My "sensible gun regulation" expectations

A pro-gun rights friend messaged to ask me what I would want from gun control in the US. First, I want to be clear: I don't want to control the guns. For that, I point to this little meme:

Now that that's out of the way...  Let me say that what I want from gun regulation is this:  creating barriers for criminals attempting to access weapons that increase their likelihood of success in pursuing criminal activity while protecting those who like or enjoy owning and using guns for non-criminal reasons. 

Everyone in my immediate family except me - and ironically my Navy officer sister - has a concealed carry permit. Navy sister gets guns, though, and according to the Navy is an expert shooter of some weapon. I don't remember which one. I just know her uniform has a little bar with an 'E' and when I asked her she told me and she told me the weapon. I thought it was cool. I forgot the weapon.

But I digress. My family - and a large number of friends - have CCW permits. They have all taken CCW classes. They've all gone to the shooting range and practiced firing weapons. 

I was brought up around guns. My brother was given one for his 14th birthday. (It led to a fantastic story I tell about the first time I brought a boyfriend home, but I won't share that here because my brother will kill me.) My neighbour had a gun and he used to take my brother skeet shooting when they were younger.  My grandfather had a gun. I imagine my great-grandfather had a couple. I am pretty sure that most of my extended family have one or more guns in their houses. 

So I'm not intrinsically afraid of guns. They aren't unfamiliar to me. I don't think people who own or like guns are simply crazy or stupid or lacking in intelligence or social skills. The things that make them happy just happen to be different from what makes me happy. They like having weapons and firing them and being with them, and ostensibly cleaning them and making them look pretty. Whatever. I don't get it (though sometimes I do think it might be fun to shoot things). 

These friends and family also aren't in the habit of killing people, selling drugs, or whatever. So if it makes them happy, that's cool. Let them do it. But with reasonable limitations that are aimed at the criminal elements in our society.

Here are my six proposals I'd like to see in gun legislation. Some of it's standard; some of it perhaps isn't. Some of it's well thought out; some of it's merely sketched out.

(1) A ban on the sale of high capacity magazines.

(2) Testing and registration for gun licenses. This wouldn't be some astronomical test. It would be similar to a driving license. The state can't arbitrarily deny you a permit, but you have to show (a) you can see clearly and pass a visual test; and (b) you know how to use a gun, how to carry it, and the rules of gun safety. If you commit criminal activities with your gun, you lose your license. Whether this loss is temporary or permanent will depend on the crime. If your criminal activity is using a weapon without a permit, it might incur a one year loss of rights; if it's premeditated murder, a politlcal assassination, mass murder or a shooting spree, you should lose the right for life.  

The licensing would be done on a state-by-state basis and licenses would have the same effect as a driver's license. A license in one state would let you buy a gun and transport it to another. But there would be some basic expectations of all states in their licensing standards (like visual tests, and needing to prove you know how to load and unload a gun and how to carry it, etc.). These requirements probably wouldn't be much different than the current standards for concealed carry permits.

Also, similar to a car, you could own a gun without a license; you just can't operate a gun without a license. So people can collect antique guns but not use them unless they are given a license. To make this effective, you would need to show your gun license when purchasing ammunition. Selling ammunition to a person without a gun license would be treated similar to selling alcohol or tobacco to a minor.

Operating a gun without a license would be a crime. There would be exemptions for use in non-criminal activity on private property. So if someone wants to take their 8 year old kid out on their fam and teach them how to shoot, they can and it won't incur liability. If a 17 year old unlicensed kid goes and robs someone with that same gun used to teach the 8 year old, though, they incur the liability for both the armed robbery but also for operating a gun without a license. 

(3) Gun sales would need to be registered. The obligation to register the sale would fall on the seller who would provide a copy of the background check they received. Failure to do so would be a crime and the seller would incur some level of liability for criminal activity conducted with a gun that was sold without this registration.

(4) A closing of the loophole on background checks. Private sales would need a background check and the sale would need to be registered. Like #3, failure to do so would be a crime and the seller would incur some level of liability for criminal activity conducted with a gun that was sold without registration.

The criminal liability incurred for these last two provisions might be in the form of a penalty or jail time, depending on the crime committed and the history of the people involved in purchase and sale of the weapon. If a gun is stolen, personal owners (as opposed to stores) have something like 72 hours to one week to report the gun stolen and not incur liability for its use.

These provisions are an attempt to temper a lot of the internal black-market, private sale loopholes and to encourage people not to skirt the obligations of a background check and registration of a sale. Right now, investigations show people are willing to make private sales even when they know someone wouldn't pass a background check. They essentially know they are assisting someone in future criminal conduct, but it's not actually a crime. When there are sales to criminals who couldn't pass the background check, it should just be the criminal who is responsible but those who intentionally able the criminal as well.

