The emerging Biden Proposal

[Beavah]

Yah, since details now seem to be coming out on some of the direction the Biden Proposal is going to take, it seemed like a good time to consolidate some discussion into a new thread. As a favor, I'd ask this thread be used to explore options, tweaks, unintended consequences, parts that should be dropped or enhanced. "Ban all guns" rants or Second Amendment/Dictatorship rants we can perhaps try to confine to da other threads. At least for a day or two.

 

So far, here's what seems to be being floated:

 

1. Background checks for all gun buyers (i.e. closing the private sale / gun show loophole).

 

This one to me seems reasonable, eh? Folks have the ability to do this stuff from their phones now. It's no longer a significant burden to regular citizens.

 

2. Ban on high-capacity clips.

 

I'm not really convinced this accomplishes very much. Slows a fellow down very briefly I suppose; gives law enforcement short windows of time to move safely. Some of the mental cases or amateurs might not be well-skilled in changing clips. On the other side, it does restrict hobbyists a bit (whipping off 100 rounds is ridiculous, but sort of fun in a safe environment), but really doesn't affect home defense, hunting, or sport shooting. Da folks preparin' for zombie apocalypse will scream bloody murder, though. So not much safety gain, not much freedom loss, probably not worth doin' just because of the hullabaloo created by da zombie crowd gettin' in da way of more important items.

 

3. Possibly lifting the restrictions on research

 

Yah, I wasn't even aware that the reason we have so little research on guns and violence is because Congress over time has prevented da CDC and other federal agencies from funding any research or collecting most relevant data. That anti-science stand should be removed entirely. We shouldn't be afraid of information.

 

Notably missing thus far are any efforts toward mental health. Or school guards!

 

Beavah

 

[packsaddle]

I'll try to help with your first goal by editing any rants that come through in the next couple of days.

 

Now for my positive contribution, I'm wondering if there is any record-keeping or reporting requirement for those background checks? Would they be the same for individuals as they are for FFL dealers?

 

I'm still interested in the possibility of enhancing market forces in the gun and ammunition market. I've suggested, in the past, that a hefty tax would provide incentives for different market decisions, and the funds generated could be used to cover the costs of armed guards (just for example).

 

About those armed guards, I suspect that will be left to localities for that decision, at least that's the way it's beginning to look around these parts.

[Brewmeister]

1. Fine, though the challenge is what happens to truly private transactions...me selling a gun to a family member, for instance. Do I need to run a background check? The so-called "gun show loophole" is based on private transactions; dealers at gun shows still have to run checks.

 

2. High capacity magazine bans are useless as columbine proves.

 

3. This is a new one on me! It is stupid to restrict research and I am not a fan of regulation in general.

[sheldonsmom]

Part of the "research" ban is doctors questioning parents about guns in the home and reporting that to authorities. I have had a doctor ask that and, when I refused to answer, he refused to see us any more (since he claimed that meant we might be hiding abuses!). It is none of a doctor's business if we have guns in the home.

[RememberSchiff]

Maybe private sales/transfers are ending, everything goes through a FFL which can cost $25-40 per transaction.

 

So will only police and criminals be using high capacity mags marked LEO (Law Enforcement Only)? As a logistical and political matter, I wonder if the 10 round restriction will extend to police as well? Will the government buy back mags over 10 rounds or pay for rework. Good mags can be $30-50 and hard to find for some model handguns (e.g. Para).

 

I thought the "research" was about video games and movie violence?

 

I read the penalties for straw purchase will increase. Recall Ms DimBulb in the Westport,NY fireman shooting bought firearms for her neighbor, a convicted murderer. Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, straw purchases are currently felonies for both the straw purchaser (who can be charged with lying on Federal Form 4473) and the actual possessor, punishable by a $250,000 fine and 10 years in prison. Some states have similar laws. As I understand Ms. Dimbulb has been charged in both federal and state courts and remains free (that has to change).

 

Due out Tuesday.

 

[Basementdweller]

No idea about the research either. I wonder what research they are refering too? There has been plenty of research on violent video games, movies and music.

