–Gun control II: Simple laws to which no reasonable person could object

Uncategorized 2 Minutes

Jesus: “all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Simple laws to which no reasonable person could object:

*1. Make the sale, possession or purchase of any automatic or semi-automatic weapon a felony (except by or to the federal government).

Federal government would offer to buy all personally owned automatic and semi-automatic weapons through a specific date, so people would not be stuck with their illegal weapons.

Criminals undoubtedly would keep their automatic and semi-automatic weapons, thereby subjecting themselves to additional jail time for buying, selling and possessing.

[I was asked how I would implement this. Here was my answer:

I would begin with the gun manufacturers. It would be a felony for any gun manufacturer to sell auto- and semi-auto- guns in the U.S.

Then I would go after the importers and the retailers.

Then I would go after the people who run gun shows.

I’d go after individuals only as part of another crime investigation. I would not demand that people turn in their AK47s, but if they wished, they could sell them to the federal government. If the police are in your house on a legal search warrant for something else, and they spot an illegal gun, they confiscate it and charge you.

It would be a war of attrition.
=======================
1. Gun manufacturers, maybe a couple dozen CEOs, who could avoid being “outlaws” simply by selling their illegal guns only to the federal government..

2. Importers and retailers who could stop buying illegal guns and sell those they have, only to the federal government,

3. Gun shows. Those running the shows could simply ban the selling illegal guns, and keep the ones you have at home.

4. Individuals, who are not law-abiding citizens, and are subject to a house search for another crime.

That’s it. You all could keep your AK47s. You even could use your AK47s — maybe to hunt sparrows or your wife or the driver who cuts you off ? (What do you do with those things, anyway?)

Just don’t sell it to anyone but the federal government, and don’t try to buy a new one — and don’t commit a crime that requires the police to go into your house.]

2. Minimum age to own or carry a legal gun: 21, except in the company of an adult.

3. GUI (Guns Under the Influence) laws similar to DUI laws. Carrying a gun while drunk, drugged and/or mentally impaired would be a felony.

Of course, people who love guns and deny that guns kill people, will find a million reasons to deny any need for gun control, but people who sincerely are concerned about the amount of killing done with guns will try to work with or augment these suggestions.

These laws will not end all gun murders. They will reduce gun murders, which is a reasonable goal.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

*P.S. Gun aficionados know there are many loading/firing descriptions (single action, double action, manual, automatic, etc.) The goal is to slow down the firing speed by requiring at least two separate actions between each shot.

P.P.S. Here is an excellent description of the Australian situation, sent in by Yuu Kim. Thank you. It will sway zero gun-heads, who will find a million reasons to doubt it, but perhaps it will influence those who are neutral: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aclnzv_QD3Q
========================================================================================================================================================================================
Dear Mr. President and Congress:

If not now, when?

If not by you, by whom?

Published by Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

MBA Northwestern, business turnaround expert, economist

Published

45 thoughts on “–Gun control II: Simple laws to which no reasonable person could object”

  2. I think we need comprehensive gun control.

    Comprehensive immigration control goes something like:

    First, secure the border.

    Once that is done, decide what to do about the illegals already here.

    Concurrently, evaluate immigration laws and quotas.

    Comprehensive gun control could be:

    First, require all persons who have used a gun in the commission of a crime, or who intend to do so, to turn in their guns.

    Once that is done, and a year has passed without a gun being used in a crime, evaluate the need for law-abiding citizens to turn in their guns.

    Concurrently, politicians might enlist the aid of the NRA in educating law-abiding gun owners on proper handling and securing of their weapons, so that they do not unintentionally discharge, or fall into the hands of children, the mentally ill, or criminals. Government could fund PSAs, such as is done for texting while driving, and other potentially dangerous activities.

    Like

    Reply

  3. You are not using your brains.

    Does Obama give up hid guns? No, he’s got 1000s of agents caring for his butt as well as his family.

    How about Bloomberg the big proponent on gun control. He’s got a full crew covering his butt too as well as his gamily.

