I was pretty happy with my last diary, at least regarding what I wrote. I really was trying to have or start a conversation. Unfortunately the bulk of the over 500 comments (which is a lot for one of my diaries) showed that a conversation regarding firearms can be rather difficult to have.
It is my desire that we continue to work towards having such conversations and I don't know of a better place to do it than right here. Does anyone think that a group whose opinions can, on the surface, be seen as being polar opposite of many of the opinions here on this site, could even begin to be tolerated at Red State? I don't frequent that site but I find it highly unlikely that a group, that was "pro-gun control" (for lack of better words) would be allowed to form, let alone contribute diaries and engage in comments. That says something about what we have and says even more about what we can work toward. Nevertheless, we didn't get very far last time, nor have we gotten very far before. Let's say we try again.
Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a DKos group of second amendment supporters who also have progressive and liberal values. We don't think that being a liberal means one has to be anti-gun. Some of us are extreme in our second amendment views (no licensing, no restrictions on small arms) and some of us are more moderate (licensing, restrictions on small arms.) Moderate or extreme or somewhere in between, we hold one common belief: more gun control equals lost elections. We don't want a repeat of 1994. We are an inclusive group: if you see the Second Amendment as safeguarding our right to keep and bear arms individually, then come join us in our conversation. If you are against the right to keep and bear arms, come join our conversation. We look forward to seeing you, as long as you engage in a civil discussion.
As always, if you're interested in joining RKBA, message
KVoimakas.
Since I was unable to gather much useful data from the comments of my previous diary I'm going to make some assumptions and take an educated guess or two.
My first educated guess is the list below which is what I believe represents the most frequently suggested controls that are often considered reasonable gun control measures that will help in reducing gun related violent crime.
Ban of semi automatic rifles that look like military weapons
Registration of firearms
No open / concealed carry
Require background checks for all firearm sales including private transfers
Allow cities and municipalities to develop and enact their own laws
Require the enactment of secure storage laws
Licensing of firearm owners
Ban high capacity (20 rounds or more) magazines or drums
Repeal the 2nd Amendment
Now that list is too long to have a conversation about, especially considering the format we are using to communicate, so what I am going to do is cull this list of nine items down to four.
My condensed list is,
Ban of semi-automatic rifles that look like military weapons
Registration of firearms
Background checks for all sales including private transfers.
Ban high capacity (20 rounds or more) magazines or drums
Okay, so now we are down to a workable number of controls that we can have a conversation about. But before we get too far, let’s step back and take a look at my previous diary and do a bit of a review.
What are some of the things we want to achieve with firearm legislation? We want to reduce the number of firearm related homicides, suicides, robberies, assaults and negligent discharges that result in injury or death. We also want to restrict criminal access to firearms.
Is it safe to say that this is what we want? Or is there something else that we wish to achieve? At any rate, where do we start? If I was looking to enact new firearm legislation I would consider two things, 1) What type of legislation actually stands a chance of being made law? and 2) What legislation would have the greatest potential for reducing gun related violent crime? Or in other words can we, through legislation, accomplish our goal of significantly reducing gun related violent crime / criminal access to firearms and can the proposed legislation make it into law?
In my opinion the one control that would most likely be able to make it into law would be the ban of high capacity (20 rounds or more) magazines and drums and the one control that could possibly have the greatest potential for reducing gun related violent crime would be background checks for all firearm sales including private transfers.
The next part of this is going to be difficult because I am a bit of a stickler when it comes to enacting new laws. I want any legislation to be able to do what it was enacted to do, which in our case is to reduce gun related violent crime and prevent criminals from obtaining firearms. I have to ask this again, to make sure we are in some semblance of agreement. Is this what we want the legislation to achieve?
Since I am such a stickler, something that I am going to have to hold fast to is my previous statements on the effectiveness of controls.
Let me start off by saying it is my opinion that ineffective controls are a waste of time, energy and valuable resources. If a control isn’t capable of producing the desired results, it shouldn’t be implemented. With that said how can we know which controls will have a enough of an impact to deliver the outcomes we wish to achieve? What we would need to do is, prior to controls being implemented they would need to be tested on the basis of their being reasonable, achievable and whether or not they will result in a measurable reduction in violent gun related crime in relation to the cost of implementation.
Let's say, for arguments sake, that enacting both of the above proposed controls, a law requiring NICS background checks to be conducted on all firearm transfers, including private transfers, and a ban on high capacity magazines and drums, is reasonable (not extreme or excessive) and is cost effective (the benefit of implementing the law is at a minimum equal to the cost of development, implementation and enforcement). But let's also say that it can't be determined that if these controls are enacted they will achieve what we want. Do we enact the laws anyway just to see if they will work? Keeping them if they do and repealing them if they don't? Is that how we go about this? Shouldn't we have a system in place prior to enactment that will allow us to gather enough good data so we can definitively say that this law did or did not produce a measurable and significant reduction in the areas we wanted? Lots to think about if we are going to do this correctly.
One thing I keep in mind is this, once we the people choose to give up a right or a power that is reserved for us to the government, I think it is unlikely that right / power will be returned to the people any time soon, if ever. I find it is much easier to keep something than to try and get something back, therefore I am hesitant to give up any rights / powers that are reserved for us whether they be enumerated rights or not.
Maybe we are looking in the wrong place to achieve what we want. Are there different control measures that can be put in place that address different hazards of living in our society? Ones that may not address violent gun related crime specifically but the effects of which will accomplish what we want, which should be a reduction in violent gun related crime and to reduce criminal access to firearms.
What are the solutions? What should they look like? Do we even need additional control measures in place? Could it be that a significant portion of the violence that is committed on our population is a failure to properly implement current control measures? Regardless, I do know that solutions are often best derived through cooperation and a great way to work on cooperation is to have a conversation. So why don't you all have a chat and give it a shot.