Absolutism

[sleigh]

On nearly any subject on which people hold opinions, there is a scale that runs from absolute permissiveness to absolute restriction, and you will generally find people strongly (and often loudly) holding positions on those extreme ends. Heck, just look at the current state of US politics, or start to talk to people about religious beliefs or drug laws or immigration or… well, just about anything.

Generally, though, society will have have set a "balance point" somewhere in the middle between those two extremes. It's rare that the extreme position is also the societal balance point. For that to happen, one of three conditions have to be met:

1) those holding the extreme position are a very small group that is isolated from the general population in some way, or...
2) those holding the extreme position also have to be in an extreme position of power, as in a totalitarian state, or…
3) those holding the extreme position also have to be (at least temporarily) in the position of being in the majority.

We've seen this happen. States who use the extreme versions of Sharia law, for instance, or the reign of the Inquisition in some European countries. Here in the States, we saw (briefly) the restrictive version of extremism in Prohibition, which arguably gave rise to organized crime in this country. On the permissive side, also arguably, deregulation of the financial industry recently demonstrated that greed will trump common sense every time, even if it means the near-ruin of the economy.

And we see the permissive/restrictive scale on the issue of gun ownership in this country. On one extreme, we have people who feel that it is their right to own any firearm that they may wish to own, of any type and in any quantity, without licensing or registration or any restriction whatsoever. On the other extreme are those who feel that in a society where there's no longer any need to hunt for food, and in a society governed by laws, no one needs to possess a firearm at all, and that all guns should be confiscated.

The "balance point" on the issue, as with many issues, has a tendency to drift based on what we see and what we perceive as a society. Think of it, perhaps, as a necessary adjustment, since societies aren't static, but something that evolves and changes. I see the balance point for firearms as being ripe for shifting, and it's naturally caused the people on the extremes to begin to howl.

But-- again -- the extremes rarely "win." The balance point nearly always comes to rest somewhere in the middle. So… for the sake of provoking discussion, if I were allowed to propose a new balance, here's where I might be tempted to set it:

LICENSING: There's no possible way in our culture that we can ban all firearms -- not without potentially violent reaction. No "Prohibition" here. But… When you listen to the gun rights argument, this old chestnut often pops up: "Far more people are killed every year in car accidents than by firearms. Why don't you ban cars, too?"

That is, obviously, a specious argument. Still, owning and driving a car is a weighty responsibility, as is gun ownership, so why not borrow from what we do with automobiles? I would propose that if you intend to own a firearm, you must first obtain a "gun license." That could be done at the state level, but would be better if administered nationally.

At (let's say) 21 years of age, you can apply for such a license. It would require a background check. It would also require that the applicant has passed a rigorous gun safety class, and has a certain number of hours logged in at a target range (where one may rent guns.) For younger persons, you could have the equivalent of a "learner's permit" that would allow a teenager to use a gun (for hunting, for instance) as long as they are accompanied by a licensed adult.

No felon may have such a license. No one with a history of mental illness may have such a license. No one currently under psychiatric care may have such a license. Of course, like a driver's license, this license can be suspended or revoked for cause. And like a driver's license, it requires periodic renewal (and perhaps re-certification).

But with that license, you can walk into a gun shop and buy a handgun, hunting rifle, or shotgun. It shows the shop owner that you have passed the background check and certification, and are qualified to buy a firearm or ammunition. No license = no gun or ammo.

REGISTRATION: Like automobiles, firearms are registered, and that registration is tied to the owner. Maybe, as with a car, you need to update that registration once a year. And like a car, when you sell that gun, you are required to sign off the registration to the new owner (who would also have to show you his/her license to own a firearm). That would help to close the "gun show loophole," where a private owner may sell or give away his/her gun to anyone without any checks whatsoever.