    The constitution clearly state each and every one of us has the undeniable right to defend our lives…. let that sink…

    So Mr Mitchell, you are asking we give up our right to defend our lives while Obama and Bloomberg get a free pass. It’s ok for them, but we have to put our lives at the mercy of thugs, crminals, murderers, psychos, crazies, you name.

    What is the real purpose Roger? Can you tell the people the truth for once?

    Like

    Reply

    1. False equivalency and a basic lack of comprehension skills, “flash’. I continually see your lame ass argument everywhere, so don’t feel alone dude.. I’ll double that yikes.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Alone?

        You wanna bet you are more alone than me? I would not be surprised if you are still living with you folks.

        My argument is lame, yet not one word comes out of your keyboard to refute my statement.

        Why can’t you use your own brain instead of just copying and pasting from Mr Mitchell?

        Like

        Reply

        1. “Flash”, you’re NOT alone (here we go with that lack of comprehension skill thingie again). I’ve simply linked you to the cadre of like-minded souls who apparently feel that somehow a few REASONABLE limitations pertaining to guns and/or their control/distribution is bad,infringes on your “rights” and leaves you vulnerable. Simply fear based motivations. Neither Rodger or I are against guns -just reasonable gun control measures.You ,me, Rodger, etc are not part of the power elite-hence limitations are the norm. I wish I was living in my parents’ basement. They have both been deceased for two decades. That’s 20 years, “flash.”

          Like

          Reply

  4. I specifically referred to automatic and semi-automatic guns. Period.

    I said nothing about taking your guns away. Do you really need an AK47 to defend yourself? How about an RPG? Would that feel better?

    There is too much killing by guns. Some control is needed. What are your boundaries? Do you thing everyone should be allowed to carry machine guns, bazookas, RPGs? Is it O.K. if a 6 year old takes an automatic rifle to class?

    If you think these things are O.K.,fine. But, if not, why not? What are your boundaries and why?

    Like

    Reply

    1. You might want to re-read your first bullet.

      Anyway, you think banning AKs will make criminals stop using them? If not, that what is the point?

      You want the same government that handed AKs to a Mexican cartel, killing an american citizen, to have guns but not citizens?

      My boundaries are the same as your boundaries. Anyone that threatens my life, my child’s life, my wife’s life, and i have the uneliable right to take theirs first. And you have the same right. So does Obama and Bloomberg. Childrens depend on adults to care of them Mr Mitchell and no, it’s not ok for a 6 year old, that can harm himself and others, to carry a weapon.

      Banning AKs is not going to stop anyone from killing. The psychos that commited columbine, colorado, portland, sandy hook all planned in advanced. They chose guns, but others have chosen fertilizers and diesel fuel, gasoline, knives, cars, suvs, planed to kill.

      There are many cases where a citizen stopped a mass murder by just brandishing a gun, no need to shoot.

      How can this type of crime be stopped? How about getting rid of gun freezones, which only highligh schools and churches as a place with targets? How about alowing schools carry concealed weapons if they chose to? If you are going to secure the school, like sandy hook supposedly did, than at least put doors and locks that can hold an animal like this back. Finally, monitoring people with similar deseases and keep them away from society and guns if they are deemed dangerous.

      Like

      Reply

  5. 2011 mortality data provided by CDC doesn’t even rank homicide in the top 15. Suicide is number 10 and only 50% use a firearm.If you really want to save lives then why not go after the causes of the greatest casualties?
    A seemlng epidemic of gun violence is a creation of the press and the people who own the press. There are at minimum, 15 greater killers.

    What evidence do you have that prohibiting auto loading guns will save lives?

    Like

    Reply

    1. Got it. Murder by guns isn’t a problem. Really?

      Now what does the CDC say about the incidence of innocent people protecting themselves with an automatic or semi-automatic gun? How many of those cases vs. innocent people being killed with an automatic or semi-automatic gun?

      One piece of evidence. Japan has virtually no guns and a very low murder rate.

