards do not prevent people who should have guns from getting them. Can you name any standards that would prevent this? It hasn't worked in Chicago, DC, New York or anywhere else in the world regardless of what standards they have. The bad guys still get guns and the law abiding citizens are left unarmed at their mercy.

[Lohman446]

Nothing is going to be 100%. However we need more of a check for known mental health issues than a self reported check mark. To be clear I am not advocating for a proof of mental health (no you must have an exam before buying a gun). However those who have a known mental health history that makes allowing them to own a gun an unreasonable danger to society (diagnosed schizophrenia for instance) should be screened out. The ability for a known restricted individual (violent felon, wanted, dishonorable discharge) to be able to buy from a private individual with no information given to the seller is also an issue.

[kilimanjaro]

Stop and Frisk would work for the street punks, plus jail time.

[44 AMP]

I don't recall who made that statement -- it was either Holder or Biden, IIRC>

It was the VICE PRESIDENT Biden. I saw the clip, and heard it myself. The reporter caught him in a hallway, unscripted, unprepared, and uncharacteristically honest. He was asked directly why the government prosecutes so few people for trying to buy guns illegally (lying on the forms, etc.)

He gave a dismissive hand gesture (waved it off) and said "we don't have time for that." Those were his exact words, I heard them.

"WE DON'T HAVE TIME FOR THAT."

That kind of says something right there, doesn't it??

One of the things that bothers me about gun control laws is the reversal of "guilt". In virtually every facet of our lives the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is not only the standard, but it is pushed with an enthusiasm that borders on fanaticism. EVEN the guy shot down by police in the act of committing MURDER is "innocent" until a COURT finds him guilty.

NOT SO the person who wants to legally buy a gun. They have to have their innocence "proven" by background checks, permits, waiting periods, etc.

EVERY TIME!!!!!

This might be described as the Dept of Redundancy Dept.

IF the stated purpose of the laws and the checks is to keep guns out of the hands of "bad people" (and it is so stated, often), WHAT purpose is served by making someone who already has a gun (or a dozen) go through the checks, and waiting period (where applicable)???

They already have guns, whether they desire to criminally misuse them, or not, no background check has any effect on the guns they already possess!!

Mental health issues?? One of the current hot topic points, to be sure. And a complicated one, for several reasons. And only one of them is personal privacy.

Under current law (and the law as it has existed for nearly half a century, you are only "mentally incompetent" AFTER a COURT rules that you are.
(there's that pesky "presumption of innocence" thing, again... )

Privacy laws further complicate the matter, as well as the general assumption that someone who commits murder, particularly mass murder MUST be mentally ill.

And its even worse today than it used to be, because DRs are (in some cases) forbidden by law from reporting concerns to the right people, and those people are also restricted as to what they can do about it, also, by law.

Back in 86, Patrick Purdy, who shot up a Stockton CA schoolyard, killing several children, staff, with a semi auto AK, and then himself with handgun, was at the time (and for some time previous) getting SSI payments because he was "mentally disabled and unable to work".

The LAW prevented that information from being passed to the state of CA, and Purdy passed the background check and 15 day waiting period in place then, TWICE, to legally purchase each of the two handguns he had.

This was the mass shooting that sparked the "assault weapon" hysteria.

30 years ago this year....

One of the Columbine killers (obviously mentally ill, right?) is reported to have had a web page full of "peace, love, light, and can't we all just get along?"

NO ONE can know what is actually going on in the mind of another. We can only guess, based on what those people say, and both sane and insane people LIE.

The gun control laws are working, they are (when enforced) doing exactly what they were written to do. The fact that they are not demonstrably making us safer doesn't matter, that is NOT what they were written to do. It's what we are TOLD they were written for, but its not what they were actually written to do. As I said, people lie, including the ones who write our laws.

There are a lot of points about gun control that are worthy of discussion.
"public safety" vs. prior restraint of the execution of a Constitutionally enumerated right is just one of them.

Cost (and not just money) vs. benefits

and many others.

[Tom Servo]

I think that private individuals should have the ability to call into NCIS, record the authorization information, and be freed of any liability associated to the sale.

No. First off, the NICS system is barely staffed enough to be workable for dealers. Allowing every dad who wants to check out his daughter's boyfriend to use it is going to bring it to a grinding halt.

Furthermore, if private individuals are given the option to use it today, it's an easy thing to make it mandatory tomorrow.