(5) Companies involved in the regular sale of guns would have to undertake semi-annual or quarterly inventory requirements, with reporting to the ATF. This is just to tell the ATF if any guns have been stolen, and to ensure the company is complying with its registration requirements for the guns it does sell. Systematic problems that remain uncorrected or unaddressed may result in suspension of the company's license to sell.

This will be the costliest aspect for big companies that sell weapons, but right now they have no oversight and the ATF can't force inventories or reporting. Once a company gets registered, gun trace evidence can't be used in determining the company's licensing provisions. The company doesn't have to tell anyone if a gun is stolen, even though the very nature of gun theft suggests it will be used in the future for criminal activity. We need some common sense way that is not overly burdensome to ensure companies have some oversight in who they sell to and under what conditions.

(6)  A national non-mandatory buy-back of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. The government could pay for the assault weapons / magazines, or provide tax deductions for turning them in, or provide something like gifts cards, food-stamp cards or prepaid debit cards. To offset the cost of the program, the guns collected could then be melted down and sold at auction, or sold to state or federal law enforcement / military units. The program wouldn't need to run for that many years - maybe 5 - so we wouldn't be setting up a permanent governmental structure or agency. Just a short-term program, possibly run by the ATF or the FBI.

I disagree with those who say it would be unconstitutional to force people to turn in their assault weapons and high capacity magazines. I can only see it being unconstitutional if we didn't compensate them for the property loss or provide a means of appealing if they have just objections. This isn't a violation of a 2nd Amendment unless the 2nd Amendment itself protections the right to own and purchase high capacity magazines and assault weapons. The '08 Supreme Court decision doesn't suggest this is the case. But, the 5th Amendment taking clause protects the right to property, and guns are a type of property. So any mandatory return of assault weapons, etc., would simply need due process and adequate compensation.

But that's actually an academic point here, because I don't think we need a mandatory buy-back as long as we have the other steps in place. I also think a mandatory buy-back would create too many problems and would cause too much of an uproar in the gun-owning community. So it's unnecessary and divisive. Why would I push for that? We can accomplish the real goals I see of gun control - reducing criminal access while protecting the rights of those who want to shoot things for a non-criminal purpose - with the other steps and a voluntary buy-back.

So that's what I would want to see. Six steps. Nothing massive. Nothing to take guns away from those who want to responsibly use them to non-criminally shoot things on private property. It's aimed solely at the criminals. I don't think there's anything on here that is particularly radical or threatens the average gun owner.

Will this stop all gun violence? No.

Would it have even stopped the Sandy Hook shooting?  Probably not. But the guy (I'm refusing to name him because we should be remembering the victims and not the perpetrator) might not have been able to kill all 27 people besides himself. Nancy Lanza? Yes, she was sleeping.  Some of the 26 students and teachers? Yes. Even with a six-shooter, he could have shot 5-6 people quickly, depending on whether he reloaded after shooting the window to get into the school. Of course, he'd have to have been a good shot to be effective in killing all of them. With a musket, he could have killed one.  But all 26?  That probably wouldn't have happened with the above proposals. 

And if it would have saved the lives of Victoria Soto, Daniel Barden, or James Mattioli that would have been worth it, wouldn't it?

Victoria Soto

James Mattioli, 6 years old

Daniel Barden, 7

Call to Congress: the Need for More Research on Gun Control

As I've posted statistics and links to research on gun violence, a few people keep asking me why there isn't more information on specific indicators and variances between things like socioeconomic status, etc. 

The answer is now clear for me: the gun lobby has had Congress and state legislatures pass legislation that prevents research into the impact of gun ownership and possession on issues of crime, injury and death.

A small minor correction, really: the research can be funded only if it won't lead to advocating for gun regulations. So if your research will show that greater gun ownership is good for health, then you can be funded. If it shows that we need gun regulation, such research endangers the funding of entire institutions.

This strangling effect on our research prevents a more thorough and honest discussion about our available policy choices. 

Why? Perhaps because so far the evidence is conclusive: more guns equals more homicides. 

It's time for Congress to free up our researchers and allow for clearer policy discussions.

On trust and guns

I don't stop for people stranded on the road.  I mean, I have at times when I've prayed immediately before and it feels right in my gut.  But that's rare.  Usually I don't even pray about my decision, I just keep on driving.  It's not because I'm an unkind person.  And it's not because I can't relate to their situation. I was once stranded on the side of a busy road close to a steep (though not very long, thankfully) cliff.  My lights didn't work because the problem with the car was that the threads in my battery had been shredded so when I hit a bump, the entire battery stopped. I barely had enough time to get the car off the road and onto the precarious shoulder where I sat, waiting first for a friend to come and sit behind me with her flashers on and then for the tow truck, who first had to pull another car from the river that sat below me.