CONCEALED CARRY: I'm not against concealed carry, but it should be much tougher than it is to get a concealed carry license. The training needs to be more rigorous -- which I can say after having just gone through it. I have all the requirements to get an Ohio (or Florida) concealed carry license -- and even have the application for it on my desk. The course was taught by an extremely competent and thoughtful instructor who was obviously well aware of the weighty responsibility of carrying a loaded weapon in public -- and he's someone I would implicitly trust with that responsibility without hesitation. But… I feel like I'd need far more experience with a handgun and with practical situational tactics before I'd ever feel comfortable actually carrying -- and I am not comfortable knowing that someone as inexperienced as I am could be walking around with a loaded, concealed handgun. Mind you, that is not the fault of the instructor; that's the leniency of the current laws. In my ideal world, concealed carry licenses would require practical field simulation exercises, hands-on, strip-down experience with several firearms of different calibers, and far more target range experience than they do.

RESTRICTIONS: Magazines are limited to no more than (let's say) 15 rounds. That includes all firearms. Larger magazines are strictly illegal, and possession of one would result in immediate revocation of your license. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives will maintain the database of all licenses and registrations, as well as a list of those currently forbidden to have a license. All background checks must go through the bureau.

Military-grade weapons with full-auto capabilities are absolutely not available to private citizens. "Civilian" versions of military-grade weapons (semi-auto, with limited magazines and possibly other restrictions) can be sold, but might require an additional (and vigorous) background check and yearly re-registration.

We could talk about limiting/restricting certain calibers/types of rounds. Armor-piercing rounds, for instance, seem to have no purpose but to kill police / soldiers wearing body armor, so my temptation would be to ban such, as deer don't wear body armor. Beyond that, I don't have enough knowledge to make further suggestions…

As with Australia's "Port Arthur" laws, the government (through the BAFT) will "buy back" all firearms/magazines that don't meet the new guidelines and destroy them. No "grandfathering" of old firearms/ammunition that doesn't meet the current standards. Current gun owners (with a proper license) will be required to register any gun not already registered.

***********

OK, now you may tell me where you'd change/delete from/add to the above. I'm interested in what you might think. Any point of view is welcome as long as the dialog remains civil, polite, and on-topic. And since this blog meets Condition #1 and Condition #2 above, as Absolute Dictator, I can and will delete any post that I feel goes over the line.

Comments

[jimhines.livejournal.com]

My first reaction is that, overall, this seems pretty reasonable. I'd probably go with a smaller magazine limit, because I'm having a hard time imagining a valid need to shoot 15 times without stopping to reload. And it amuses me that I'd be disqualified from gun ownership under these guidelines ... the mental health aspect might need further examination, given how broad that label could be. (But that gets into the need for mental health care, which is a separate but also important discussion.)

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

Jim -- yeah, I had some hesitation with the "mental health" thing even as I wrote it, as I think it's probably too broad myself. Maybe what would be better is, if a person is under the care of a mental health professional, then that mental health professional must sign a waiver to permit licensing....

The magazine limitation: I used 15 since that seems to be a pretty standard magazine for 9mm handguns. But yes, there are very few situations I can think of where 15 rounds are going to need to be fired without a reload.

And yeah, mental health care is a separate but vitally important issue on its own. Mental health care *sucks* in this country.

[jimhines.livejournal.com]

Except that so many people who need that kind of care aren't under the care of a mental health professional. And there are people who might be perfectly stable and competent to use firearms ... as long as they stay on the appropriate meds.

It's so much easier to poke at someone else's plan than to try to come up with actual solutions :-P

I don't know. I'd probably want to start by looking at the shootings in this country to figure out how often and in what ways mental health actually played a part, and whether that was something that could have been foreseen. I know there's often an assumption that anyone who would do something like this is, by default, crazy. But how often is there an actual, diagnosable mental illness?

I'm allowed to get a driver's license despite being diabetic, but if my diabetes gets out of control and causes me to crash into a ditch or somesuch, my license can get yanked. But I wouldn't want to wait until after the fact to yank someone's gun license, either.

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

Alas, it always takes something going wrong or someone doing something stupid to yank a license, car or otherwise. I don't know how it can be otherwise without potentially draconian "preemptive" removals...

And hey, poking holes in the proposal is why I put it up there in the first place. It's like a writing workshop: you show people the draft, and then they pick it apart, and you get to make it better.

I don't really have a good "revision" yet for the mental health provision, though.

[slaynsoul.livejournal.com]

I like it. I think these are a great place to start and cover a range of restrictions, not just limiting the who, or the what, but being broad and all encompassing of lots of variations. It also surprises me that its so easy to get a concealed carry permit, with so little experience. Kind of frightening.

[davidschroth.livejournal.com]

The assertion (over on FB) that nothing on your list would have affected Newtown seems flat out wrong, to me - limiting the number of rounds in the magazine seems like it would have had *some* effect. Especially if a more reasonable (i.e., smaller) number than 15 was the limit.

One of the reasons I'm opposed to concealed carry is that all of the gun nuts in favor of concealed carry seem to want to go out of their way to inflict it upon others in locations where it's inappropriate. And, as best I can tell, the most likely effect of widespread implementation of concealed carry is the extrajudicial execution of citizens who are guilty of nothing more than being an ethnic minority in the "wrong" place.

[kk1raven.livejournal.com]

Your ideas seem reasonably sensible for the most part.

No felon may have such a license. No one with a history of mental illness may have such a license. No one currently under psychiatric care may have such a license.

I suspect that this would result in people who like guns not getting help for problems like depression. I don't want depressed people going untreated because they are afraid they'll lose their gun license and never be able to get it back if they admit to feeling depressed. I think maybe requiring potential gun owners to pass a psychiatric test of some sort showing that they are not likely to be a danger to themselves or others might be better rather than a blanket prohibition against anyone under psychiatric care getting a gun. No matter what test of mental health is devised, some mentally sick people are likely to be able to fool the system but it should be possible to do better at identifying potential problems than we do now.

Also, I think some crimes that are misdemeanors probably ought to be of concern where guns are concerned. Misdemeanor domestic abuse ought to be looked at too.

Another concern I have is that your ideas don't address is situations where the potential gun owner is qualified but other members of the household are potentially dangerous. Too often crimes are committed using guns that were legally obtained but not by the person doing the shooting. I've been told that Australia's gun control laws look at that too and sometimes require gun owners to store their guns elsewhere to prevent situations where a disqualified person might be inclined to take extreme measures to get the guns.

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

Regulations on concealed carry vary from state-to-state. I can only speak to Ohio's laws; other states might be far stricter (or even far looser). I have to say there was one person in the group taking the concealed carry course about whom I am frightened at the prospect of their carrying a concealed weapon.

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

Limiting the magazine loads might have helped in Newtown, though I don't know how large a magazine the shooter had in the rifle. It doesn't take long (a few seconds) to drop an empty magazine and put in a fresh one, though.

But... I fairness, I will say that none of the proposals I have above would have had any significant effect on Newtown. The shooter had no license one way or the other; those weren't his guns. He essentially stole them from his mother. The weapons evidently weren't in a locked gun case -- which is the equivalent of leaving your keys in the car. Some of the blame for this has to go to the mother for not properly securing the weapons she owned.

I'm not against concealed carry, but I do want far more required training in order to receive the license (at least here in Ohio) as Ohio would be required to give me a concealed carry license despite the fact that actually had a handgun in my hands for a bare few hours. That's like giving me a driving license after my first day of instruction -- I would be nowhere near road-worthy. I feel the same way about me carrying a gun at this point: I'm a potential hazard. (And what scares me is the thought of all those with the same training who don't think of themselves as a hazard.)

[barbarienne.livejournal.com]

I would add restrictions on how often or how quickly a person can purchase a gun. One gun per week or month or whatever. This would deter rapid amassing of a cache of guns, and would make attempts to amass such over time more noticeable. OTOH, requiring registration might do that well enough itself, so this is more a suggestion/idea than something I feel necessary.

Similarly, restrictions on ammo. We limit how much pseudoephedrine people can buy per day, FFS; frustrating legitimate sinus-issue sufferers as much as illegal drug manufacturers. Perhaps we should limit how many bullets per day/week/month a person can buy.

I think it would be important (for American definitions of "important") to make it possible for select ranges to have and rent (on-premises use only) some of the more extreme and dangerous guns. I can understand that some people consider it fun to uncork piles of shots at once--you see them do it on Mythbusters and it does indeed look fun!--and I think it would be reasonable to have places where people can do this under proper conditions. Kind of like going to a special track and racing fancy sports cars.

Insurance. Car owners are required to carry insurance, or pay fees to their state for not carrying insurance, or have limited options to sue other drivers if they don't themselves carry insurance. (Laws vary by state.) I think if we required people to insure every gun they own, that the insurance would pay any claims if that gun is used to hurt someone, then there would be a naturally self-limiting effect on how many guns anyone could afford to own. Plus, the insurance lobby would probably be glad to get all those new customers. (Gun owners already pay higher homeowners/renters insurance, if they tell their insurer. And if they don't, then their home/renter insurer will not cover any accidents caused by the gun.)

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

As I said to Jim above, I'm not happy with the mental health aspect of my proposal. I don't know of any psychiatric test that would pinpoint potential issues, but that's not my field or expertise at all -- any mental health professionals out there who are better informed on the subject care to comment?

Domestic abuse is certainly a crime that I'd want to look at: don't want any convicted of domestic abuse with a gun...

And I don't see a way to easily address your last concern. As I said to David above, that's the Newtown situation. The weapons weren't properly and safely stored by the mother in a gun safe, and so her son was able to steal them and use them. I don't<'em> want the cops walking into my house periodically to check on how I'm storing my guns (though I understand that's how it's done in Switzerland; there are house checks).

No legislation will ever stop or end violence. The best it can do is mitigate it to some degree.

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

I think requiring registration would result in self-limiting the number of guns. Collectors can have as many as they want, but they each need proper registration.

I agree about ranges and more 'exotic' weapons. My friend Melinda Snodgrass (also a writer) said on her blog that -- for research -- she went to a gun range and rented an uzi so she could fire it and see how it handled and what it felt like. Then, afterward, she returned it to the range. That seems reasonable to me (and sounds like it could be fun, too...)

Insurance.... Hmm... didn't even think of that.

[davidschroth.livejournal.com]

It's not difficult to find reports that the Newtown shooter used 30 round load magazines. If the number of rounds were less than your proposed 15 (say, perhaps, 6) the shooter would have had to reload more often. Time spent reloading is a) time not spent shooting, and b) time that some person or persons could use to subdue the shooter (viz Gabrielle Giffords).

One of the constant pushbacks I get from gun nuts of my acquaintance is that, because they are trained, firearms and ammunition are always secured. This not only isn't so, it almost certainly will never be so.

I am against concealed carry - I have absolutely no confidence that the people who are most insistent on concealed carry will not do serious damage/harm when they decide to use their concealed firearm.

The one thing I don't understand is why so many people are so afraid of who knows what that they feel the need to carry concealed firearms. I've been on the wrong end of handguns twice in my life, and a) I still feel no need to carry, and b) I'm absolutely certain that if, in each case, there had been someone there carrying who tried to intervene, that I would have ended up seriously injured or dead.

Oh, and to deal with the straw man up front - I've never advocated for a total ban on the ownership of firearms, and I don't (to my knowledge) know anyone who has.

Good start.

[flinx.livejournal.com]

I like where you start, but I think we can get down to brass tacks to really hone the policy.

The discussions I've been fostering (and with which I've been hammering away at a member of the Militia-gan, until he went deliberately irrational and stopped the conversation) start around technical aspects of the weapon:

1) What's the maximum rate of fire of a firearm possible in the hands of a highly trained, highly skilled professional? If it crosses X rounds/10 seconds, then it's banned--there is no rational civilian *need* for such a weapon under the considerations of hunting and/or recreational sport, that's a firearm closely related to its military precursor, which was purpose built for killing other human beings.

2) (Or, 1b) What's the action of the bolt/receiver of the firearm? Is it semi-automatic, double-action, fully automatic? Then the firearm has one purpose, which is to send as many projectiles down-field in as short a time as possible, so it gets banned. Single-action, bolt-action, lever-action, or pump-action firearms are wholly acceptable as they require deliberate to chamber the next load.

3) What's the power of the round chambered, i.e. how many grains of powder are in the shell or casing vs. the caliber of the round? Some hunting rounds rely on large powder loads for travel and penetration, which is fine if you're hunting bear or elephant (so, application-specific licensing). One does not need a Baring .50 to hunt deer unless one enjoys field-dressing mincemeat.

We can then extend to other technical details as you pointed out--is the round armor-piercing (which includes steel-jacketed rounds, 'razor' rounds, etc.)? Hollow-point rounds are limited to hunting-rifle calibers only (their squash-heads inflict maximum hydrostatic shock, i.e. maximum 'stopping power'). And so on.

Magazine size... as one of our senators put it, "I don't need 10 rounds to drop a deer." Or, in other words, if you need a 10 round magazine to feel like you're properly prepared for a day of hunting, you're a lousy shot.

Add in your licensing requirements to thoroughly explore the human side of the equation, and I think we've got a solid foundation for legislation.

The nice thing about #s 1 & 2 is that it also addresses the issue of escalation in law-enforcement agencies. If we reduce the firepower available to civilians, then our police officers are allowed (& required!) to reduce the firepower they carry (which is the British model).

[barbarienne.livejournal.com]

Insurance because bottom line, guns can hurt people. That's why people have auto insurance. Homeowner's insurance may cover gun accidents, or it may exempt those--depends on the insurance. But if we say, "Sure, own all the guns you want, but register them and insure them," that immediately puts them beyond the economic reach of a lot of a lot of people.

My concern becomes then the tracking down of brown people who have illegal guns and jailing them forever with this excuse, while letting middle-class white dudes slide through, much as currently happens for marijuana possession.

Re the fun of big guns: The episode where Kari Byron shoots a (dead) tree in half with an enormous truck-mounted, high-speed THING, while wearing a cute little sundress, just makes me happy every time I see it.

[netmouse.livejournal.com]

Yeah, there are physical disabilities for which it's easy or at least feasible to enforce care for driving - for instance, my need to wear lenses to correct my vision, but we don't any such thing to enforce taking meds for a physical or mental condition. You could consider it though -if someone's bipolar, for instance, indicating in the law that if they hurt someone with a car or a gun and blood tests indicate they were skipping their meds, there could be extra consequences. Both punitary and medical, perhaps.

I think part of the issue with the current issue, however, is in framing the care of a mental health professional as mental illness care - for many of us, it's more of a type of 'wellness care", as some insurance companies currently brand preventative medicine. That ought to be less stigmatized in society, not more.

Re: Good start.

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

Some good points, though I personally don't see a problem with double-action handguns. Yes, you can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, but that's also true of single-action handguns like a revolver.

Are "hunting and/or recreational sports" the only two valid reasons to own a firearm in your mind, as your #1 text suggests? There are those whose primary motive for owning a firearm is protection; I don't feel the same way, but at the same time I would have no inclination to ban such usage -- which is why I don't particularly have a problem with standard magazine capacities.

Rounds in a magazine: Revolvers hold six (or sometimes eight, depending). Most 9mm handguns seem to have a "standard" magazine of between 10 and 15. That doesn't seem much of a difference to me -- though I start to balk at 20 round-and-up magazines. Depends on whose drawing the line, I suppose.

[kk1raven.livejournal.com]

The kind of test I'm thinking of is perhaps answer some questions on paper then talk to a trained human being for at least a short evaluation. For example, if an applicant answers the question about currently or formerly suffering from depression the person doing the evaluation could attempt to determine whether the applicant appears suicidal or otherwise dangerous. Such a system would be far from perfect but I think it would be an improvement. Simply basing it on whether or not someone has already been declared mentally unstable in a court, which is pretty much the way it works in some states now, is not good enough but saying everyone who has ever been treated for any type of mental issue can't have a gun is going too far.

I really don't like the idea of requiring home checks for gun owners, but perhaps it needs to be considered. People do stupid things with their guns. I'll tell you a story about that. My grandparents had an old gun (maybe a shotgun, something long anyway). It came from the boys camp that one of my great uncles previously owned and ran and when I was young it stood in the corner upstairs in case it was needed. One day someone broke in through the basement. He found the gun. My grandmother woke up with a stranger standing over her pointing their gun at her. He told her that if she did anything to stop him or to wake my (rather deaf) grandfather, he'd shoot her with it. He stole everything of value that he could find and carry away, including the gun. My grandparents were not stupid, but boy did they make a bad choice when it came to that gun.