How can we regulate guns ... ?

I can personally attest to this post. My friends ex-husband was shot and killed by the local police a few years ago. He had a party at his house, he became intoxicated and started a fight with a guest.The guest beat him up, so he went to the bed room and got his pistol. The guest left and called the police.The police arrived and the ex-husband came from the rear of the house brandishing the pistol.
This was at night, the police gave warning and then fired and killed him.

The original post was:

quote:

---

I'd like to shift the focus to ways to regulate guns:

​

1. so that legitimate users can fulfill their needs
   1. hunters
   2. collectors
   3. self defense proponents
   4. security people
   5. police
2. so that a well regulated state militias can be maintained (per the constitution)
   1. National Guard
   2. constitutional militia organizations
   3. gun club militia organizations⁽¹⁾
   4. general population
3. so that non-legitimate use can be reduced from
   1. criminals
   2. irrational/delusional/unstable people
   3. people under the influence of drugs, alcohol, rage

​

For the sake of argument on this thread, it is taken as given that fewer unregulated guns in the hands of fewer untrained people will result in fewer deaths (accidental and intentional), so the purpose is to achieve that end.

​

​

Gun deaths, including mass murder rampages, will still occur even with very strict regulations.

​

​

But regulations do reduce the overall incidence of these deaths, and that is the goal.

​

So what are your proposals for gun regulation?

---

and it also included references in the constitution to militias and arms:

quote:

---

⁽¹⁾ - "gun club militias" would be all those groups that do not fit the constitional definition of militia -- ie as detailed here:

​

http://congressionalconstitutioncaucus-garr.../...nstitution

​

quote:

---

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

​

Article I Section 8 - The Congress shall have Power ...

​

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

​

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

​

Article II Section 2 - The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, ...

​

Amendment II - A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

---

---

Enjoy

Not directly. The right of citizens to arm themselves goes back even to Aristotle.The English Bill of Rights identified the right of the people to arm themselves as a Natural Right, as opposed to the Divine Right of Kings.The modern understanding is that the peoples' right to arms applies to those of normal usage in the specific time. So for today in the US, that includes guns. No. No rights are absolute and unlimited. We can use that kind of info to determine which guns we should be allowed to have and which ones we shouldn't. That's part of the topic of this thread. I'm not the one grasping at poor data and applying logical fallacies to maintain my position. You have the Natural Right to own the arms that are normal usage of today. That doesn't mean you can do anything you want with them.That it is illegal to carry a firearm within the city limits of St. Louis does not infringe on my right to own a firearm.

Not the same thing is it. Unless of course Ari and his buddies had firearms.Also, there is a HUGE difference between "right of citizens" and "natural rights".
Take a look.
Natural and legal rights But you seem to be very confused about natural rights and legal rights. Methinks you need to read some philosophy. You have not shown this to be true. As you don't know the difference between legal and natural rights I am not sure I can just take your word on this.

The sort of gun regulations being proposed in this thread would bring the US more in line with what is considered "normal usage" across the rest of the Western world.If your "natural rights" argument equates to weapons use being limited to that which is deemed "normal usage" then the sort of weapons that have been used in recent massacres would be highly regulated and highly restricted.So your "normal usage" argument would seem to bring you down firmly on the side of much tighter gun controls in the US.Welcome aboard.

Let's look at some facts, rather than a propaganda film.From Gun Control in Australia - FactCheck.org So, I guess that propaganda flick had misinformation in it.

TIME TO GET BACK TO THE TOPIC -- HOW WE CAN REGULATE GUNS.See Message 801, Message 809, and Message 864The rest of this discussion should be on the other threadThe topic is "how can we regulate guns" and so the question is what regulations do you think would be able to reduce unwanted gun deaths and injury.What regulations can we make to reduce the numbers of people killed in mass shootings.What regulations can we make to reduce the numbers of people killed in criminal shootings.What regulations can we make to reduce the numbers of people killed in gun accidents.First let me stipulate that I don't think regulations regarding the use of guns for suicide would have a significant impact -- some other means would likely be found. The only thing I can see for this is allowing medically assisted suicide, which would include counseling and approval criteria (incurable painful disease, etc). I don't see the rate of suicides dropping whether regulations are made or not. There may be more survivors without guns, but this is not guaranteed, nor does survival of one attempt mean further attempts will not be made.Second let me stipulate that I don't think regulations regarding premeditated murder with guns would have a significant effect -- some other means would likely be used. I don't see the rate of premeditated murder dropping whether regulations are made or not. Again, there may be more survivors without guns, but this is not guaranteed.I would also note that taking these two categories out of the statistics would reduce gun crime statistics considerably, and we could focus on the real issues where regulations might have some real effect to improve society.For instance I would think that hunters would like to know that other hunters are well trained in the use of their weapons, trained in the task of hunting, and disciplined enough to hunt without causing accidents, that they are using an appropriate weapon for hunting, and that they are properly licensed to hunt. This could be handled through the hunting license process and repeated each year. It could also entail severe legal action on poaching.There is no right to hunt animals.Currently there are bow seasons, black powder seasons and open seasons: would it be appropriate to limit the types of guns and ammunition loading systems that could be used in open seasons? Say I have a rifle that I have to manually load with 5 bullets instead of inserting a loaded clip, would that not be appropriate to use hunting? It takes a couple of minutes to reload, plenty of time while waiting for another deer, yes?Personally, if I couldn't hit my target animal with 5 shots, then I would consider myself such a lousy shot that I would be better off spending time at a target gallery to improve my ability. Would you agree?If I couldn't get a consistent bullseye - say I had parkinsons and my hands shake too much - should I be allowed to hunt with a semi-automatic gun?Similarly with self defense, I would think that self defense advocates would like to know that other self defense advocates are well trained in the use of their weapons, trained in the task of self defense, disciplined enough to defend themselves without causing accidents, that they are using an appropriate weapon for self defense, and that they are properly licensed for self defense. This could be handled through the self defense gun license process and repeated each year. It could also entail severe legal action that was not self defense.There is no right to hunt criminals, that is the job of the police.There is no right to shoot people when there is no direct clear and present danger to you personally. So what regulations do you think could be established to improve things?Enjoy.

