Gun Compromises.

One of the phrases I've heard a few times in the discussions on this forum and in the media is the need to compromise on the gun issue. However, it seems that most of the time the suggested compromises are one sided. For example one side might say we need to limit magazines to 10 rounds. The current "limit" is the sky. One could argue that the compromise is 20 rounds. But that is basically one side giving (a reduction in magazine capacity) for nothing the expectation no one will later say we need a further reduction. This is the same as asking a man with money to compromise and split his money with a man who has none.

So what I'm wondering is what are things that might strike a real compromise. Certainly gun advocates aren't happy with all the current gun laws. For example some states have may issue carry laws. Others like NJ have, arguably, excessive AW laws. So, if we for discussion sake assume there will be no slippery slope issues, what might make for a good compromise? What pro-gun changes might make up for some of the laws the gun control people want?

One I think might be a reasonable "pro-gun" offer would be expanding concealed carry. Perhaps we could have a federal level CC permit. It would be harder to get than a state level permit and might have more hoops to jump through (more rules and checks and cost) but it would be a shall issue (after more extensive BGC). With this permit you can carry in every state and in any gun free zone that doesn't currently have armed security.

Another might be some federal mandate on the minimum/maximum level of gun restrictions allowed. For example, we might decide that safety standards beyond the federal standard are not allowed thus CA's safe gun list would be abolished. Another might be a rule that states can not have magazine limited less than the federal level if one is established. So while some states might find them selves facing stricter gun laws with new federal laws, states like NY, IL and other might find their gun laws are relaxed.

A true compromise means both sides get something. What do people think would make for a true compromise on this issue?

To the anti 2nd amendment group, there is no compromise. They will outdo each other to come up with the most restrict laws, laws that only effect law abiding citizens and will do nothing to stop the crazy from going on a shooting spree.

compromise = slowly whittling away your rights until they are gone.
Say that the sum of your rights=100

compromise one: reduce your rights 50% to 50
compromise two (after we are comfortable with compromise one): reduce your rights 50% to 25
compromise three (after we are comfortable with compromise two): reduce your rights 50% to 12.5
compromise four (after we are comfortable with compromise three): reduce your rights 50% to 6.5
compromise five: no compromise, the right gets eliminated. after all 6.5 was almost nothing anyways.

Quote from onscreen : One of the phrases I've heard a few times in the discussions on this forum and in the media is the need to compromise on the gun issue. However, it seems that most of the time the suggested compromises are one sided. For example one side might say we need to limit magazines to 10 rounds. The current "limit" is the sky. One could argue that the compromise is 20 rounds. But that is basically one side giving (a reduction in magazine capacity) for nothing the expectation no one will later say we need a further reduction. This is the same as asking a man with money to compromise and split his money with a man who has none.

It looks like "compromise" is probably not an accurate word to describe gun regluation proposals since the gun lobby has not really stepped up to the plate with any effective suggestions of its own. They've even pulled back on support for background checks. There are a flood of dangerous weapons in the U.S. that put all of us a breath away from an idiot or mentally ill person inflicting mass death. It is past time to erect some barriers to this happening, with or without compromise.

Quote from roughnready : There are a flood of dangerous weapons in the U.S. that put all of us a breath away from an idiot or mentally ill person inflicting mass death. It is past time to erect some barriers to this happening, with or without compromise.

A woman talking on her cell could drive head on into you, a crazy guy could smash open the back of your skull with a rock. Guns are keeping you safe more than putting you in danger. But go ahead, dismantle the rule of law and see how safe you end up.

Quote from pur : A woman talking on her cell could drive head on into you, a crazy guy could smash open the back of your skull with a rock.

I wonder what kind of death and casualty the Newtown shooter could have inflicted with a rock. Moreover, it is not the fact that an object can kill a person that makes it important. It is the fact that it was specifically designed to kill fast and easily that does.

Quote from roughnready : There are a flood of dangerous weapons in the U.S. that put all of us a breath away from an idiot or mentally ill person inflicting mass death. It is past time to erect some barriers to this happening, with or without compromise.

This begs the question of why not simply place barriers to preclude idiots and nutjobs from gaining access to the weapons? We need effective management of those that shouldn't be able to access weapons in the first place, rather than prohibit the vast majority of people that can handle their weapons responsibly.