So I sympathize with people who are stranded.  But I still don't pull over for them.  I will, however, call the police or the Highway Patrol to tell them a car is stranded and they should go help.

I also don't accept candy or rides from strangers.  Admittedly, when I was 6 years old, it was my brother who stopped me from going too close to a car of strangers who offered candy in exchange for directions.  (Because when you're legitimately lost, the people you're most likely to ask for directions are an eight year old and three six year olds...)  After that, I very diligently stayed away from strangers in cars with candy.  When offered it, I was to call my parents and the police. (It's admittedly been a long time since that's happened).

As a child, I was not to let anyone - not even teachers, ministers, or doctors - touch my no-no places without my mother knowing. If they had ever told me not to tell, that's when I was supposed to scream the loudest. This is admittedly not the rule anymore in my 30s, but if I'm at a bar and put my drink down and walk away - even for just a few seconds - I never pick it up again. Hell, I've been known to be a complete pain to sweet-talking guys because if you seem too smooth, I'm also going to distrust you.  And I always lock my doors.

Why?  Because as an American, we're taught not to trust strangers. Too many people were killed when they were nicely helping strangers stranded on the road; too many children kidnapped with the promise of candy; and too many girls raped with roofies. Our news brings us regular stories of too-trusting individuals who are betrayed. Hollywood turns these stories into made-for-TV grist (or Pretty in Pink if we're talking about too-smooth guys).

We are a society that recognizes that you both earn trust and you give trust responsibly. Our children know "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice; shame on me." (Or as President G.W. Bush said, "Fool me once, shame on... shame on you? If you fool me, you can't fool me again.")

So why is it that I'm supposed to blindly trust every American out there with a a semi-automatic weapon? Why is it that I'm supposed to just trust you to not kill my friends' children or my nephews and niece with weapons that have fewer licensing regulations than any of the 6 cars my immediate family owns?

That's ultimately what my gun-friendly friends on facebook keep telling me:  we don't need fewer guns, we need more of them; we should arm our teachers and our principals so these people we already don't pay enough for the jobs they do have can also be the people who we now trust to responsibly keep a semi-automatic weapon within 5 feet of our curious and industrious children and teenagers.

I'm supposed to just trust every guy who doesn't have a felony conviction, or a drug conviction in the last year, with a semi-automatic weapon. I have to hope they bought their weapon from a federally licensed dealer who did the mandatory background check and 3 day waiting period.

That's the reality of our gun regulations. I keep hearing about how tough US gun laws are and how they don't keep guns off the streets - just out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Of the (at least) 62 gun-related mass murders since 1982 - mass murders being defined as 4 or more people killed in one incident - 49 of those used guns that were legally purchased.  3/4 of the 142 guns these killers had were legally obtained.

And if it feels like these shootings are occurring more frequently, that's because they does. Of those 62 mass shootings, 7 have happened this year alone. One a month from April through December except for June, October and November, 11 since 2010, and 25 since 2006.  This is by far the deadliest year with 7 shootings and 156 injured or killed.  1999 had five shootings, with 91 injured or killed, and then 2009, 2007 and 1993 had four shootings each (73, 86, and 57 injured or killed, respectively).

Yet somehow, I'm supposed to believe that all of this indicates we should have more people carrying weapons in more places. If more guns and looser regulations about where you can carry them are supposed to ensure greater safety, this should've been our safest year yet.  In the past decade, the number of states with concealed carry laws went from 29 to 49.  Only Illinois is not a concealed carry state, and their law was just struck down as unconstitutional by a federal appellate court.

Even in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, my home state's asshole Governor wants to make it easier for people to take weapons into areas where our state employees work, They have to trust every person who comes in with such a weapon to be a good guy. His justification?  It's not an issue of access to guns; it's a complicated issue of culture and mental health. His proof?  Apparently it's his gut instinct because he offers nothing else.

Assuming the Governor's gut instinct about the problem is correct, then let's fix those things first and then we can talk about loosening regulations. Don't regulate our society based on your gut instincts while doing nothing to fix any of the issues your gut tells you are the problems.

The fact that 2012 - with all its lax gun laws - wasn't safer shouldn't surprise those who research in this area. Those who more than their gut instinct to determine facts and truthiness say that access to guns is the problem.

