Everytown for Gun Safety: We Won’t Debate Because Our Opponents Aren’t Credible

[TucTom]

Freediver, I don't have a problem with your point of view it is yours and I can't not like a person just because of that. I think where some of this goes wrong is you want the government to mandate personal responsibility in regards to firearms. To lock (smart) or not to lock (not smart) should be a personal responsibility. Licences are in and from the control of the government and I personally believe in this case that is not good.

Now how about things like holding gun owners responsible whenever possible? Not overly responsible though.

I can lock my gun in a locked case in a locked vault in a locked house does this mean it couldn't be used by an unauthorized person? No.

How many times have you read where gun charges have been dropped in criminal cases when the criminal pleads to some lesser charge? Yet it is me and my gun that are subject to harassment at times by people.

[freediver]

Mr Gryphon: You're right that suicides are a tricky topic to deal with. Someone who is determined to take their life will find a way to get it done. firearms offer a certain "finality" that other forms of suicide don't. Here we cross over into the arena of mental health and firearms. This is a complex topic and not easy solved in a forum such as this. Suffice it to say that we should be doing a lot better job separating mental illness from access to guns. But there's no easy answer on that one.
As far as gun ownership as a right, I absolutely, positively view it as a right. But with that right comes responsibility. A firearm by its very nature is a deadly weapon and should be treated with the respect it deserves. Since the gun owning population has not demonstrated that responsibility (witness accidental shootings, thefts, illegal sales, domestic violence, corrupt firearms dealers, and a host of other problems) then we, the gun owners, should be taking the lead and changing this culture. So things like universal background checks, gun owner licensing similar to drivers, pilots, doctors and nurses, locked storage, are just some of the steps we could take. They impact the legitimate owner very little. But little by little they choke off the supply of firearms to the people we don't want to have them. Your right to own a firearm is not the only right out there. As citizens we also have the right to public safety. That public safety includes ensuring that every gun owner understands their legal obligations, is competent in the safe and effective handling of firearms, and poses no threat to himself or his neighbors. Right now we have no such culture. The bar has been set far too low, and the result is this lethal free for all that exists in the US.
As far as locked storage, why not?
The ATF was chartered to police the very firearms culture we are discussing. Part of their role is to ensure that firearms end up in the hands of legitimate owners, not criminals or the crazy. They've had their budget and their manning cut year after year to the point they cannot properly do the job we tasked them for. A common plea is for us to enforce the laws already on the books. Great idea! But we have to provide the resources to the ATF and other agencies to do their job.
By the way, did you know that anywhere between 75-95% of the firearms used by the narcos in Mexico come from the United States? Sounds like the system is not working the way it should!

[freediver]

Mr TucTom: I share your concern about overburdening a legitimate gun owner. When we try and address public safety and criminality that should be foremost in our minds. Previous gun regulation has usually failed in that regard; witness Chicago and DC as failed examples of "gun control". We need to strike at the core of the problem, which is a far too casual approach to guns in our country. We should hold gun owners responsible for the firearms they buy. If they are negligent and leave their guns available for theft or other unlawful use, they, too, are culpable in the crime. Similar to going out of town and leaving your 14 year old with the keys to the liquor cabinet and the car. At some point we all have to become more responsible.
Case in point: assume for a second that every gun sale is initially a legal one. Given that thousands upon thousands of guns fall into the hands of criminals, we have to look at how that is happening. It's not magic. There aren't little gun fairies stealing guns in the middle of the night. At some point a gun goes from a legal sale to an illegal one. That's one of the things we need to address.
And you're right, the criminal justice system is in need of overhaul. I like laws where, if a firearm or other deadly weapon is used in a crime, mandatory sentencing.

[Glock9mmOldStyle]

Come on.  Japan has a higher suicide rate than the US and they don't have any guns.  If people are terminally ill or depressed they are going to find a way to commit suicide whether they have a gun or not.  An engineer I know hanged himself after he got let go during a downsize.  Firearms have nothing to do with suicide.  You don't view gun ownership as a right, do you?  Um, no.  You don't view gun ownership as a right, do you?  How about we disband the ATF altogether?

