This Is What A Serious Gun Violence Policy Would Look Like

[JBond]

Nope.

 

[OKTexas]

And you could still walk into a school and blast away......so what was accomplished

If a serious policy was enacted, the likelihood of a licence holder shooting up a public crowd would be lower than the present unlicensed situation. As in the developed nations which use similar policies.

But you're right, of course, as in other developed nations handguns and military style semi automatics would have to be severely restricted in order to make a real difference to public massacres and the US firearms homicide rate, where handguns are used for nearly half of all homicides.

What makes up the other half?


.

 

[Lakhota]

It’s not as simple as expanding background checks.

A serious debate over gun policy is underway in the aftermath of last week’s massacre in Florida, and one focus is the federal background check system ― a system that has existed for 20 years but which, by almost all accounts, isn’t doing enough to deter would-be killers from buying firearms.

In theory, almost everybody in Washington wants to strengthen the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, as it’s known. That includes top Republicans, even though they have historically resisted or opposed efforts to control or limit gun access. It even includes President Donald Trump, who on Thursday tweeted support for improving background checks and on Friday said the same thing while answering press questions at the White House.

These vows may be meaningless. Recent history is littered with instances of Republicans dropping support for gun legislation as soon as public interest wanes. As for Trump, his own budget proposal, released earlier this month, proposed cutting funds for the background check system. It’s anybody’s guess whether Trump even understands the promise he has been making over the past few days, let alone whether he intends to keep it.

But if the student-led movement for stronger gun policies doesn’t let up, Trump and his allies may not be able to let go of this idea so easily. They might even decide that the political consequences of inaction are too serious to risk, that some kind of legislation on background checks is necessary.

The question, then, would be what kind of legislation.

On Capitol Hill, the current debate over background checks is focused on two very different proposals. One is an anodyne bill to shore up the existing system by feeding it information in a more timely and consistent fashion. The other is a more sweeping proposal to expand the reach of background checks so they include all sales, not just those that take place through officially licensed dealers.

But there’s another, even more ambitious idea out there ― one that Congress isn’t seriously considering now but that, according to many advocates and experts, could have a bigger impact. It’s a call for requiring would-be gun purchasers to first obtain licenses, which the government would grant only for people who go through a protracted process.

The process could entail any number of steps, but in the most ambitious versions it would include completing a gun safety course, paying registration fees, providing character references, and applying in person to local law enforcement. The goal is to reduce all kinds of firearm violence, including the everyday acts of homicide and suicide that account for the vast majority of this country’s gun deaths.

It might sound like a crazy idea wildly out of step with current practice. It’s not.

A dozen states plus the District of Columbia already have some kind of licensing program in place. There’s good reason to think these systems are having at least a mild impact in those places, and that they’d do a lot more if they existed nationwide. That’s especially true if licensing were part of a broader strategy that included bans on assault-style weapons, temporary restraining orders against gun ownership for people who pose likely threats, and other restrictions.

Much More: This Is What A Serious Gun Violence Policy Would Look Like

Interesting article. Definitely worth reading - regardless of which side of the fence you're on.

The problem here is making it harder for law abiding citizens to exercise their Constitutional rights while while criminals give zero fucks about the law, you know because their criminals.

Yeah, same way with speed limits - but they help.

 

[OKTexas]

We wouldn't need any gun regulations if we didn't have liberals getting their hands on guns. We have millions of them in prisons now. And the Democrats want to give them back their voting rights.

Never trust a liberal with your life or your money.

In other words, you have no idea what the article says. It's NRA gun nutters like you that are the greatest threat to my future gun rights. The NRA will have to bend or die.

The Teens Are Coming For The NRA, And They Can’t Be Stopped

Oh bullshit, the teens ain't gonna do shit, it's the regressives and their bots on social media that are fucking with the NRA. The teens will be back playing games and playing on social media in a few weeks. Regressives are footing all the bills.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Wow, obtaining licenses, protracted processes, passing background checks, registration.....

What ever happened to "shall not be infringed?"

Wrong.

Licensing requirements have been consistently upheld by the courts as Constitutional, in no manner an ‘infringement’ on Second Amendment rights.

Indeed, it’s no more an ‘infringement’ than completing the 4473 and waiting around for the background check, or waiting three days before you can take your handgun home, or requiring a license to carry a concealed firearm.

When you turn 21 simply apply for your Federal firearm license; buy new guns online and have them shipped to your front door, buy guns from a brick and mortar dealer as easily as buying a loaf of bread, carry a concealed firearm anywhere in the US – including Times Square and the Lincoln Memorial.

Renew the license every three years for $30, just like an FFL 03.

And I truly hate filling out the 4473.

Get back to me when you can legally require a criminal to do any of that crap.


.

 

[cnm]

Solution? Buy guns. Learn to use them.

Cruz agreed with your solution.

 

[cnm]

Get back to me when you can legally require a criminal to do any of that crap.

What?

 

[cnm]

What the fuck are you babbling about?

Above your comprehension, don't worry about it.

 

[cnm]

The background checks, finger prints, etc. they do now is pretty much exactly what all other countries do.

You haven't a clue. Other countries issue licences. That is the whole point.

 

[cnm]

What makes up the other half?

Other things.

 

[cnm]

But it is legal to buy chlorine gas for swimming pools that can easily be used to massacre school students.

Chlorine can't easily be used to massacre school kids.

 

[cnm]

ARs are NOT at all military style rifles because military rifles are full auto.