 

I see mr schiff is being unreasonable in his progun stance.

 

Research is great as long as it is unbiased and that is virtually impossible.

 

 

So sheldonmom, why wouldn't you tell the doctor whether you have guns in your house???? If this is the same questionnaire I answered at my last physical it asked if you wear seat belts and if you own a motorcycle. do you wear a helmet. the question is perfectly reasonable. I answered it honestly. If you can't answer a question like that honestly, then you probably won't answer an intimate one honestly either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[packsaddle]

Brewmeister, about 4 decades ago, I was about to purchase my first handgun. In order to do that I first had to apply for a 'permit to purchase' from the Sheriff. Keep in mind that this is in the South where firearms are held with religious reverence. When I applied for the permit, I was given some really good advice. No matter WHO I purchased the handgun from, from a dealer or from a family member, get a copy of a signed receipt in order to legally establish ownership. This would release the seller from responsibility and transfer that responsibility to the purchaser.

I bought a really nice target pistol from K-Mart for $67. Times sure have changed.

But I think the record keeping aspect of all this is important for many of the same reasons as applied even way back then. The background check is even better. If it costs a little, then that's just the cost of doing this kind of business.

The only wrinkle I can see in all this would be to establish some provision for inheritance of guns. If someone had been placed on a 'no purchase' list, I think we would need some way of addressing a potential inheritance placing guns in the wrong hands, perhaps as part of the execution of the will. Just a thought.

[JoeBob]

sheldonmom and Schiff, be complimented by Basementdweller's smears. It's what happens when your argument can't be answered.

 

I heard this morning that all mass shootings since 1970 have happened in 'gun-free zones' with only one exception. Does anyone know differently?

 

Perhaps the slogan ought to be:

"Guns don't kill people. GUN-FREE ZONES kill people."

 

The Biden proposal will increase penalties for violating a gun-free zone. Anyone care to explain the logic behind that?

[Beavah]

No idea about the research either. I wonder what research they are refering too?

 

There are apparently legislative bans in place that prevent the CDC and other federal agencies from both collecting data and funding independent research. That would be like tellin' the National Institute of Health it can't collect data on or fund research on lung cancer.

 

The Biden proposal will increase penalties for violating a gun-free zone. Anyone care to explain the logic behind that?

 

Sure. Lots of folks get caught with what is believed to be a clear intent to harm carryin' into a gun free zone. Take for example a student whose friend reports that they talked about shootin' people today. Da police stop the lad, an 18-year-old high schooler, and discover he's got two handguns with him goin' into the school. Now what? Yeh can get him on da minor concealed charge, maybe. Or maybe he says he forgot he'd put da guns in his backpack or whatever. But it's frightfully hard to prove intent to harm unless you wait for him to brandish, eh? So this gives another tool to law enforcement and prosecutors in those cases where we (temporarily) prevented a bad thing from happening, and need to pursue it aggressively.

 

I heard this morning that all mass shootings since 1970 have happened in 'gun-free zones' with only one exception. Does anyone know differently?

 

Yah, JoeBob, try the "smell test". Gun-free zone laws only came about in the early 90's. All yeh need to do is pause for a moment and think "Hey, Representative Giffords was shot in a mall parking lot, and there was that other fellow at Ft. Hood" to dismiss this stupid claim. A quick skim of da list of mass shootings from the last 20 years I'd guess GFZ shootings were less than 25%. And of course where would yeh want to construct gun free zones? Well, in places where da risk of shooting was high.

 

You guys really need to stop gettin' your "facts" from lobbyist sources. They make yeh look really goofy.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Basementdweller]

Smears.......your just flat ignorant.....

 

The answer is clear to SM......

 

If she fails to answer a simple question about gun ownership how is she going to answer a question about medical history.......such sensitive and embarrassing issues as sexually transmitted or contracted diseases, personal hygiene, diet or immunization historys.

 

A physician patient relationship is built on trust. SM doesn't trust her doctor so why should he/she trust her.

 

I don't see that I smeared schiff....he is very progun.