      By the way,in 2011, firearms accounted for 68% of all murders in America. Source: The FBI. I guess the NRA forgot to mention that statistic.

      Like

      Reply

      1. “Got it. Murder by guns isn’t a problem. Really? ” Nice strawman

        Accidental gun killings are really very low.

        Go live in Japan

        Like

        Reply

  6. You said, “You might want to re-read your first bullet.”

    I re-read it. Still reads the same. Bans automatic and semi-automatic guns, not single shot guns.

    So you can keep one or two guns under your pillow and blow away any intruder, then cock the hammer, and blow away the next guy. If you find yourself having fun, you can blow away six guys (with one six-shot revolver) or pump all six shots into one guy, just to make sure.

    “Banning AKs is not going to stop anyone from killing.”

    Really? Not one guy? Amazing. How do you know this?

    “How about alowing (sic)schools carry concealed weapons if they chose to?”

    Schools carry concealed weapons? Schools? Huh?

    You mean the librarian will get into a gunfight with a guy carrying an AK47? “Watch me, kids, I’ve got my AK47 and I’m going to get into a firefight with this dude who also has an AK47.

    “Oh, gee. that wasn’t an AK47. It was a father with an umbrella. Just when I was having fun. But, how was I supposed to know? I’m just a librarian. Sorry, kid, I killed your dad. Stuff happens.

    “And oops, I also accidentally shot a couple kids. Hey, with all those bullets flying, someone had to get in the way.”

    Ah yes, just what we need. Gunfight at the O.K. Corral School, by citizens who don’t know what they’re doing, firing in all directions, killing the bad and the good.

    ” . . .others have chosen fertilizers and diesel fuel, gasoline, knives, cars, suvs . . .

    Typical, NRA argument. Everything on earth can kill if used properly. Strangle someone with a wire. Stab someone with a sharpened plastic fork. Smother someone with a pillow. And let’s not talk about screwdrivers and other tools. Remember the Texas Chainsaw Massacre? So if you don’t outlaw pillows and screwdrivers, don’t outlaw AK47s. Right?

    Actually, I’ll take my chances with getting killed by fertilizer, vs. getting killed by automatic and semi-automatic guns.

    Anyway, you haven’t listed your boundaries. Apparently, you think all citizens above the age of 6, should be allowed to carry AK47s. What about bazookas? 50 caliber machine guns? RPGs? Cannons? Hand grenades? Land mines? Just say which if any of these you would ban, and which you would allow, and why. I’m trying to get a sense of NRA limits.

    Like

    Reply

  7. Kudos to actually putting specifics down, because many gun control proponents don’t. However, are you truly prepared to start putting lots of people in prison? Are you prepared for a slew of standoffs as the police go to confiscate the weapons? If you really think that a single action, lever action, or a shotgun cannot mow down lots of people – then go to youtube and do a search for cowboy SASS shooting. You can rip of a lot of rounds very fast with those weapons.

    Fact is we are safer from gun violence now than any time in the recent past – believe it or not – those are the stats. The reason is that finally government is going after gun criminals, something they were very lax on in the past in violent places such as Baltimore, where the sentence for a gun crime was lame.

    Remember drugs are banned, but lots of people still use those things. Canada has lots of guns, but a lot less gun crime – why?

    Here is a good oped that shows mass killings are up despite the fact we do have tougher gun laws now that in the past:
    ……..

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323723104578185271857424036.html

    Has the rate of random mass shootings in the United States increased? Over the past 30 years, the answer is definitely yes. It is also true that the total U.S. homicide rate has fallen by over half since 1980, and the gun homicide rate has fallen along with it. Today, Americans are safer from violent crime, including gun homicide, than they have been at any time since the mid-1960s.

    Mass shootings, defined as four or more fatalities, fluctuate from year to year, but over the past 30 years there has been no long-term increase or decrease. But “random” mass shootings, such as the horrific crimes last Friday in Newtown, Conn., have increased.
    Related Video

    Editorial page editor Paul Gigot discusses the Newtown shooting and its political aftermath.