Not all military rifles have a full auto function. An AR is a military style semi automatic.

 

[cnm]

ARs are single shot, where you have to pull the trigger individually for each shot, just like any and all civilian firearms.

ARs are semi automatic. A single shot weapon is where one has to manually open the breech, remove the case and replace the cartridge. Just to keep terms straight.

 

[Mac1958]

Unless and until both ends of this argument can have an honest conversation (ha) about the effect our culture is having on all of this, we'll do what we always do: Take the easy route and apply band-aids. And then pat ourselves on the back for it.

 

[cnm]

Keep your commie policies to yourself and don't ask me to do a damn thing you can't require a criminal to do.

Of course 'criminals' would be required to do it. Cruz would have been required to do it. Oh, that's right, he wasn't a criminal.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

It’s not as simple as expanding background checks.

A serious debate over gun policy is underway in the aftermath of last week’s massacre in Florida, and one focus is the federal background check system ― a system that has existed for 20 years but which, by almost all accounts, isn’t doing enough to deter would-be killers from buying firearms.

In theory, almost everybody in Washington wants to strengthen the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, as it’s known. That includes top Republicans, even though they have historically resisted or opposed efforts to control or limit gun access. It even includes President Donald Trump, who on Thursday tweeted support for improving background checks and on Friday said the same thing while answering press questions at the White House.

These vows may be meaningless. Recent history is littered with instances of Republicans dropping support for gun legislation as soon as public interest wanes. As for Trump, his own budget proposal, released earlier this month, proposed cutting funds for the background check system. It’s anybody’s guess whether Trump even understands the promise he has been making over the past few days, let alone whether he intends to keep it.

But if the student-led movement for stronger gun policies doesn’t let up, Trump and his allies may not be able to let go of this idea so easily. They might even decide that the political consequences of inaction are too serious to risk, that some kind of legislation on background checks is necessary.

The question, then, would be what kind of legislation.

On Capitol Hill, the current debate over background checks is focused on two very different proposals. One is an anodyne bill to shore up the existing system by feeding it information in a more timely and consistent fashion. The other is a more sweeping proposal to expand the reach of background checks so they include all sales, not just those that take place through officially licensed dealers.

But there’s another, even more ambitious idea out there ― one that Congress isn’t seriously considering now but that, according to many advocates and experts, could have a bigger impact. It’s a call for requiring would-be gun purchasers to first obtain licenses, which the government would grant only for people who go through a protracted process.

The process could entail any number of steps, but in the most ambitious versions it would include completing a gun safety course, paying registration fees, providing character references, and applying in person to local law enforcement. The goal is to reduce all kinds of firearm violence, including the everyday acts of homicide and suicide that account for the vast majority of this country’s gun deaths.

It might sound like a crazy idea wildly out of step with current practice. It’s not.

A dozen states plus the District of Columbia already have some kind of licensing program in place. There’s good reason to think these systems are having at least a mild impact in those places, and that they’d do a lot more if they existed nationwide. That’s especially true if licensing were part of a broader strategy that included bans on assault-style weapons, temporary restraining orders against gun ownership for people who pose likely threats, and other restrictions.

Much More: This Is What A Serious Gun Violence Policy Would Look Like

Interesting article. Definitely worth reading - regardless of which side of the fence you're on.

A mild impact.

Maryland already requires this.

It has done nothing to address the gun violence in Baltimore and D.C.

4 threats in Maryland by students in Leonardtown, Clarksburg, Anne Arundel County and Baltimore since Cruz went off.

Can we focus on the cause?

 

[Yousaidwhat]

“It’s a call for requiring would-be gun purchasers to first obtain licenses, which the government would grant only for people who go through a protracted process.

The process could entail any number of steps, but in the most ambitious versions it would include completing a gun safety course, paying registration fees, providing character references, and applying in person to local law enforcement. The goal is to reduce all kinds of firearm violence, including the everyday acts of homicide and suicide that account for the vast majority of this country’s gun deaths.” ibid

I wouldn’t have a problem with most of this if the Federal license issued meant no more per gun background checks, no 4473, no waiting periods, and the license would also serve as a concealed carry license valid in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Show the dealer your Federal license, pay for your gun, take your gun home.

There is still a waiting period when you purchase a firearm.

Even for those who have a license and own firearms.

You just can't walk in and show your license and walk out with the firearm.

I really don't have a problem with this.

It has an effect on strawman purchases and the resale of firearms.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Yep, America needs some serious gun control. Even most responsible gun owners and hunters want that - including me. The NRA is a danger to our gun rights. Hopefully those kids in Florida can bring about needed change.

Stop blaming the NRA.

You need to realize you are insulting alot of firearms owners who will fight against you when you blame them.

You are being counter productive and I, and many others will not budge one inch on anything when you insult and blame.

 

[bripat9643]

Licensing is a violation of the 2nd Amendment. There's a reason you don't have to get a license to buy a printing press or a television station, numbnuts.

Like swimming pools, it's difficult to massacre school kids with them?

Hmmmm, no, asshole. It's because freedom of the press is a Constitutional right. If the government licensed printing presses, then freedom of the press would be a joke.

 

[bripat9643]

ARs are single shot, where you have to pull the trigger individually for each shot, just like any and all civilian firearms.

ARs are semi automatic. A single shot weapon is where one has to manually open the breech, remove the case and replace the cartridge. Just to keep terms straight.

Wrong, asshole. the AR-15 fires only one shot per pull of the trigger. Weapons like you're talking about were used at the Little Big Horn