Peer reviewed studies that control for poverty levels indicate more gun ownership results in a higher level of homicides or suicides.  This is true across federal states and across countries.  And no, Israel and Switzerland are not exceptions to the rule.

Yet, gun enthusiasts keep telling me I should trust them with these weapons. I should trust them and their gut belief that they would've been able to effectively use their weapon to stop the bad guys.  I'm supposed to trust them and their understanding of the situation rather than the statistical data that tell us a serious, long-term solution to this issue exists.  It involves controlling what types of guns can be sold, to whom, and under what conditions.

I was told not to use the words "gun control" because they evoke emotional responses.  I was told we already have gun control - with "tons" of regulations on gun ownership.  So let me explain our "gun regulations" that we have tons of.  Since I'm not an expert, I'm relying on these guys who are (again, academic research, not just some guy on the internet who says he's an expert because he likes shooting things).

According to them, many people who have been convicted of crimes that are still allowed to possess firearms under current laws. "Data from two studies of individuals who have committed the most serious crimes indicate that prior to committing these crimes, the perpetrators were not prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law."

The prohibition on drug abusers owning weapons is limited only to persons with "a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years, if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year; or … [is] found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year." So you just need to wait a year after every drug conviction and you can get a gun. And then hope you don't get arrested again for a year because it apparently doesn't matter how many times you actually get convicted for drug abuse, as long as you're not arrested in the past year you're totally fine to own a gun. 

Oh, and that prohibition on drug abusers having access to semi-automatic assault rifles? It only affects people addicted to illegal drugs. Alcoholics - no matter how abusive or dangerous - are not prohibited from owning firearms. So if you like shooting shit up, alcohol should be your drug of choice. Go ahead - have 20 drunk driving convictions. That's totally fine!  Go ahead, get in a few barroom brawls. It's with a legal drug!  We're happy to give you a gun.

That 3-day waiting period all my gun-enthusiast friends hate?  You don't need if it you buy your gun from a guy on the street.  Private sales aren't required to have a 3-day waiting period.  They aren't required to register the sale.  And there's no need for that pesky little background check thing that would tell the seller that you're actually a convicted felon from another state who has killed 8 people.  If someone privately sells a weapon to someone with a felony record who then goes out and commits more felonies, the first person is immune from suit.  40% of firearms sales occur from private sales.  So 40% of our purchasers never undergo a background check.

If you are a licensed dealer and you have shady practices?  The ATF can't access data relating to gun trace evidence and use that in their licensing procedures.  So go ahead - screw that 3 day waiting period! You'll probably still get your next licensing.

That's the state of our gun control.  That's what I'm supposed to trust to weed out the bad guys who would harm our children.  That's the policy that protects my nephews and nieces from the next Adam Lanza walking into their school.

As for those for whom 'gun control' elicits an emotional response that makes you automatically defensive, let me say this clearly: if you are more emotionally attached to your gun than you are to those 26 people in Connecticut, then you really shouldn't be allowed to own a weapon.  Any weapon including scissors or really sharp nail files.  Those 26 people were real, living beings with dreams that were snatch and families that will mourn.  Your gun is a piece of scrap metal that was nicely crafted.  It has no emotions, no dreams, and it really doesn't given a damn about you.  If you can't see that difference, you really don't deserve sharp objects.

That brings me to my final point.  Under current regulations and the stated idea of the 2nd Amendment that so many people have, I'm supposed to trust people not because they have proven themselves, but because they happened to be born on American soil.  I'm supposed to trust people with unencumbered access to semi-automatic weapons because they were lucky their grandparents or great-grandparents immigrated to the US. 

The map in our living room tells me that in the past 3 months, people from over 16 countries have come to my home.  Some of those stickers represent friends I would trust with a semi-automatic assault weapon; some I wouldn't.  Most I would trust a lot more with a semi-automatic assault weapon more than I trust most of the Americans I know with such a weapon.  Why? Because as human rights activists, they have shown a great deal of respect for human dignity and for the sanctity of life.  Many Americans don't.  That's not because they're Americans; it's because they're humans.

We don't trust people simply because they have the same passport as we do.  If we did, I'd get into cars with strangers who have candy upon proof of a birth certificate.  I'd leave my drink unattended in any bar in Euclid, Ohio (because I've never met a foreigner there who wasn't traveling with me). I'd leave my doors unlocked and stop for every stranded car on I-71.  And my parents would've been perfectly happy leaving me unattended with doctors and teachers who wanted to touch my no-no areas.

We don't do that because simply being American doesn't mean you're trustworthy with the things most precious to us: our bodies, our children, and our lives.  That shouldn't change simply because you like shooting things.

http://on.wsj.com/Zd3fqb