Bipartisan Legislation on Guns

[vcczar]

This is similar as the other bipartisan legislation thread. Let's see if we can craft a bipartisan reform that addresses the concerns of people on both/all sides of the issue. 

Here are some questions:

• Is it possible to use the framers of the 2nd Amendment's intent for our purposes? That is, can it be construed what the intent is with 100% certainty? If not, should that be acknowledged in any legislation? 
• Considering that gun culture is a long-lasting tradition and approximately 40-45% of Americans own a gun it seems likely that gun ownership should be protected as best it can. That said, how can we best legislate to allay the fears and or downsides of mass gun ownership? About 316 people are shot by a gun daily in the US, including murders, assault, suicides, suicide attempts, accidental shootings, and police intervention. 
  • What are the most realistic laws that could keep weapons out of the hands of would-be murderers and assaulters or at least better discourage them from murdering and assaulting? This could include other deterrents not related to guns.
  • What are the most realistic laws that could deter suicides and attempts? This could include other deterrents not related to guns. 
  • In regards to accidental shootings, many of these include children. How can accidental shootings--especially involving children--best be legislated? Should all guns come with a built-in safety lock? What are feasible ideas to deter accidental shootings? 
  • The police are certainly obligated to fire on occasion. So long as citizens can own guns, police need to own guns. It has been shown that black people have a higher chance of being accidentally shot by police. What could help decrease accidental shootings. This could include something mental health-related. 
• Could an equally effective, but safer firearm alternative to be used to replace standard firearms? In c. 2003, I took a military history course entitled War & Society taught by a professor (and ex-Korean War officer) who had taught at West Point and the Command & General Staff college, and he assigned a reading on non-lethal military grade weaponry. These were weapons that could incapacitate a target as if they were dead without actually killing them. If such weapons can be proven to be equally effective in defending the home and taking out violent criminals, should they replace standard firearms? If so, what is the most effective way to make that transition? For instance, would be allow the NRA to take the lead in non-lethal firearms just to get them on board? Are there other alternatives to firearms that could be a safer replacement that is acceptable to gun owners?
• Does the 2nd amendment, and should legislation, allow gun owners to own any firearm that they wish? This may also depend on whether or not the 2nd amendment is in relations to defending the home or individual exclusively or if it applies to insuring a citizen is militia-ready. Any constraints should have to deal with this in mind. Should it be legal to own a rocket launcher, for instance? What should be the cut off? Should military-grade, rapid fire firearms be banned if the purpose of a gun ownership is exclusively hunting or home defense from intruders? 
• Does the 2nd amendment allow one to own as many firearms as they wish? 
• Should some individuals be excluded from gun owners? If so, who?
• Should some people be exceptions to gun restrictions? If so, who? 
• Should one be allowed to carry firearms off of their property? If so, should there be any restrictions on how this is done? For instance, open-carry could cause a disturbance in some places. However, some may not like concealed carry because they'd like to see who has a gun, if they have one. 
• Should there be any criteria for gun ownership? Yearly accuracy training, yearly mental health checks, etc. 
• What is the best method to insure that gun laws are not discriminatory, and that they best respect a citizen's rights, while also diminishing the concerns of those critical or fearful of guns?
• What is the best way to enforce nationwide federal legislation on gun laws in a way that doesn't result in a narrative of government tyranny and gun-grabbing? Basically, what is the least tyrannical most gun-allowing way to do this in a way that most non-gun owners could accept?
• Should federal funding go towards research in a safer gun alternative to protect the home, whatever that might be?
• What other ideas do you have that could protect gun ownership while deterring purposeful or accidental gun-related violence?

I think if gun-owners (or allies) can think of ways to allay the concerns of those that aren't gun-owners or are gun-owner critics of guns, then that might be the best way to find the common ground. I think if the energy comes from the non-gun owners, then it comes off as gun-grabbing. I think anyone who actively wants to ban all guns across the board or anyone that actively seeks to live in a compound with crates of guns should probably be out of this discussion, since they probably won't be helpful to potential fruitful discussion. 