^^^^ One of the best posts I've ever read on this forum! +1

[Hammurabi]

Mr TucTom: I share your concern about overburdening a legitimate gun owner. When we try and address public safety and criminality that should be foremost in our minds.

This seems to conflict with what you said before:

Universal background checks, mandatory locked storage, a higher bar such as a firearms license for gun owners, proper funding of the ATF by Congress, and a few other ideas.

All of these things burden the right (in fact, converting it to a privilege) to keep and bear arms. I think we might disagree on whether the burden is excessive.

Previous gun regulation has usually failed in that regard; witness Chicago and DC as failed examples of "gun control".

Let's examine Michigan as an example of failure. In order to purchase a pistol, one must go to the police department and fill out a 10-question quiz. This usually only take a few minutes at the police station, but must be done during normal business hours; if that interferes with your work schedule, that's unfortunate, but not their problem. Both my brother and my sister were stalled and called back for interviews with police officers. My sister was delayed for a few days.

Of course, she wanted a pistol, because a neighbor had pulled a knife on her and made explicit threats on her life. The officers responding to that call said that they would be willing to take a report, but bungled the details so horribly that I wouldn't have known they were describing the same incident. They also said that they could not offer any protection until/unless the assailant "actually breaks the law." I would have simply given/lent her the pistol, but she did not have a concealed pistol license and could not legally possess the pistol outside of my presence.

Michigan's laws on concealed carry mean that I don't have the option of discretely carrying in hospitals, bars, schools, or a number of other places I might not want to leave unattended firearms in the car (or on my motorcycle) and might not want to risk the attention that carrying openly sometimes brings.

Even with a concealed pistol license, which is an acceptable alternative to a NICS check when buying firearms, I am required to turn over a registration slip informing the local police every time I buy a pistol. When I lived in Marion, the county seat in Osceola was Reed City; that's a ~45-minute drive each way. We used to have mandatory "safety" inspections, and what happened is that we spent an hour and a half in the car, during business hours on a work day, to show our pistols to a county clerk who didn't know the safety from the trigger or how to verify that the pistol was clear.

We need to strike at the core of the problem, which is a far too casual approach to guns in our country.

We need to strike at the core of the problem, which is that some people want to hurt other people. If you remove firearms from the equation, other means of hurting people will supplant them. If you remove the motivation for causing harm to others, it doesn't matter what tools are available to do so.

We should hold gun owners responsible for the firearms they buy. If they are negligent and leave their guns available for theft or other unlawful use, they, too, are culpable in the crime.

Anything which has been stolen was made "available for theft." Should we also charge rape victims for leaving themselves available for rape? Should we fine the estates/families of murder victims for having left themselves available for murder? Guns are a thing, and people who have guns stolen from them are victims of crime. To abuse the courts to further victimize them is unconscionable.

Similar to going out of town and leaving your 14 year old with the keys to the liquor cabinet and the car. At some point we all have to become more responsible.

It seems like you're implying that 14 years old isn't quite to the point where someone should be responsible enough to not raid liquor cabinet and steal a car for a joyride, and I disagree with that.

Case in point: assume for a second that every gun sale is initially a legal one. Given that thousands upon thousands of guns fall into the hands of criminals, we have to look at how that is happening. It's not magic. There aren't little gun fairies stealing guns in the middle of the night.

That's... hang on, let's read that again:

There aren't little gun fairies stealing guns in the middle of the night.

I don't know about fairies, but there certainly are people who go around stealing things in the middle of the night. We call them thieves, and you might be surprised to learn that their activity is not limited to the middle of the night. Whether they happen to also be fairies isn't particularly relevant.

At some point a gun goes from a legal sale to an illegal one. That's one of the things we need to address.