    Alan Lankford of the University of Alabama analyzed data from a recent New York Police Department study of “active shooters”—criminals who attempted to murder people in a confined area, where there are lots of people, and who chose at least some victims randomly. Counting only the incidents with at least two casualties, there were 179 such crimes between 1966 and 2010. In the 1980s, there were 18. In the 1990s, there were 54. In the 2000s, there were 87.

    If you count only such crimes in which five or more victims were killed, there were six in the 1980s and 19 in the 2000s.

    Why the increase? It cannot be because gun-control laws have become more lax. Before the 1968 Gun Control Act, there were almost no federal gun-control laws. The exception was the National Firearms Act of 1934, which set up an extremely severe registration and tax system for automatic weapons and has remained in force for 78 years.

    Like

    Reply

    1. *I would begin with the gun manufacturers. It would be a felony for any gun manufacturer to sell auto- and semi-auto- guns in the U.S.

      Then I would go after the importers and the retailers.

      Then I would go after the gun shows.

      I’d go after individuals only as part of another crime investigation. If the police are in your house on a legal search warrant for something else, and they spot an illegal gun, they confiscate it and charge you.

      It would be a war of attrition.

      How does that sound?

      Like

      Reply

      1. It sounds like with the passage of a law you turn a significant portion of law abiding citizens into outlaws – and then fight them with a war of attrition (we see how well the “war on drugs” has worked).

        Then when mass shootings continue (because we have not addressed the root of the problem), there will be more calls for gun control, to the point we live in a police state.

        Does not sound very good at all.

        I’d rather begin with harsher penalties (means more people in prison), which actually get enforced, on criminals that carry or commit gun crimes. If that does not work I would entertain the gestapo approach. Fact is we are too lenient on current criminals caught with guns.

        Like

        Reply

        1. Why do reasonable people oppose putting existing gun criminals in Prison for a long time or enacting tougher laws with mandatory sentences? That is my question, which I actually know the answer to.

          Why is this not a part of the discussion?

          Like

          Reply

        2. Read my comment again (Why do NRA folks fail to read?) I didn’t mention anything about a “significant portion of law-abiding citizens.”

          I said:

          1. Gun manufacturers, maybe a couple dozen CEOs, who could avoid being “outlaws” simply by selling their illegal guns only to the federal government..

          2. Importers and retailers who could stop buying illegal guns and sell those they have, only to the federal government,

          3. Gun shows. Those running the shows could simply ban the selling illegal guns, and keep the ones you have at home.

          4. Individuals, who are not law-abiding citizens, and are subject to a house search for another crime.

          That’s it. You all could keep your AK47s. You even could use your AK47s — maybe to hunt sparrows or your wife or the driver who cuts you off ? (What do you do with those things, anyway?)

          Just don’t sell it to anyone but the federal government, and don’t try to buy a new one — and don’t commit a crime that requires the police to go into your house.

          But you’re right about one thing: The root cause of the problem is poverty, which for some strange reason, the strongest gun lovers (the right wing) also seem loath to address, but would rather cut benefits for the poor, thereby exacerbating poverty, the main cause of gun killings.

          By the way, I keep asking gun lovers where their limits are, and I never receive an answer. Maybe you will answer. What would you outlaw, and why?:
          Automatic weapons?
          50 caliber machine guns?
          Mortars?
          RPGs?
          Cannons?
          Hand grenades?
          Land mines?
          Poison darts?
          Dead falls (pits with spikes in them)?

          I’m trying to get a sense of what gun lovers really believe and what their logic is.

          Will you be the first gun lover with the courage and honesty to answer the question?

          Like

          Reply

  8. Roger, first off I am not a Republican, Conservative, Democrat or Liberal. I took up target shooting as a sport with a friend, and it was a very enjoyable activity. I even learned to reload ammo -as I am a geek that enjoys stuff like that.