As far as liability, I can tell you that a "proceed" on a NICS check in no way ameliorates a dealer's liability as related to a gun sale. I fail to see how it would be any different for an unlicensed individual.

And for what? The NICS system hasn't done anything to prevent or curb violent crime. Really. I've been in several runarounds with its supporters, and it's always come down to "show me the data."

So, I've been presented with "studies" done with the bankrolling of gun-control advocacy groups. The best of those found only a single-digit decline in suicides among the 55-70 year old age group.

It's a broken system that was only put in place because that was the most burdensome thing they could sell at the time. It has nothing to do with curbing crime and everything to do with making life harder on gun owners.

So, back to the original question. Nothing's 100%. There is no failsafe defense against evil. If there was, we wouldn't need weapons at all. The best we can do is be careful who we allow to be around them.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by sailingonby

My question is:

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?

Emphasis added. The question itself is problemmatic.

What is our interest in keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys? If someone is a tax cheat, or doesn't pay his parking tickets, or has two DUIs, or uses MJ many weekends, how are you helping anyone by keeping guns out of his hands?

If someone has been adjudicated to be dangerous enough to have this specific civil right revoked, he will know that he is not entitled to legally possess arms and will be subject to prosecution if caught.

Who else needs to have his rights reduced, revoked or ignored?

[lefteye]

The best we can do is be careful who we allow to be around them.

Absolutely true! A law prohibiting an act does not prevent the act. It provides for a penalty if the act is committed. This is part of the price of freedom that we in the United States are willing to pay (thankfully).

[horselips]

Guns are everywhere. There are as many guns as there are automobiles, and billions of rounds of ammunition in civilian stockpiles. Keeping "bad guys" away from guns is like keeping them all away from cars. Knock yourself out. While there are over 320,000,000 guns, there are far fewer problematic people. It is a far simpler matter to concentrate our efforts on the "bad guys." The usual 'BG' starts out small, and over time progresses to lethal force and violence. Very few BGs start out shooting - the rap sheets of gang bangers is usually quite a read.

While it is justice to punish people for their crimes, it is foolish to ignore the character flaws that brought them to commit offenses. Sentencing for crimes should be for specific times under specific conditions, but every criminal convicted of a third misdemeanor or a second felony, violent or not, regardless of his age, should also be given an open-ended sentence wherein to be released he must be found to have reformed, not necessarily religiously, but at least civilly, so that he now has a moral compass and is better able to resist the temptations of life. To give ex-cons a chance to make an honest living, they should have most of their civil rights restored and, with a first release from a character-repair sentence, their records sealed. The right to vote, or bear arms should only be restored after a long period of good behavior.

Preventing the dangerously mentally ill from possessing firearms is a very complicated issue. No one should lose their constitutional rights without due process of law. No medical provider, however well educated and licensed, should have the power to do that. There should be set up a nationwide establishment of mental competency courts, with very well-trained judges, prosecutors and public defenders. A medical provider such as a physician or a psychiatrist or psychologist might refer a patient to such a court, the prosecutor will decide whether to proceed, the patient will be defended by a publicly paid advocate or counsel of his own choosing, and a judge well-versed in the nature of mental handicaps and issues will make an informed decision regarding the patient's 2nd Amendment rights, and even whether he should be institutionalized. Appeals would be allowed.

Whatever we do to keep BGs and the mentally ill away from guns is going to be difficult and very expensive. Of course, imprisoning offenders for decades until they're old and senile works just as well, and is probably just as costly as a new courts system and a dramatic expansion of our mental health facilities.

Or we could all just be armed as we're supposed to be, and shoot the mo'fos when they're seen stepping out of line.

[TXAZ]

Enforce the existing laws.

[Ruger480]

I'm not being facetious when I ask, who are "the bad guys"? It's also not a loaded question.

[JohnKSa]

Freedom comes with disadvantages. People are free to use their freedom foolishly or even criminally and until they break the law, there's not much that can be done.

You can restrict the freedom of everyone to try to catch some of the few before they kill someone with malice or foolishness, but obviously there has to be a balance. Restricting EVERYONE heavily to catch a FEW people before they commit a crime doesn't make sense.

If you want freedom, then you have to take the good with the bad. That means accepting that sometimes a person is going to use their freedom foolishly, perhaps injuring or killing others in the process. That means accepting that sometimes a person will use their freedom to acquire a gun, a car, a hammer, a computer, or a knife and then do something illegal with it.