 

I agree that the gal in new york should be in jail and held liable for the firearms she purchased......I don't care about the sob story that goes with it.

 

 

 

[Trevorum]

Pack, what kind of change in the price of ammo do you think would have any meaningful effects? 100% surcharge? 500% surcharge?

 

From what I have learned, the NRA has been very successful in lobbying congress to prevent the collection and analysis of firearms related data by government agencies (like the CDC). Methinks they just don't want to let the cat out of the bag. If the Biden Proposal results in ANY action, reversing this ban should be the obvious place start.

[Basementdweller]

Trev.....

 

What do you think the data will show that the NRA is worried about? or is it more of a fear of the unknown????

 

 

[Trevorum]

I have no idea. But let's shine some light there and see.

[JoeBob]

Beavah,

 

Ft Hood was a gun free zone.

 

Through laughing? Weapons and ammunition on military posts are very strictly controlled. You get caught with a stray round of 5.56 in your shirt pocket, and you'll spend time in the brig. The Ft Hood shooter wasn't slowed until the MPs arrived. (BTW: MPs response time is usually much faster than civilian LEOs.)

 

Your scenario of an teenager taking a gun to school being detered by a gun-free zone? Totally invalid:

1- He is already breaking multiple laws and doesn't give a hoot about how many extra years you may want to add because he's in a 'Gun-Free Zone'.

2- Tools for law enforcement? If the penalties for underage possession of a firearm and unlicensed carry don't stop him, Gun Free Zone penatlties won't either.

3- If his school was NOT a Gun Free Zone, and he had no idea of which teachers were carrying what weapons to shoot back at him, he might be deterred, and would certainly be stopped faster than waiting on the locals.

 

basement:

"Smears.......your just flat ignorant..... "

I happily join the list of folks you attempt to demean. (Curious: Do I own 'just flat ignorant'? Or did you mean 'you're'?)

 

You called Schiff 'unreasonable' because he is pro-gun. Trying to prove to us that you have an open mind?

You called sheldonsmom dishonest because she chooses not to tell the healthcare community that she has firearms in the house.

 

Why do they need to know? So they can question your intelligence for owning guns? So an HHS professional (?) can visit your home to see if your guns are locked up? So your health insurance company can charge you more?

 

I I thought my doctor wanted to come over and help me clean my guns, then I'd be glad to share; otherwise, nope.

 

[BS-87]

I think Gun Control in general is a red herring in the issue of these mass shootings.

 

When you look at the problem, it's that mentally ill people are making a decision to acquire the most efficient killing tool they can find and cause as much pain as they possibly can.

 

You can look at limiting their access to these tools, but you'll be forever chasing the next most efficient killing tool, hence why I feel Gun Control as an issue in this matter is a red herring.

 

I'm more inclined to look at other factors that these shooters have in common, and that's mental illness. The way that mental illness is handled in this country is predominantly through medication. Well known side effects of many medications used to treat mood disorders, depression, and hyperactivity include irritability (with rage being the extreme outlier), self-destructive thoughts and actions, and in rarer cases psychosis. What this amounts to in rare cases of the mentally ill is a perfect storm and a person who may feel compelled to act out in a violent manner.

 

How does someone overcome the very human instinctual aversion to manslaughter? http://www.killology.org/article_teachkid.htm

 

There's no doubt that the movies and games people are absorbing today are glorifying brutal behavior. Responsible use of this "entertainment" is certainly possible for healthy, adjusted adults, but definitely is not appropriate for young people. The current system of placing warnings and controls on these materials is definitely NOT working.

 

So how do I feel we go about addressing these violence enabling triggers for what ties a majority (but not all by any means) of the recent acts of mass violence?

 

It's really tough to say. Some might call for a national registry of the mentally ill, but I'm definitely not interested in another bureaucratic control on the people as a whole. I'm also leary to allow the government the ability to legislate defining who's mentally ill and who is not.

 

I just know that we'd get a lot further in preventing these incidents having honest discussions about the cause than having discussions about the tools.