    Two, I read your post, and you state:

    “Make the sale, possession or purchase of any automatic or semi-automatic weapon a felony.”

    You said possession. Most gun owners posses a semi-automatic weapon. So by passing a law that makes that illegal you instantly turn 50 million people into outlaws that must turn in their guns – think long and hard about how people will view this gestappo like action. So I think I can read fine. You said they must turn their weapons in for money – they cannot keep their semi automatic. That is what you wrote.

    Three, no I do not believe people should own RPG’s, or mortars, or bazookas or dynamite. 50 Cal and automatic weapons are actually legal if you have the proper license. Should anyone own those – I have not thought about it as most that do are collectors that have not gone on shooting rampages. Keep the licensing on this very strict.

    Four, I would like tougher gun laws. So I assume you support a mandatory 15 year prison sentence for any felon caught with a weapon? Why is this not immediately passed, as the vast majority of gun owners I know support it? Average gun sentence in Baltimore is 13 months – lame, lame, lame.

    Five, yes this is an economic and healthcare problem. Republicans and some Democrats fail on this and understand our monetary system. We need a national health insurance system.

    Like

    Reply

      1. Because I believe what is currently available (including semi-autos) provides most citizens the ability to defend themselves from criminals, social chaos such as riots, and worst case scenario a stupid or tyrannical government (wish more Greeks had guns).

        Why did you evade my question on mandatory sentencing – is it because you don’t believe in putting gun criminals in prison?

        Like

        Reply

        1. Didn’t notice your question. Never thought about it. I don’t favor any mandatory sentences. Too many variables for Congress to consider. Judges are fallible, and even dishonest, but they are better than Congress at evaluating individual situations. That’s what judges are for..

          But I really like your comment about Greece. You want to turn Greece into Syria.

          And the notion that American citizens would use their AK47s to fight the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines is so ludicrous as to be beyond discussion. You should be embarrassed even to mention it. But it is a classic NRA mantra, and you parroted it well.

          Like

          Reply

  9. Rodger, Thoroughly enjoyed the give and take! Your more elaborated replies
    better frame and thus magnify the debate…………..

    Like

    Reply

  10. So Rodger, what’s your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment? You appear to take issue w the Supreme Court’s recent decision. Should the 2nd be bullied into reinterpretation by a Court more to your liking? Or should the 2nd be repealed based on its obsolescent inapplicability to today’s realities?

    Like

    Reply

    1. The recent decision to which I referred was the Citizens United ruling, not directly applicable to guns, but rather to wealthy people.

      My own personal interpretation, is that when the framers said, “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.,” the phrase “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” was not stuck in there by accident.

      The framers more easily could have said simply, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” But they didn’t. They explained their motive, and that was to have a well-regulated militia.

      So where is the well-regulated militia? Are you part of a well-regulated militia? Or are you either alone or with a bunch of guys who like to shoot?

      If you owned a gun, because you were part of a well-regulated militia, I would favor any gun this well-regulated militia gave you. But the closest thing we have to a well-regulated militia is the National Guard.

      So bottom line:

      If you are part of the National Guard, and your officers decide you should take an AK47 home, you are clear in my eyes. I would consider your officers to be idiots, and they probably would be drummed out of the unit, but at least you would be following the law as the framers intended.

      Like

      Reply

  11. 5 percent: America’s population relative to the world population.

    50 percent: Amount of the guns on Earth owned by Americans, CNN reports.

    Why aren’t we the safest country on earth??

    Like

    Reply

  12. Hospitals are doing better due to all the practice they get?

    47 percent increase: The change in the number of people wounded seriously enough by gunshots to require a hospital stay from 2001 to 2011. In 2001, 20,844 people suffered gunshot wounds that serious. In 2011, it was 30,759, The Wall Street Journal reports. But the murder rate is going down? Why is that? Because hospitals have gotten better at treating traumatic wounds.

    13.96 percent: Share of gunshot wound victims who died in 2010.