The alternative is coming up with ways to restrict the rights of people who haven't yet committed crimes in hopes that the loss of freedom that everyone suffers is balanced by the reduced chance of crimes.

[Ruger480]

To the OP, I think that you're asking the wrong questions. Preventing gun violence is infinitely more difficult than restricting access to firearms. You need to look at categorizing (not stereotyping) who commits the majority of these acts and then begin a process to changing the environment that creates people that fit in that category.

And if you say "that's too difficult" then I can't believe you are really looking to correct the problem but rather trying to accomplish some other goal.

As previously mentioned, we have enough laws on the books as it is. Imposing stiffer penalties doesn't really get to the heart of the matter either. It may deter a few but most are past the point of fearing legal repercussions anyway.

I could go on but I suspect that you're already aware on some subconscious level what's really involved here.

Good luck to you.

[Pond, James Pond]

Keeping guns out of criminals' hands is essentially reducing "gun crime".

So my question here would be: why only "gun crime"? Why this subset of criminal behaviour?

So my view is reduce crime. No easy task. Nor is reducing "gun crime". The difference is that "gun crime" is far easy to be seen to be addressing even if actions taken are pretty inconsequential (read "gun control" initiatives: big on media impact, small on actual effects).

The other problem is that the electorate are so used to instant gratification when it comes to their wants and needs, they often don't want to wait. Truly turning around a social woe such as endemic crime takes a loooong time. It takes investment and time. However, I believe that over time it is cheaper than incarceration and the other associated costs of having members of the population working against society rather than with it. I believe education is largely the key. As I said, the benefits would take a while to filter through.

Incarceration, I don't believe, is that effective. Sometimes absolutely necessary, but I don't believe it serves as a particularly good deterrent. So it all boils down to how you see incarceration: as a punishment "eye for an eye" reprisal, or a means of improving society by dissuading crime in those thinking of a life of crime or readjusting those who have committed crime so they can benefit society, not strain it...

So, if we try to reduce "gun crime", the government should be looking at all street crime, not solely one aspect thus suggesting the rest is somehow not relevant/worthy. They should pay attention to the suppliers of guns particularly.

Furthermore, the public should acknowledge that guns do get stolen and make that harder for the opportunist thief by locking guns up and not leaving them in vehicles.

MHO.

[Koda94]

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?

If we cant trust an individual with a gun he shouldn’t be free in society, considering the greater majority of violent criminals already have a record...


We also need to repeal many of these gun control laws, at the very top of the list is get rid of all "gun free" zone laws which not only are not effective or working GFZ laws are having the opposite effect of kill zones.

[Pond, James Pond]

If we cant trust an individual with a gun he shouldn’t be free in society

That is a heck of a statement!

Define "trust".
Who's the arbiter of trust going to be?

"Shouldn't be free...."
Are you talking imprisonment or some other curtailment of freedoms?
If yes, that would be imprisonment without having committed a crime, just because we don't trust someone?
Isn't that the precise argument of anti-gun groups: that the public can't be trusted with guns?

[Brit]

I have heard the following statement, more than once.

ONLY A GOOD GUY WITH A GUN, CAN STOP A BAD GUY WITH A GUN!

I believe in this, whether the good guy is a Police Officer, or a Law abiding Citizen, is a mute point.

Yet no one who makes the rules, believes this, do they?

[TXAZ]

Under Rudy Giuliani NYC noticed a dramatic drop in crime when they started arresting known criminals for any minor crime.

Ironically, so did Texas west of the Pecos river under Judge Roy Bean in the late 1800's. Except he hung them. That may be a bit extreme but enforcing existing laws works.

[Koda94]

Pond, Im only talking about not releasing someone already convicted of violent crimes.

...and I know its complicated and the current system be overhauled wich isnt likely to happen. We need a better system to convict individuals for violent crimes instead of issuing ineffective restraining orders.

yes, its complicated (and Im stuck replying from my phone today to type out long replies....)

[BarryLee]

A couple of folks have mentioned that incarceration is not an effective deterrent. Well, to some extent I agree I suspect most criminals never expect to get caught; so the potential penalty of their crime has no bearing on their decision to commit a crime. However, if the criminal is in a penitentiary somewhere he is very effectively deterred from stealing my car, breaking into my house or assaulting my loved ones. Bottom line there is point where people lose their walking around privileges and need to be in prison for a long time.