So let's see if we can have so pro-active, harmonious bipartisanship here. 

[DakotaHale]

Is it possible to use the framers of the 2nd Amendment's intent for our purposes? That is, can it be construed what the intent is with 100% certainty? If not, should that be acknowledged in any legislation? Yes, the current ruling of the Supreme Court defends that every gun-owning citizen is part of the militia described in the 2nd Amendment, rather than actual formal militia membership.

Considering that gun culture is a long-lasting tradition and approximately 40-45% of Americans own a gun it seems likely that gun ownership should be protected as best it can. That said, how can we best legislate to allay the fears and or downsides of mass gun ownership? About 316 people are shot by a gun daily in the US, including murders, assault, suicides, suicide attempts, accidental shootings, and police intervention. This is a symptom of poverty and income inequality, moreso than actual firearm ownership. It's also because we have a mental health and drug epidemic. Violent crime rates in general are actually way down what they are 50 years ago.

• What are the most realistic laws that could keep weapons out of the hands of would-be murderers and assaulters or at least better discourage them from murdering and assaulting? This could include other deterrents not related to guns. Murderers and assaulters do not follow laws; so none. The best way would be to have the police take illegal guns of the streets.
• What are the most realistic laws that could deter suicides and attempts? This could include other deterrents not related to guns. Declare depression an epidemic. Set up treatment centers for drug use. Run a national advertising campaign on changing the culture of depression in this country to reduce the stigma around it, especially in the workplace.
• In regards to accidental shootings, many of these include children. How can accidental shootings--especially involving children--best be legislated? Should all guns come with a built-in safety lock? What are feasible ideas to deter accidental shootings? This is due to human stupidity more than firearm manufacturer negligence. Just like how some people shouldn't own pitbulls, some people shouldn't own firearms. But it's not the government's right to choose who gets to own one (and if it was, it wouldn't do it efficiently anyways). People like me who own firearms will annoy you by how often we talk about firearm safety when out shooting, but I don't know how we can make that into a law.
• The police are certainly obligated to fire on occasion. So long as citizens can own guns, police need to own guns. It has been shown that black people have a higher chance of being accidentally shot by police. What could help decrease accidental shootings. This could include something mental health-related. If it was possible without decimating our police forces, I would like to see officers have a 2-year law degree before they can get their badge. I also support community-policing initiatives, increased firearm and non-lethal weapons training and body cameras.

Could an equally effective, but safer firearm alternative to be used to replace standard firearms? In c. 2003, I took a military history course entitled War & Society taught by a professor (and ex-Korean War officer) who had taught at West Point and the Command & General Staff college, and he assigned a reading on non-lethal military grade weaponry. These were weapons that could incapacitate a target as if they were dead without actually killing them. If such weapons can be proven to be equally effective in defending the home and taking out violent criminals, should they replace standard firearms? If so, what is the most effective way to make that transition? For instance, would be allow the NRA to take the lead in non-lethal firearms just to get them on board? Are there other alternatives to firearms that could be a safer replacement that is acceptable to gun owners? Such a weapon would never be able to be created, IMO. Or at least in my lifetime. And if it did, I would not trust it in a life-or-death situation if I had to defend my family or property. I also would not trust its use in the military, whose sole purpose is to be as maximally lethal as possible.

Does the 2nd amendment, and should legislation, allow gun owners to own any firearm that they wish? This may also depend on whether or not the 2nd amendment is in relations to defending the home or individual exclusively or if it applies to insuring a citizen is militia-ready. Any constraints should have to deal with this in mind. Should it be legal to own a rocket launcher, for instance? What should be the cut off? Should military-grade, rapid fire firearms be banned if the purpose of a gun ownership is exclusively hunting or home defense from intruders? Technically yes. People in the early days of this country absolutely could own artillery and warships, arguably the latest in military technology at the time. Even as early as the 1900s, you could legally buy a machine gun and there were less mass shootings (and psychiatry didn't even exist as a field). I do not think any weapon should be banned federally, this should be a state issue. Additionally, the purpose of firearm ownership is absolutely not hunting nor is it home-defense. It is defense against a totalitarian government, and it's the only reason the other amendments are still protected.

Does the 2nd amendment allow one to own as many firearms as they wish? Yes.

Should some individuals be excluded from gun owners? If so, who? This is the question. Maybe violent felonies but the law is shaky on that.

Should some people be exceptions to gun restrictions? If so, who? No.

Should one be allowed to carry firearms off of their property? If so, should there be any restrictions on how this is done? For instance, open-carry could cause a disturbance in some places. However, some may not like concealed carry because they'd like to see who has a gun, if they have one. I support the current state-based system. But yes, open carry is cringe, but if some Fudd wants to they have every right to. I personally carry appendix IWB.

Should there be any criteria for gun ownership? Yearly accuracy training, yearly mental health checks, etc. Not federally.

What is the best method to insure that gun laws are not discriminatory, and that they best respect a citizen's rights, while also diminishing the concerns of those critical or fearful of guns? All gun laws are discriminatory and rooted in racism. The first gun laws passed were to remove firearm rights from recently enfranchised blacks and Native Americans to make them easier to violate their rights and freedoms. People who are critical or fearful of guns tend to be hypocrites.

What is the best way to enforce nationwide federal legislation on gun laws in a way that doesn't result in a narrative of government tyranny and gun-grabbing? Basically, what is the least tyrannical most gun-allowing way to do this in a way that most non-gun owners could accept? By not gun-grabbing. Guns are not the problem. Responsible firearm owners are not the problem, and criminals would not follow gun laws. American culture and mental health is the problem. We have a media who intentionally or not, glorifies mass shootings and turns these people into legends. We need to take more indirect methods. Encourage women and minorities to own firearms, decrease radicalization and polarization in politics. Increase availability of mental health treatments.

Should federal funding go towards research in a safer gun alternative to protect the home, whatever that might be? No, waste of money and would be less efficient when efficiency matters.

What other ideas do you have that could protect gun ownership while deterring purposeful or accidental gun-related violence? N/A, I think I got most of my ideas above. In short: culture change, mental health, stop the radicalization/media.

[Rezi]

Shall not be infringed, prioritize mental health. Universal Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground, and Constitutional Carry. Excluding some people from owning a gun based on mental health, history of violent crimes, etc is fine in theory, but I don't trust the government to enact that in good faith. Improving standards of living will lower shootings.

[WVProgressive]

(I think it'll be interesting to see just how much @DakotaHale and I differ on this given how similar we were on abortion.)

Is it possible to use the framers of the 2nd Amendment's intent for our purposes? That is, can it be construed what the intent is with 100% certainty? If not, should that be acknowledged in any legislation? The Founder's intention doesn't really matter to me either way, so I don't really know how to answer this one. 

What are the most realistic laws that could keep weapons out of the hands of would-be murderers and assaulters or at least better discourage them from murdering and assaulting? This could include other deterrents not related to guns. Increase efforts to crack down on illegal gun ownership, and generally support most Law&Order policies.

What are the most realistic laws that could deter suicides and attempts? This could include other deterrents not related to guns. Increase the availability of mental healthcare services, including inpatient care.

In regards to accidental shootings, many of these include children. How can accidental shootings--especially involving children--best be legislated? Should all guns come with a built-in safety lock? What are feasible ideas to deter accidental shootings? At a certain point it comes down to the parents needing to be responsible gun owners, I'm honestly not sure if there's anything the government can do outside of encourage people to not be idiots around firearms.

The police are certainly obligated to fire on occasion. So long as citizens can own guns, police need to own guns. It has been shown that black people have a higher chance of being accidentally shot by police. What could help decrease accidental shootings. This could include something mental health-related. We need better funding for the police, specifically we need to implement training programs which teach them how to deescalate situations before they get to a point where someone needs to die, and I also support community policing, and less fatal equipment like tasers in addition to firearms.

Could an equally effective, but safer firearm alternative to be used to replace standard firearms? In c. 2003, I took a military history course entitled War & Society taught by a professor (and ex-Korean War officer) who had taught at West Point and the Command & General Staff college, and he assigned a reading on non-lethal military grade weaponry. These were weapons that could incapacitate a target as if they were dead without actually killing them. If such weapons can be proven to be equally effective in defending the home and taking out violent criminals, should they replace standard firearms? If so, what is the most effective way to make that transition? For instance, would be allow the NRA to take the lead in non-lethal firearms just to get them on board? Are there other alternatives to firearms that could be a safer replacement that is acceptable to gun owners? What a pointless, asinine question. I'm not even going to waste my time responding to such a frankly irrelevant hypothetical.

Does the 2nd amendment, and should legislation, allow gun owners to own any firearm that they wish? This may also depend on whether or not the 2nd amendment is in relations to defending the home or individual exclusively or if it applies to insuring a citizen is militia-ready. Any constraints should have to deal with this in mind. Should it be legal to own a rocket launcher, for instance? What should be the cut off? Should military-grade, rapid fire firearms be banned if the purpose of a gun ownership is exclusively hunting or home defense from intruders? The idea that in the 21st century with all the wonderful killing machines at their disposal that the US military can be defeated by a bunch of hicks with hunting rifles is so farcical it borders on comedy. I don't want to get bogged down in legalese (which is what holds back a lot of gun control, frankly) but an intuitive rule of thumb I have is 'If I could see a modern military, or paramilitary group effectively using these in a protracted conflict, it has no business being in civilian hands' which probably wouldn't work as a basis for legislation but 🤷‍♀️

Does the 2nd amendment allow one to own as many firearms as they wish? Sure, but I would support a limit on the number of guns a person can purchase at one time.

Should some individuals be excluded from gun owners? If so, who? Those convicted of violent felonies, and the mentally ill.

Should some people be exceptions to gun restrictions? If so, who? No, no one is above the law.

Should one be allowed to carry firearms off of their property? If so, should there be any restrictions on how this is done? For instance, open-carry could cause a disturbance in some places. However, some may not like concealed carry because they'd like to see who has a gun, if they have one. I actually think that both open carry, and concealed carry should be protected nation wide. The main (or at least most virtuous imo) reason for gun ownership is self protection, why should that end at your doorstop? 

Should there be any criteria for gun ownership? Yearly accuracy training, yearly mental health checks, etc. I think there should be universal background checks, as well as required training before you can purchase a gun, and a limit on the amount of ammo you can buy at a single time

What is the best method to insure that gun laws are not discriminatory, and that they best respect a citizen's rights, while also diminishing the concerns of those critical or fearful of guns? What is the best way to enforce nationwide federal legislation on gun laws in a way that doesn't result in a narrative of government tyranny and gun-grabbing? Basically, what is the least tyrannical most gun-allowing way to do this in a way that most non-gun owners could accept? I don't know, honestly. Just enforce the laws, and let the whiners whine. I couldn't care less about supposed discrimination or tyranny or whatever the buzzword of the day is.

Should federal funding go towards research in a safer gun alternative to protect the home, whatever that might be? Again, I see no reason to give this serious consideration.

What other ideas do you have that could protect gun ownership while deterring purposeful or accidental gun-related violence? I'd support a national gun registry, it doesn't impede a person's ability to own a gun, and unless they plan on commit a crime they have nothing to fear. And of course as others have said, a lot of what needs to happen is cultural, but I'm focusing solely on policy for this exercise.