    2 percentage point decrease: The change in the share of gunshot wound victims who died in 2010 compared to just three years earlier. Data from previous years was measured differently, so is impossible to compare, the Journal says.

    Like

    Reply

  13. Rodger, you dodge discussing the 2nd Amendment’s most recent “Heller’ and ‘Mc Donald v Chicago’ SC cases. Don’t think you’ve read them, so please do so. Then, tell us where you differ/agree with their reasoning for affirming that ‘gun ownership is a US citizen’s natural right’!. The term ‘Militia’, which you favor imputing to mean ‘Army’, is far more sanely made temporally understandable by them.

    Rather than playing Solomon and wildly concocting fixes, why not start with our Land’s law and rationally make our way from there. You liberals are
    a wildly unbridled, unmoored, and tyranical lot……………….

    Like

    Reply

      1. I’ll humor your non-response and unflattering query and ask again
        another way — do you or don’t you believe that the 2nd A. grants U.S. citizens a general right to bear arms? And, if you do, do you believe that
        general right should persevere? Forget the Ak47s just this time.

        Like

        Reply

      2. Roger, keep the argument focused on AK47s. Gun owners I know, don’t have assault rifles and wouldn’t miss them if they were gone. Semi-automatics are different.
        This country was founded by men with guns who drank kegs of beer. If this were 1776, what side would you be on?

        Like

        Reply

  14. Chose for yourself Roger.

    The constitution gave me the right to defend my life against people like this shooter. I will fight for this right until i have breath left.

    You can go and put your life at the hand of the government that has the balls to hand over guns to mexican cartels and other criminals, which than come back and kill some of us. Perhaps you are an insider and dont have to worry.

    Me, all us citizans have, is guns as an equalizer.

    Like

    Reply

        1. Hey flash, maybe I was a bit harsh on you. It appears English may not be your first language. For that, I apologize. However, the other stuff, I just don’t buy it. Carry on, Rambo!

          Like

          Reply

  15. Rodger, here, in fairness, at the outset you needed to state your belief that the SC has misread the 2nd Amendment. And, that the ‘Citizen Gun Right’
    reading should be removed or the 2nd A. repealed. As it stands, it’s the law the land.

    Thus, your ideas about limiting, controlling guns, etc. are all subject to constitutional challenge in that the SC did not – and may lack the
    ground to – ‘particularize’ the ‘Citizen Gun Right”.

    Like

    Reply

    1. I guess I was too subtle for you. Don’t weep too hard when the Supreme Court, thinking of its legacy, begins to approve tighter laws on gun ownership.

      The so-called “originalists,” like Scalia actually are originalists by convenience. The framers of the Constitution visualized single shot pistols, muskets and well-regulated militias. Today, we have semi- and fully-automatic weapons and no militias, let alone well-regulated ones.

      So clearly, if one truly were an originalist, he at best would approve ownership of single shot pistols and muskets by members if a well-regulated militia.

      I’ve been having so much fun dealing with idiots on this post, I next may write a post about abortion. Then I will hear all the criticisms of the “law of the land.” I may tell the “pro-life” folks to discuss “law of the land” with the “gun rights” folks. That should be amusing.

      Of course, the pro-life folks already are in touch with the gun rights folks, as witness the shootings and threatened shootings at abortion clinics.

      Hey, here’s an idea: Let’s arm the doctors and nurses at these clinics, so we can have some real gun battles.

      Like

      Reply

    1. He sounded like a teenager trying to get out of trouble by blaming everything else in the world.

      Today Wayne said, “Arm everybody. Armed security guards at schools. The only way to beat a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.”

      Tomorrow it will be another chorus of, “Obama is going to take away all your guns.”, and the gun and ammo sales will continue to skyrocket. (After all, isn’t that LaPierre’s whole point?)

      Like

      Reply

  17. “If the police are in your house on a legal search warrant for something else, and they spot an illegal gun, they confiscate it and charge you.”

    But if the police inquire about your citizenship while they’re investigating another crime, that would be a violation of your rights, and probably racist, too.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment