Gun Compromises.

Quote from onscreen : I do find it interesting that some of the more aggressive anti-gun people on this forum haven't suggested any compromises. One has simply reiterated concerns regarding the lack of universal background checks. A few of the others have been AWOL. Would it be correct to assume they don't like compromise?

What is your definition of "compromise"? Anti-gunners have nothing to offer, so what is going to be compromised? It is all give on the pro-gun side and all take on the anti-gun side.

Quote from onscreen : I do find it interesting that some of the more aggressive anti-gun people on this forum haven't suggested any compromises. One has simply reiterated concerns regarding the lack of universal background checks. A few of the others have been AWOL. Would it be correct to assume they don't like compromise?

Part of your premise (or "compromise") is that there are *more* gun rights that should be granted. There aren't many gun control advocates who think that the pendulum needs to swing that way. Most would say their primary interest is in reducing firearms deaths, not in making some kind of policy bargain.

There was a compromise of sorts in the Credit Card Act of 2009 that allowed guns in national parks, but I think most gun control advocates would call that a huge mistake.

Quote from TRNT : Hmm.......I wonder how many other people think that. I wonder how many people think that a person can "just walk into" a place (say a gun show) "and walk out with a gun." If that were true, it would have been truly reprehensible.

See the comments above regarding BGCs. They're not well enforced now, so expanding them won't change that. They'll lead to registration unless they take information about the firearm off the form 4473, which they likely won't compromise and do. If they did the latter, they'd find a lot more support for it. Cho (VT shooter) passed an NICS BGC but shouldn't have.

Should we have BGCs for other exercises of our rights outlined in the Bill of Rights? Should we have to demonstrate that our free speech isn't harmful or hurtful before we say it? Should we fill out a form with the gov't to make sure we're permitted to exercise our rights?

You seem fixated on this "loophole". There were no loopholes for drugs during the "war on drugs" and none for alcohol during prohibition, but they were both available everywhere. Closing your "loophole" won't stop availability of guns to criminals. It sounds good at first glance, but when you examine it more deeply, it won't be enforced well or uniformly, it won't effect the black market, and it is merely guilt until proven innocence to exercise one's Constitutional rights.

Quote from roughnready : Part of your premise (or "compromise") is that there are *more* gun rights that should be granted. There aren't many gun control advocates who think that the pendulum needs to swing that way. Most would say their primary interest is in reducing firearms deaths, not in making some kind of policy bargain. There was a compromise of sorts in the Credit Card Act of 2009 that allowed guns in national parks, but I think most gun control advocates would call that a huge mistake.

Compromise means both sides give on something. Gun control advocates don't want the pendulum swinging one way and gun owners don't want it swinging the other. Both sides want to reduce violence. You act as though only gun control advocates want that. I want 0 acts of violence and 0 criminals with guns. Unfortunately, neither of those will happen.

Violent crime has been decreasing. Despite decades of evidence-based research on the subject, no one has been able to show that gun control laws cause a statistically significant reduction in violent crime. If it doesn't work, why should we pass more of it? Violent crime has decreased while firearm ownership has skyrocketed.

Quote from VaporTrailer : The "gun show loophole" currently allows anybody, including criminals to purchase firearms essentially unquestioned. Personally I don't want violent felons, those on the terrorist watchlist, people with a history of DV or the mentally ill to have such easy access to guns.

First, many states don't have such a "loophole," so federal law would be unnecessary and redundant in a lot of cases. It is "guilty until proven innocent."

Secondly, how does one get on or off the terrorist watch list? How does one know if they're on it? Where is the due process for such a list? Babies have been put on it erroneously and only found out when trying to fly.

Quote : If you have nothing to hide and aren't DQ'd you'll be allowed to purchase the weapons you choose.

You shouldn't need to be granted permission by the federal government to exercise your constitutional rights. The argument of, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about," could be used to support 4A transgression and violations of all of our rights. What if the gov't could search you or your property for no reason? Put cameras in your home? If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about, right?

Quote from roughnready : Part of your premise (or "compromise") is that there are *more* gun rights that should be granted. There aren't many gun control advocates who think that the pendulum needs to swing that way. Most would say their primary interest is in reducing firearms deaths, not in making some kind of policy bargain. There was a compromise of sorts in the Credit Card Act of 2009 that allowed guns in national parks, but I think most gun control advocates would call that a huge mistake.

I agree that many on the gun control side of the fence feel that the only acceptable idea is more rules. However, I think if we look hard enough we can find laws that some liberalizing ideas that some might agree with. At the same time I know some on the gun rights side think that ANY additional laws and many of the current laws are already too much.

Still, let's look at things from the reducing firearms deaths POV. Could we at least say that laws that can't be shown to reduce deaths should be pulled back? For example, what about a federal rule that states can't have overly strict gun laws (magazine limits under 10... 10 only because that seems to be something that at least has a historical precedent, not because I believe it was justified with logic). Things like the "safe gun lists" should be stricken since they aren't about safety but restricting access. I think we could find other examples of laws that aren't saving lives that could be stricken as part of any "compromise".

What are the anti-gunners willing to give on? Compromise is a two way street, not one side giving in to the other.

