What are the common sense gun laws, what should be changed?

Quote from Elmer : Common sense gun laws, would be laws that are enforced, and prosecuted. The thousands upon thousands of federal, state, and local gun laws that exist now, should be enough to make even the most fervent anti gun crusader ecstatic. Instead, they are either duped by politicians and anti gun organizations into believing that it's the lack of more effective laws that is the problem, or they're part of the scam themselves. There is no shortage of existing gun law violators available to easily prosecute, that are not being prosecuted now. The vast majority of the acts anti gun groups wail about, are already illegal, often covered by multiple laws, both federal and state. They, in conjunction with anti gun politicians, and their political appointee police administrators, invent a scenario of law enforcement stymied by loopholes, etc., that doesn't exist. The only national group that has consistently called for, lobbied for, and helped write laws to facilitate, aggressively enforcing existing laws on those who misuse guns, is the NRA. The question those who are genuinely concerned about gun violence should ask is, why is that?

Whenever I hear politicians use the phrase "common sense," I cringe. It usually means that what they're suggesting defies logic, evidence-based research, and historical evidence and will likely violate your Constitutional rights.

Quote : "Common sense is not so common." * Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique (1764)

Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] actually sums it up:

Quote : The concept of common sense is a long-standing term, based on human experience and people's individual perceptions. Thus, common sense is different from person to person – common sense is not common.

Quote from skiman : 371 Registration and checks at each transfer of ownership to effectively regulate the secondary market. A person should meet the same standard for ownership whether they purchase a gun from a licensed retailer, or from their neighbors.

Criminals won't (and already don't in states where it's required) register their illegally-owned firearms. Moreover, registration is a necessary precursor to confiscation, which is why many people oppose it. More people have been killed by their own governments than in wars.

Background checks most people don't have a problem with, but storage of names, addresses, and firearm types of law-abiding citizens by the government is where things get ugly.

All of this, of course, is notwithstanding the fact that banning inanimate objects in this country doesn't work, as history repeatedly shows us. Prohibition didn't stop alcohol (and led to the first federal gun control law), the war on drugs hasn't stopped drugs (and has led to more gun control laws, most of which are not enforced adequately), and banning guns (let alone background checks & registration) won't eliminate guns, especially when there are 300 million already in existence. You can't un-invent something.

Quote from AlfredoGarcia : All of this, of course, is notwithstanding the fact that banning inanimate objects in this country doesn't work, as history repeatedly shows us.

asbestos
lead

Quote from TRNT : asbestos lead

Both still in use.

Quote from Dr. J : I really have no problem with this. Let's say that the legal owner (e.g. registered purchaser) of a weapon gives/sells it to another and they commit a crime - the original owner should face severe penalties, just as if it were a straw purchase (e.g. a purchase with the specific intent of bypassing control laws); this liability should serve as deterrent to transferring ownership without performing BGCs (which an FFL could facilitate).

If I sell my car to a random person who then uses it as a getaway car in a robbery, am I liable for that too?

Speaking of, should we ban sales of cars to felons? They might use the cars for nefarious purposes.

Quote from gunnerusa : It seems to me that it ought to be at least as difficult to obtain the necessary credentials to legally operate a machine designed for homicide (a firearm) as it is to legally operate a machine designed for transportation (a vehicle).

Sorry, arms are a right, not a privilege.

Here's my credentials right here:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/...ution.html

Quote from Dr. J : In CT you can "possess" a handgun without permit (I guess, eg. if you inherit one, otherwise I don't know how you'd get one) however to purchase one you need a permit [ct.gov]. They do have "purchase" permits (so-called "eligibility permit") (and keep at home, not to carry), but the requirements are essentially the same as a CCW permit (same NRA course, same fingerprint/BGC process).

I have to get fingerprinted in order to buy a handgun? What planet is Connecticut on?

Quote from Dumpsterdiver : Both still in use.

Not in household paint or in household insulation.

Quote from TRNT : asbestos lead

You're talking about regulations for diseases caused by a known toxin (with supporting evidence-based research and no protection in the Bill of Rights), not outright bans of something (w/o supporting evidence-based research and with protection in the Bill of Rights) in an effort to influence human morality or behavior. Different topic. As pointed out, both are still in use. Lead is used regularly, just not in household paint b/c of children eating paint chips and getting lead toxicity. For example, many types of ammunition use lead, which is why indoor ranges have to have sophisticated HEPA filtration systems. This just shows that when used safely, the threat is removed. My neighbors still have asbestos siding on their house underneath vinyl siding.