3 Common-Sense Gun Laws That Are Popular With Everyone (Including Republicans) - Upworthy

quote:

---

3 Common-Sense Gun Laws That Are Popular With Everyone (Including Republicans)

​

America isn't nearly as divided on common-sense gun policy as cable news would lead you to believe. Here are three regulations Congress could enact right now with broad public support.

​

---

So we should pass universal background checks on all gun sales, mental health restrictions, and set up a national database to track gun sales. Majority of Americans support some form of gun control.

quote:

---

Here are 5 proposals that make sense to a lot of Americans according to the above poll. They also have the support of a lot of gun owners.
1. Universal background checks.
Supported by 86% of gun owners polled.

​

2. Background checks for ammunition purchasing.
Supported by 67% of gun owners polled.

​

3. Ban on extended magazines.
Supported by 55% of gun owners polled.

​

4. Gun database.
Supported by 62%

​

5. Assault weapons ban.
Supported by 45% of gun owners polled and 58% of people polled.

---

The numbers speak for themselves. This is also the kind of response I get from gun owning\friendly friends. Your first link:

quote:

---

Administration aides have said that the president is likely to call for renewing the ban on the most powerful rifles, even in the face of heavy opposition from the National Rifle Association. In the poll, 58 percent of Americans support the ban, which expired in 2004 after 10 years; 39 percent oppose it.

---

I also found these survey results instructive: ABC Poll Results (page down):Q: For each item I name, please tell me how much, if at all, you think it contributes to gun violence in this country:

• the availability of semi-automatic handguns? NET Great deal/Somewhat 69%
• the availability of assault weapons? NET Great deal/Somewhat 73%
• the availability of high-capacity ammunition clips? NET Great deal/Somewhat 70%
• inadequate background checks before guns are sold? NET Great deal/Somewhat 83%
• violence in TV programs, movies and video games? NET Great deal/Somewhat 72%
• inadequate treatment of mentally ill people? NET Great deal/Somewhat 85%
• lack of individual responsibility by gun owners? NET Great deal/Somewhat 83%

Enjoy

To get back to the meat of guns used in crime in the inner city:People who own the guns should be liable for criminal & civil lawsuits and criminal MANDATORY jail time penalties for being the last legal owner of any gun used in a crime. You own it, you prevent it from getting out into the criminal world.Period.Guns should not be allowed to be manufactured and sold unless the paperwork for the legal buyer has been made, and so that a traceback can ALWAYS be made to the last legal buyer.

Criminal liability based on strict liability is complete unrealistic, in my view. Criminal liability, and in criminal liability resulting particular jail time, can only attach with a showing of at least a mental state of negligence. Anything less is likely unconstitutional under the fifth amendment.

NoNukes offers: No.The liability of owning a gun should be SO HUGE! Insurance companies should rub their hands. You own a gun capable of mass murder in 10 seconds? - well, that will cost you. Republicans always talk about personal responsibility - let's make them put their checkbook where their mouth is.It is reprehensible that the obvious danger of OWNING a gun should go unpunished. Hit 'em in the pocket book. Even more, if they should ever be found to have owned a gun used in a crime, LOCK them up. Period. You buy a gun? You better take care of it.

I understand your position. I just don't think your proposed criminal penalties pass constitutional muster even absent the second amendment. I haven't commented on whether those penalties are a good idea. Civil penalties are a different matter.

You might be right but, I'm not so sure. "Accessory After The Fact" is a felony (jail time) for someone who had no direct involvement in the commission of the crime in question. That's probably a bit of a stretch but stranger things have happened.Also, I'm not sure the courts would object to the doctrine that a stolen/missing handgun used in a crime would show the last legal owner's culpable negligence a priori unless it was reported to authorities in a timely manner.The combination of these two could result in a gun owner doing time if his gun was used in a crime.Not very clear. The combination of these two could result in a law making the gun owner as culpable as the perpetrator in the commission of the crime that would be accepted by the courts. Edited by AZPaul3, : clarityEdited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

In DC v. Heller (2010) the ruled against regulations that required people to store their weapons in a disassembled state and bound by a trigger lock. I think they would also rule against requiring guns to be stored in a locked cabinet. You can not have laws that limit the effectiveness of weapons as part of self defense.There has to be some form of culpability where someone is found to be negligent. Simply having their weapon stolen should not be grounds for jail time, nor should they be sent away for lawfully selling their gun under the correct regulations.We can use cars as an analogy. If a car dealer sells a car without knowing that it will be used in a crime then they are not held liable. If someone has their car stolen they are not held liable for the crimes that the thieves commit while using that car. However, if you supply a car knowing that it will be used in a crime, or illegally sell a car to people you know are criminals, then you are in deep trouble. The same should apply to guns. We should be able to trace guns from birth to grave for this very purpose.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Under what circumstances (other than the first half of your statement) would it be illegal to sell a car to a criminal?