Considering how many weapons are out there, and the occurrence rate of people erroneously/maliciously shot... It's quite apparent that the vast majority of gun owners are not the problem. It's the fringe idiots and crazies that are.

Quote from roughnready : I wonder what kind of death and casualty the Newtown shooter could have inflicted with a rock. Moreover, it is not the fact that an object can kill a person that makes it important. It is the fact that it was specifically designed to kill fast and easily that does.

Is it design or is it efficacy that is the real concern? A bit of practical science and a trip to either a place like home depot or lowes... Or even the supermarket... One could create items that could kill far more people and far more quickly than any firearm. But, such items would not be practical for home defense.

It's not what an item can do that is the problem, it is the person that chooses to make it do that is. A car when used properly is a form of transportation, or when used maliciously/carelessly is a deadly weapon. A firearm is a recreational item, or a self defense item, unless abused. The key here is when an item is abused, it is a problem.

The problems all stem from the operator, and the choice of use made by them. Just like the car, the firearm is only a weapon of aggression when the operator chooses to make it one.

Quote from roughnready : It looks like "compromise" is probably not an accurate word to describe gun regluation proposals since the gun lobby has not really stepped up to the plate with any effective suggestions of its own. They've even pulled back on support for background checks. There are a flood of dangerous weapons in the U.S. that put all of us a breath away from an idiot or mentally ill person inflicting mass death. It is past time to erect some barriers to this happening, with or without compromise.

I agree that compromise is not the correct term because it is often a one sided discussion revolving around one side giving with nothing exchanged.

The pro-gun side is in favor of better information in the BGC system as well as "common sense" ideas like allowing people on the no buy list to review why they are on it and offer a clear appeals process to get off the list.

Some of the other things like magazine limits and AWBs are things that people haven't been willing to compromise on because they think they aren't going to be effective. There certainly is logic in refusing a suggestion that will negatively impact that law abiding while not reducing the crime.

However, that wasn't the point of the thread. What I was wondering about is if this were treated as a true give and take. The take might be an AWB or might be a magazine limit (I leave it to the individual poster to suggest the take). So what is the give? There are certainly things the pro-gun side would like. I also think there might be things the pro-gun side would want more than what is currently legal. For example I do think that expansion of the rights of carry permits and some basic limits regarding the limits local governments can subject gun owners to would be a worth while thing. I think the common good would be better with say a 10 round magazine limit but carry laws that create a federally recognized carry permit that would allow carry in places like schools and other "gun free zones". This permit could have a higher bar than some state permits but it would allow people in NY and Chicago to get permits even though the local officials have tried to restrict that right.

I do understand that some will feel that because we are talking about rights, bargaining with rights is simply wrong. You either have them or they are infringed. I also understand that accepting some of these limits can result in a slippery slope. I'm asking that we ignore those issues.

The gun rights side has been asked to give for the sake of compromise. What might the other side offer in turn?

BTW, as a correction, the NRA did NOT flip flop on BGCs. What the NRA suggested after the Columbine shootings was a BGC at gun shows. So any gun show would have to provide facilities for private sellers, who are far less numerous that people might think, to run BGCs through an FFL when selling to a private buyer at the gun show. Note that a private seller, selling to an FFL doesn't have to run a BGC since the FFL is considered to be clean. The NRA never supported universal background checks. The ads and articles that claim they did are dishonest.

I would accept a reduction of magazine capacity to 20 rounds, if silencers were removed from being NFA and no longer requiring a tax stamp. However, I also recognize that should one use a silencer in commission of a crime, that they should receive a stiffer penalty were this to happen.

Silencers would be useful in home defense, as they would remove/reduce the need for hearing protection in a confined space. Which would be really handy, should a 2AM intruder need to be dealt with.

Quote from JackHandey : This begs the question of why not simply place barriers to preclude idiots and nutjobs from gaining access to the weapons? We need effective management of those that shouldn't be able to access weapons in the first place, rather than prohibit the vast majority of people that can handle their weapons responsibly.

I kinda agree. Let's place barriers.

There are some who would like to see guns disappear from our society. But there are some who would be happy if we did everything possible to deny those who should not have guns access to guns. To that end some have been asking for BGCs on every purchase only to see NRA come against them.

Yes, suppressors should REALLY be taken off the NFA lists and really should be encuraged for range use. Contrary to what many think, silencers don't make guns silent. Often what they do is reduce the noise levels from 'instant hearing damage' to 'potential for hearing damage'. Taking them off the list would be a compromise position.

Better info in the BGCs would be a good idea along with a system that made appeals easier to run. In a recent thread I saw a person who was denied the right to buy a gun for reasons of mental competency. The person had been a ward of the state as a child. As she described it, at age 15 another girl in the home claimed she was suicidal. This of course started the hole mental process off. It was later decided that she was not and the other girl had made the story up. However, no one took that off her record (where ever that record is kept). So now she is in her early 20s. She wants to buy a gun but can't. She needs to have that lifted from her record. Normally this is something a parent could help with but her "parent" was a state. Now she can't find the right people to clear the paperwork without a lawyer she can't afford.

So it would seem in this case we have someone who shouldn't be on the list but is. That wouldn't be a big deal if getting things cleared up was easier. Hence, a good compromise would be tighter list but with a clear appeals process for those who don't know why or disagree with why they are denied.

This BTW would be separate from the idea of universal BGC. That, unlike simply having better info on the list may not prove as effective as some claim. Also, the current system includes a record of the gun, not just the buyer. Perhaps a compromise on the universal BGC would be private sellers would have a way to check the background but no SN info would be recorded. A universal BGC system without protections to keep the government from tracking who owns what is a dangerous thing.

Quote from roughnready : It looks like "compromise" is probably not an accurate word to describe gun regluation proposals since the gun lobby has not really stepped up to the plate with any effective suggestions of its own. They've even pulled back on support for background checks. There are a flood of dangerous weapons in the U.S. that put all of us a breath away from an idiot or mentally ill person inflicting mass death. It is past time to erect some barriers to this happening, with or without compromise.

Have you looked at the actual data on firearms? Violent crime has been decreasing. Accidental firearm related deaths are at an all time low. Suggestions for what? The NRA proposed armed guards. I would propose lifting "gun free zone" laws since all mass shootings but 1 since 1950 have occurred where guns are banned.

Barriers? How about we enforce the 20,000 gun control laws we currently have, and enforce them uniformly, consistently, and effectively? Cho (VT shooter) shouldn't have passed the BGC, but did b/c we don't do a good job with the laws we have. Violence is illegal, as is the purchase, sale, ownership, carriage, and use of a firearm by violent criminals and other prohibited persons.

Quote from onscreen : Yes, suppressors should REALLY be taken off the NFA lists and really should be encuraged for range use. Contrary to what many think, silencers don't make guns silent. Often what they do is reduce the noise levels from 'instant hearing damage' to 'potential for hearing damage'. Taking them off the list would be a compromise position.

Agreed. Why do we need to damage our hearing? I'm tired of banning or taxing things simply b/c they could be used to commit violent acts. Everything, including bare hands, can be used to commit violent acts. We should be innocent until proven guilty, not all presumed violent criminals. We don't do this for the 1A or any other item in the BOR. The NFA of 1934 needs to be repealed, and if the gun control lobby or Obama really believed in compromise, they would offer this up. They have offered up nothing.

Quote : Also, the current system includes a record of the gun, not just the buyer. Perhaps a compromise on the universal BGC would be private sellers would have a way to check the background but no SN info would be recorded. A universal BGC system without protections to keep the government from tracking who owns what is a dangerous thing.

This is the major problem that many people have with universal BGCs. If it's all about keeping criminals from buying guns, then why do we need to record the SN? Moreover, BGCs are guilty until proven innocent. That's another issue people have.

Plus, BGCs failed to stop the VT shooter, for example, and are not well enforced currently. Expanding a poorly enforced law doesn't make a lot of sense. We should first enforce what we have before passing more unenforced laws.

Fortunately, we have states the will NEVER compromise. Texas is one of them along with a few others that are floating bills that would make the enforcement of any new federal gun laws illegal subject to imprisonment. Effectively negating the laws. These are good first steps in bringing the out of control federal government down to reality. Simply start negating their unconstitutional and illegal laws at a local level. There really can be no compromise when you look at the incremental steps that are being taken to total disarmament. As they say, molon labe!