Quote from JackHandey : I don't think it is background checks that people take issue with; it's the government keeping records of who applies for them that is the concern.

I agree. That is the primary concern with BGCs with most people--registration.

Quote from AlfredoGarcia : See the comments above regarding BGCs. They're not well enforced now, so expanding them won't change that. They'll lead to registration unless they take information about the firearm off the form 4473, which they likely won't compromise and do. If they did the latter, they'd find a lot more support for it. Cho (VT shooter) passed an NICS BGC but shouldn't have.

See the comment that I originally responded to . The poster said in disbelief that a radio personality "thought" that a person can just walk into a gun show and buy a gun as if such possibility would be reprehensible anfd unthinkable. Exactly! It is reprehensible and unthinkable. (I know that apparently this cannot be done in CT.) But the fact is that indeed in many states a person CAN walk into a gun show and buy a gun. Sadly, even a felon can do this.

The problem is this. A person who cannot buy a gun from an FFL could then go next door to a gun show and buy the same gun without subjecting himself to a BGC. That is classic definition of a loophole IMO and should be fixed. If the Dems or the prez compromise on this one point, shame on them and I would lose all hope with them WRT gun issues.

Lastly you say that our present laws are not enforced now. Perhaps. But please show me how enforcing present laws even to the fullest extent would eliminate the scenario that I am most concerned/obsessed with. In fact logically speaking the BGC requirement for FFLs cannot possibly stop (m)any felons from obtaining guns unless one is not a just a felon but also a moron. Any felon with a fourth grader intelligence would go next door to a gun show and buy their guns there.

Quote from AlfredoGarcia : Should we have BGCs for other exercises of our rights outlined in the Bill of Rights? Should we have to demonstrate that our free speech isn't harmful or hurtful before we say it? Should we fill out a form with the gov't to make sure we're permitted to exercise our rights?

This is a valid point. If this is illegal, then it should also be illegal for requiring a BGC for an FFL transaction. If this is illegal, then I wonder why Lapierre (1999) supported it and agreed we should close this loophole.

If indeed this is illegal, then I would not want it to be legislated and I would redirect my efforts to amend the constitution. (At the very least I would also make resale of guns illegal in addition to making sale of guns extremely restricted and regualted.)

And you are right that there is something inherently distasteful when our basic rights become conditional. I would only agree to that for a good reason. And I think denying guns to those who cannot get guns from FFLs is a good reason. But that might be me.

Quote from AlfredoGarcia : You seem fixated on this "loophole". There were no loopholes for drugs during the "war on drugs" and none for alcohol during prohibition, but they were both available everywhere. Closing your "loophole" won't stop availability of guns to criminals. It sounds good at first glance, but when you examine it more deeply, it won't be enforced well or uniformly, it won't effect the black market, and it is merely guilt until proven innocence to exercise one's Constitutional rights.

You are correct that I am fixated on this, perhaps even obsessed about it. I am fixated/obsessed, if any, because of the flagrant illogic involved in the position of those opposing it. Start with denying that such is a loophole, to requiring proof that such requirement would reduce gun crimes, to claiming that the existing (crappy) laws are not being enforced so therefore we should not pass any new but meaningful laws, to the absurdly illogical position of supporting BGCs for FFLS but not for private sellers (there is one or perhaps two forthright posters here who voice their opposition to BGCs for FFLs -- good for them).

Quote from JackHandey : What are the anti-gunners willing to give on? Compromise is a two way street, not one side giving in to the other.

This is the core of what I am interested in though I don't want to ask in a condescending tone. Sadly, much of the gun discussion on this forum has devolved into bickering. I of course will blame the other side because my hands are clean....

But seriously, I would like to hear what the gun control advocates think. What rules or things that gun rights people have been asking for would the control advocates be willing to negotiate on. What laws, if any, would the gun control members be willing to liberalize.

Quote from AlfredoGarcia : I agree. That is the primary concern with BGCs with most people--registration.

The secondary concern is cost. Why would one spend an extra ~$50 to transfer an old .22 rifle when the asking price is $100-$150 ?

Quote from AlfredoGarcia : First, many states don't have such a "loophole," so federal law would be unnecessary and redundant in a lot of cases. It is "guilty until proven innocent."

From memory a pro-gun poster has often reminded us that (only) 7 states do not allow that. If that is not correct, please tell us how many.

Quote from paperboy05 : The secondary concern is cost. Why would one spend an extra ~$50 to transfer an old .22 rifle when the asking price is $100-$150 ?

Good point.

Quote from TRNT : You are correct that I am fixated on this, perhaps even obsessed about it. I am fixated/obsessed, if any, because of the flagrant illogic involved in the position of those opposing it. Start with denying that such is a loophole, to requiring proof that such requirement would reduce gun crimes, to claiming that the existing (crappy) laws are not being enforced so therefore we should not pass any new but meaningful laws, to the absurdly illogical position of supporting BGCs for FFLS but not for private sellers (there is one or perhaps two forthright posters here who voice their opposition to BGCs for FFLs -- good for them).

Would you be willing to compromise such that BGCs don't record serial #s of guns and rather just focus on the individual buyer and his/her criminal background? No one wants criminals to have guns, but gun owners don't want a national registry of gun owners and guns either.