If it's already an illegal sale, one or more people are already disregarding legality in order to conduct it. Do you honestly believe that the new laws will be observed any more closely than the current laws?

And you're right, the criminal justice system is in need of overhaul. I like laws where, if a firearm or other deadly weapon is used in a crime, mandatory sentencing.

I do not like such laws, and I'm no fan of mandatory sentencing. Armed robbery is already distinct from unarmed robbery and assault with a dangerous weapon is already distinct from unarmed assault. Commission of any felony while in possession of a firearm has its own penalties. Mandatory sentencing hinders the ability of the courts to implement a sentence that is most appropriate for the case at hand.

It seems like you have some understanding that criminals do not follow the law, but your solution to that is more laws and harsher penalties. I do not agree with that.

[TucTom]

Some great counter points there Hammurabi.

[freediver]

Mr Hammurabi: I think we may differ on the definition of "the right to bear arms". A lot of gun enthusiasts feel that the right to carry a firearm should be completely unfettered, and that any attempt to regulate firearms somehow infringes on their right. From your post I would assume you feel this way. I see it differently. While I very much agree with the RIGHT to bear arms, I also believe that unfettered access to firearms has led to the mess that we find ourselves in now. The founding fathers wrote: "A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed." Obviously they had SOME regulation in mind. Not the free for all we have today. As important to me is the right to personal safety; that by and large gun owners, especially those who carry in public places, are reliable, competent, sane individuals. Your right to carry does not trump my right to safety. And I shouldn't be required to carry a gun everywhere I go just to feel safe.
So we have three basic problems to address. First, how to ensure that gun owners understand the law, are competent in the safety and handling of firearms, and approach a confrontation with the necessary sober mental attitude. Because if a gun comes out of the holster, someone is about to die. A gun should not be the first way to resolve a confrontation, merely the last. Basic licensing of gun owners would accomplish this. Similar to hunting or driving, similar to doctors, lawyers, nurses, manicurists, pilots, etc; every gun owner would be required to attend a mandatory training session (a weekend or two). This would be a great place for the NRA to step up and foster that training environment. If you want something more lethal, like an assault rifle, you would attend some additional training and get an endorsement similar to a motorcycle license. That way we know that anyone actually carrying is competent and trained.Similar to our CPL licenses.
Second, one of our biggest fears is the number of criminal acts committed with firearms. That's a very valid concern. Our main goal is to choke off the supply of firearms to criminals. Many people claim it can't be done. Yet other countries have done this very well. Yes, some criminals will still be able to get guns. But if we choke the supply down a lot, the petty knuckleheads out there won't be able to mug you with a firearm because they will be too expensive to acquire on the black market. We choke the supply with universal background checks, mandatory locked storage, mandatory sentencing on crimes committed with a firearm, tracking of firearms from owner to owner, properly funding the ATF to do their job, or any number of ways. But our focus should remain on keeping guns in the hands of rightful owners, not criminals.
Third, the mental health issue. This is a tough one to crack. We have to find a way to balance the privacy rights of individuals under care with the need for public safety. If we all put our heads together, I'm sure we can come up with a compromise that works.
Your comments about Michigan don't seem to indicate that the system "failed". The system as far as firearms seems to be working fine. Bureaucracy can be burdensome; we all hate standing in line. But it also slows the process down to where people who truly want to carry can invest the time and resources to do so.
A common complaint is that other things kill people: knives, hammers, shovels, cars, etc. Why regulate guns? Here's why: If you attack me with a knife or other implement I have options. I can run and get away. I can use a book or a door or a coat to defend myself and block the blow. If I am trained in self-defense (great idea), I can probably even disarm you and take you down. Even if you stab or strike me, many times the blow isn't lethal and I will survive. Now compare that to a gun. With a handgun someone can stand 50 yards away and shoot you dead. With a shotgun or muzzleloader, 100 yards. With a hunting or assault rifle, 300 yards plus, and you may never even know they are there. The lethality of firearms is such that even one shot could put you out for good. So we have to recognize that by their very nature firearms are more deadly, more final.
In closing, I'll repeat that I don't believe in heavily burdening lawful gun owners. But this unfettered "gun culture" that we have in our country is not working. We need to raise the bar to gun ownership. We need to stem the flow of guns to criminals, choking it off to where our streets are safer. We need to address the mental health issue. But as long as tens of thousands of people are dying every year from firearms, we can't and shouldn't ignore that. We're a better society than that. With the right to bear arms comes incredible responsibility. We should acknowledge that and step up to the challenge. 

[gryphon]

You want to stop crime by cracking down on law-abiding gun owners.  We'll have to agree to disagree.

[TucTom]

True Dan. I agree.

[freediver]

Mr Gryphon, my intent is not to "crack down" on gun owners. My intent is to stem the flow of illegal weapons to criminals. Let's assume for a second that every initial purchase of a firearm is a legal one. Yet thousands of guns flow every year into the hands of criminals. Where do they come from? How do we stop that flow? It seems that there are only a few ways that these guns get into criminal hands. First, they are stolen from a house or car or RV during a burglary (solution:locked storage). Second, they are sold by a legitimate owner to an illegitimate one(universal background checks, fund and allow the ATF to do their job, more responsibility on the part of gun owners). Third, they are sold by corrupt firearms dealers (again, let the ATF do their job). If you can think of other ways guns migrate, or ways to stop it, I'd love to hear it.
Case in point: the other day a friend of our daughter's was at a garage sale in the Grosse Pointe Farms area. There for sale amid the baby clothes and other items were a couple of assault rifles and other firearms. Am I the only one who sees this as a gross problem? And we still wonder how guns flow into the hands of criminals?
It's about changing the gun culture in America. It's about changing our attitudes from "guns are cool" to one of sober intent. That guns have a place in our society and our heritage. But this is not the wild, wild west, or the frontier, or the gunfight at the OK corral. This is modern America, tens of thousands of people die each year from firearms, and as a nation, we can do better.

[TucTom]

Why would you say there were "assault rifles" at the garage sale? With this statement you are furthering the anti gun crowds "use fearful words" tactics. Are you sure there wasn't just an AR15 for sale? Which is not an assault rifle btw.

Btw I do love your use of words "There for sale amid the baby clothes and other items..." This reads exactly like a person who is pushing an anti gun agenda.

[gryphon]

Most gun crime is done with handguns which already have universal background checks.  Only long guns don't, and LG crime is barely on the radar.

And locked storage?  You can get inside of almost any safe in about a minute with a battery powered sabre saw.  Should these homeowners be prosecuted?

[freediver]

Mr TucTom: Yes, I do use the term assault rifles. Because that is what they are, and that is what they have been called since I entered the military in 1974. They are accurately named because they were originally designed for military use, for assaulting the enemy, for shooting a good number of bullets in a short period. Even in the semi-automatic mode. So please, let's not mince words. They are what they are. The sooner we can use honest words in an open debate, the better dialogue we can all have. Including the anti-gun crowd (of which I am most definitely not).
Thanks for the complement on my use of words. I wasn't being euphamistic. The pictures that I saw included both baby clothes and assault rifles. So let's skip the semantics and focus on the issue; assault rifles and other firearms were being sold at a garage sale. That just doesn't seem very responsible to me.

