AuntiE wrote:
First, I am very much a person who believes the states should have more control then is currently available to them.
Me too.
AuntiE wrote:
Having said that, this issue requires some cooperation from states to the NICS.
As per my promise.
Sensible Gun Control - by the NRA and others, such as yours truly.
1. Fully update the NICS, both technologically and as shown in enumerated items below.
2. Require prosecutors to fully prosecute criminals for the use of a gun in the commission of a crime, i.e., do not plead it down to a lesser charge.
3. Require E V E R Y state and Commonwealth (of which there are four) to notify the NICS of the names of all convicted felons.
4. Require E V E R Y state and Commonwealth to notify the NICS of the names of judicially adjudicated individuals deemed a threat to themselves or others.
5. Require E V E R Y state and Commonwealth of the names of any individual (male or female) charged with assault against their significant other.
6. Ascertain why the DOJ does not prosecute those individuals who attempt to purchase a gun, when they are ineligible to own a gun. **
**BATFE refers multiple thousands of cases of individuals attempting to purchase guns, who were ineligible to own guns. The DOJ prosecuted a whopping 44.
br Having said that, this issue requires some coo... (
show quote)
OK, I see where you're going with this... so kind of a Big Brother thing... a switch from 'gun' control to 'people' control. After all, guns don't kill people - people do, right? Sarcasm aside, I am not opposed to checking profiles to a certain extent because I *do* agree that *people* kill people. I'm just always wary of how far far a government will go with "people control".
That being said...
items #2 and #6 I feel should be done anyway, those items being matters of upholding the law. #1 is a good idea so long as the FBI has the budget for it. Finally, I'm sure that items #3, #4 and #5 would have a positive impact on the rate of gun violence but I doubt this approach would save as many lives as the approaches the NRA is so opposed to... (namely, anything that regulates the small arms industry).
The problem is that you're relying on the effectiveness of your law enforcement. So it's good that you start off with item #1, but what if law enforcement budgets start to limit their resources? Then what? How many homicides before fiscally responsible law enforcement catches up and gives NICS a name to add to the database?
Many innocent Americans are dying because of people with guns that don't even have criminal records such as the "normal" people that suddenly go postal, or the accidents of well-meaning but careless gun owners, or the criminals that are clever enough to elude authorities for a while... NICS has zero effect on any of these.
Even the stronger punishments won't have any impact on any of the people with guns that never consider the consequences of their actions, which usually includes the crazies, the careless and the more audacious criminals.
Again, I'm not saying your suggestions won't help... they will certainly help reduce repeat offenses. But I just don't see how it would have ANY effect on first-time offenses which covers a LOT of homicides and that's why I support partial bans on guns - not so much to
prevent crime, (we both know how ridiculous that would be) but to reduce the impact of the crime we can't prevent. Fully automatic weapons are optimized for killing as many people as possible. We can reduce the people killed just by swapping that AK-47 out for a pump-action rifle or a two-barrel shotgun, both guns being perfectly suitable for home protection.
Aside from the obvious impact such bans have on the small arms industry, I really don't see why we can't limit the civilian population to firearms designed for hunting, recreation and home protection. Why do we also have to give them military-grade assault weapons designed for battle?
Now before you or someone else jumps in with the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, let me explain one more thing...
I have always been a supporter of the 2nd Amendment fully understanding that the right to bear arms is intended to give the people a way to fight the government should it get out of hand. I'm right there with any Libertarian on this, but I also know that the 2nd Amendment was written at a time when they were using muskets. Do you know how long it takes to load a musket? A firearm in the late 18th century was not seen as a particularly dangerous item in the hands of one person, but if everyone has one, then it would be possible to assemble something effective like an insurgency.
I realize that by the same token, the government and it's potential for tyranny have also upgraded their armament. So one might think the 2nd Amendment should allow for some partity with regard to firepower. But the truly sad thing is - it wouldn't make any difference because the government upgrades are far beyond what civilians can ever hope to achieve. Those NRA members don't have aircraft carriers, fighter jets, helicopters, interconnected databanks or satellites in orbit or advanced drone programs. I don't want to make this sound hopeless because if things get bad enough people will always find a way, but I'm telling you... Nothing in small arms today can give the citizens parity with the government, so it's pointless to use that as an excuse to keep assault weapons on the casual market.