Being shot is not a toxin-induced disease and is illegal. Accidental firearm-related deaths are at an all time low, and more children are killed by swimming pools, household chemicals, and other accidents.

Moreover, banning guns b/c someone might commit violent acts with them defies the "innocent until proven guilty" foundation of our legal system. Yes, someone might commit violent acts with a gun.... or a car, knife, baseball bat, hammer, axe, gasoline, etc. That doesn't mean we ban them b/c they might be used for bad. I also think the TSA routinely violating our 4th Amendment rights is another violation of this premise. We are all treated as terrorists until proven otherwise.

Then there are the "military style" references. Basically, the people who know the least about guns write these rules. They are largely based on aesthetics. If a gun is black and has some feature that makes it look scary or "military," (even if it's not remotely like anything military, and regardless of it's caliber or action), it's banned. You could take a much more powerful, much more accurate gun with the same receiver and action, but put a wood stock on it and it's now suddenly not "military style" or scary looking enough to ban. These laws defy logic. As you said yourself, you know very little about firearms. The same is true of Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Biden, Bloomberg, et al. So why are they the ones writing the laws? We already fail to enforce our 20,000 gun control laws already in place.

Quote from AlfredoGarcia : Whenever I hear politicians use the phrase "common sense," I cringe. It usually means that what they're suggesting defies logic, evidence-based research, and historical evidence and will likely violate your Constitutional rights.

Founding Father Thomas Paine must surely cringe in his grave to see such words.

Quote from AlfredoGarcia : You're talking about regulations for diseases caused by a known toxin (with supporting evidence-based research and no protection in the Bill of Rights), not outright bans of something (w/o supporting evidence-based research and with protection in the Bill of Rights) in an effort to influence human morality or behavior. Different topic. As pointed out, both are still in use. Lead is used regularly, just not in household paint b/c of children eating paint chips and getting lead toxicity. For example, many types of ammunition use lead, which is why indoor ranges have to have sophisticated HEPA filtration systems. This just shows that when used safely, the threat is removed. My neighbors still have asbestos siding on their house underneath vinyl siding. Being shot is not a toxin-induced disease and is illegal. Accidental firearm-related deaths are at an all time low, and more children are killed by swimming pools, household chemicals, and other accidents. Moreover, banning guns b/c someone might commit violent acts with them defies the "innocent until proven guilty" foundation of our legal system. Yes, someone might commit violent acts with a gun.... or a car, knife, baseball bat, hammer, axe, gasoline, etc. That doesn't mean we ban them b/c they might be used for bad. I also think the TSA routinely violating our 4th Amendment rights is another violation of this premise. We are all treated as terrorists until proven otherwise. Then there are the "military style" references. Basically, the people who know the least about guns write these rules. They are largely based on aesthetics. If a gun is black and has some feature that makes it look scary or "military," (even if it's not remotely like anything military, and regardless of it's caliber or action), it's banned. You could take a much more powerful, much more accurate gun with the same receiver and action, but put a wood stock on it and it's now suddenly not "military style" or scary looking enough to ban. These laws defy logic. As you said yourself, you know very little about firearms. The same is true of Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Biden, Bloomberg, et al. So why are they the ones writing the laws? We already fail to enforce our 20,000 gun control laws already in place.

Someone claimed banning inanimate objects do not work. I responded to that specific and narrow claim.

Quote from TRNT : Someone claimed banning inanimate objects do not work. I responded to that specific and narrow claim.

They are not banned in the sense that possessing them is not a crime (as it is with drugs, as it was with alcohol, and as some would like to see with guns). I can go out and buy a block of lead, or some asbestos-laden insulation, without fear of going to jail. Poor comparison there.

Quote from Rebound : Founding Father Thomas Paine must surely cringe in his grave to see such words.

So he may, but the phrase is used now to desecrate the Constitution with impunity. Moreover, it's highly subjective. Everything almost any politician wants to pass is sold as "a common sense measure." Even bill titles are absurdly loaded these days (the "protecting our children from the [insert whatever you're trying to vilify here] bill"). Then they can claim, "[insert name here] voted against protecting our children!" in political ads.

Quote from mmathis : They are not banned in the sense that possessing them is not a crime (as it is with drugs, as it was with alcohol, and as some would like to see with guns). I can go out and buy a block of lead, or some asbestos-laden insulation, without fear of going to jail. Poor comparison there.

Freon?

Quote from TRNT : Freon?

Do all these things you're randomly tossing out have an amendment in The Constitution specifically saying they are not to be infringed?

And, yes, anyone can buy various versions of freon.

Quote from trnt : freon?

2030.

Quote from TRNT : Not in household paint or in household insulation.

I can buy household paint and insulation.