[freediver]

Mr Gryphon: A good point about the safes. i would say that these gun owners were very, very responsible and should be commended for their storage options. I would disagree with your contention that any old saber saw will get through a safe. I've been shopping for a large gun safe for a couple of months now. All the safes I've been looking at would easily withstand assault by saber saw. In the pictures you showed, those safes were attacked with a bit more than a saw. If a thief is determined and knowledgeable enough, they will get into almost any safe. But that's not the only situation we're talking about. We're talking about petty theft, where a punk breaks into your house or car or Rv and steals the handgun out of the nightstand or the glove box. We're talking about hiding your loaded shotgun behind your golf bag in the closet. We're talking about my son-in-law having a loaded 9MM Glock in a cardboard box on top of his nightstand(his birthday present from us was a speed safe, specifically for handguns and home defense) when he has three young daughters in the house, and no one knows how to handle firearms. That's the kind of irresponsibility I'm talking about.
As far as hand guns versus long guns, I agree with you. but you and I both know that every handgun purchase is not subject to a background check. There are plenty of purchases that are off the books, and a lot of those guns end up in the hands of the bad guys.

[gryphon]

Your argument about so-called assault rifles is the same one the Democrats used in 1995 in an attempt to ban sniper rifles that would have, in effect, banned all big game hunting rifles like .308, .338, 7mm, etc.  They are rifles used by the military to kill enemy combatants on the battle field, or take out a politician from a distance.

Mr Gryphon: A good point about the safes. i would say that these gun owners were very, very responsible and should be commended for their storage options.

Well, I had my guns stored in a $250K safe called a house.  Thieves broke through two locked, steel doors taking the frames right out.  I have a full-sized safe now, but it is only to keep my guns away from the grandkids (which I didn't have back then).  I have no illusions that it would stop a determined thief with a modicum of tools.

I would disagree with your contention that any old saber saw will get through a safe. I've been shopping for a large gun safe for a couple of months now. All the safes I've been looking at would easily withstand assault by saber saw.

There are better, high-quality safes that would.  When I was shopping for a safe they cost about $3K (or more).  Mine cost $1K.  If I had irreplaceable antique guns I would spend that kind of money.  But since all my firearms are modern I won't.  If they get stolen I can easily replace them with new ones with the insurance money.

In the pictures you showed, those safes were attacked with a bit more than a saw.

Not the first one.  We know for a fact how the thieves got into that (see CalGuns).  The second one as well looks to be just a saw.

We're talking about petty theft, where a punk breaks into your house

Not my problem.

  or car or Rv and steals the handgun out of the nightstand or the glove box.

Perhaps business owners should let their employees be armed so they don't have to leave their guns in their cars while at work.  But you wouldn't be in favor of that I suspect.  Otherwise they are rendered defenseless to/from their place of employment or job assignment for that day.

As far as hand guns versus long guns, I agree with you. but you and I both know that every handgun purchase is not subject to a background check.

By law they are.

There are plenty of purchases that are off the books.

So if they are already breaking the mandatory NICS check by selling handguns "off the books," how will making a universal NICS check law for long guns fix that?  They are already ignoring the NICS check law.  Will making TWO NICS check laws solve the problem?

[linux203]

The founding fathers wrote: "A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed." Obviously they had SOME regulation in mind. Not the free for all we have today.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. -United States Constitution, Amendment II

The well regulated militia is necessary to a free state.  To that end, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  The United States Constitution was written by a group of traitors that rose up against the government.  Read the Declaration of Independence, it is full of grievances against King George.  Read the Constitution, there are provisions that specifically declare the USA will not be governed like the colonies were.

What would prompt the framers of this country to include that language in a document that defines and limits the federal governments authority?  In 1774, General Gage seized hundreds of barrels of gun powder.  A clear attempt to prevent a coming revolution.  The Second Amendment is not about hunting.  It's not about sporting.  It's barring the government from weapon seizure to prevent rebellion.  They saw the problems in King George's rule and they realized the new form of government was not immune to the abuse of power. 


Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state. -Michigan Constitution, Article I Section 13.

The Michigan Constitution is even more clear cut.... zero to do with the militia.

[gryphon]

Psst...don't tell freediver about the Federalist Papers, or even the Magna Carta.

[freediver]

Mr Gryphon: Yes, I have studied the Federalist Papers and the Magna Carta. It has been awhile, and I'm not sure how they would be relevant to our discussion about gun safety and ownership in our modern age.
As far as petty theft, and guns in cars and RVs, yes, it is your problem, because it's YOUR gun. This is the concept of personal responsibility that I've been talking about. With gun ownership comes that responsibility. When you purchase a firearm you are now the owner of a deadly weapon. It falls to you, the owner, to properly secure it so that it doesn't fall into the hands of the wrong person. As far as workplaces allowing firearms, I can see the reason they don't allow them. A workplace is for work. There is no reason for you to carry a firearm in your place of work, unless you're a police officer or otherwise engaged in some sort of security. The employer does have the obligation to provide a safe and secure workplace for all of its employees. Hence private security forces.
The Democratic push to ban weapons in 1995 was obviously a poor attempt at gun regulation. That's where we gun owners need to get in the game. Rather than let some non-gun wielding politicos write regulations that don't work, we need to use our expertise to write laws that are effective. Laws that balance the need for public safety with the rights of gun owners. Just saying no is not a solution. Stonewalling any attempts to regulate firearms is not a solution. When you dig in your heels and just say no, you cede the regulation-writing to people who don't know what they're talking about. Bad idea.
Yes, by law handgun sales must have a background check. But we all know that doesn't occur. How else would you explain the thousands of handguns that are out there on the street in the wrong hands? They're not all being stolen! So we get back to the idea of changing the gun culture in America. It's not the non-gunowners who are making these illegal sales. It is the actual gun owners who are breaking the law. So how do we change that?

[freediver]

Mr Linux203: My point about the 2nd amendment is two-fold. First, obviously the founding fathers foresaw some sort of Regulation being necessary to keep the whole idea of gun ownership from dissolving into chaos and anarchy. So, when gun owners say that any regulation whatsoever is burdensome, I have to raise the BS flag. As I've said before, we need to balance the rights of gun owners with the need for public safety. And suggesting everyone pack a gun does not achieve that balance any more than outlawing guns does. We need to find solutions that work for all of our citizens, not just the ones who favor firearms.
Second, the Constitution is a living, breathing document. It has and should continue to reflect the will of the people, not the other way around. The 2nd amendment is exactly that, an amendment, a change. When situations required it, we've changed the constitution before. Witness the Amendments on slavery and prohibition, among others. The founding fathers wrote this document over 200 years ago. They could not possibly have foreseen the developments in technology and security that have come our way. So rather than dig in our heels and just say no to any changes in regulation, we, the gun owners, should take the lead and help write regulations that make our society safer. If we try something and it works, great, keep it. If we try something and it doesn't work, then we cancel it, learn from our mistakes, and keep moving forward. Just saying no to any and all changes is not a strategy.

[TucTom]

As far as petty theft, and guns in cars and RVs, yes, it is your problem, because it's YOUR gun. This is the concept of personal responsibility that I've been talking about. With gun ownership comes that responsibility. When you purchase a firearm you are now the owner of a deadly weapon. It falls to you, the owner, to properly secure it so that it doesn't fall into the hands of the wrong person.

But you have said we need laws. Which one is it, personal responsibility or governed by law?

There is no reason for you to carry a firearm in your place of work, unless you're a police officer or otherwise engaged in some sort of security. The employer does have the obligation to provide a safe and secure workplace for all of its employees. Hence private security forces.

The law requires employers to provide their employees with working conditions that are free of known dangers. I can't find anything saying a workplace must provide a safe workplace from an unknown threat.

Yes, by law handgun sales must have a background check. But we all know that doesn't occur.

Occurred when I have bought my handguns.

How else would you explain the thousands of handguns that are out there on the street in the wrong hands? They're not all being stolen! So we get back to the idea of changing the gun culture in America. It's not the non-gunowners who are making these illegal sales. It is the actual gun owners who are breaking the law. So how do we change that?

Enforce the current laws. What the current laws don't work? How then would more or new laws help