SS215, I don't have time to go through the whole thread responding to every post that you've made, so I'll stick with my thoughts on the OP. This is the first chance I've had to respond to it. With that said, I will try to phrase my response in such a way as to avoid the appearance of an attack. This post is certainly not intended as one.
With that said, many of the measures that you propose are the very ones that are often pushed by the anti-2A crowd as "compromises." They are often couched in a "let's compromise and have some reasonable regulation on guns" sort of way. One of the many problems with that is that gun control has never been a compromise. The term "compromise" means that each side gives up something in order to reach an agreement. With gun control, what does the gun control side give up? Nothing, that's what. Take a look at the post from a blog called "The LawDog Files" entitled "
OK. I'll Play."
For your convenience, I'll post the section that illustrates the point. (I claim no authorship in the following. Mods, if this violates the copyright rules, please accept my apologies and feel free to edit.)
Allow me to explain.
I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp ... except, it's not compromise.
Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."
I say, "No, it's my cake."
You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.
Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.
There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."
I say, "No, it's my cake."
You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.
So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.
And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.
This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.
Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)
I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".
I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".
LawDog
Source:
http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html
I, for one, think that the above passage does an excellent job of illustrating the problems with "compromising" on the issue of gun control. Over the last almost 100 years, gun owners have been forced to compromise over and over. What did they get out of the compromise? A reduction in their rights, that's what. What did the anti-2A folks give up? Nothing. That's not compromise. That's conquering.
StainlessSteel215 said:
. . . .So, assume for a minute that you were not an avid gun owner/collector/competition or target shooter. You are John Q Public and concerned about how easy it is for anyone with a seemingly clean records to arm themselves TO THE TEETH effective immediately if they want to....and possibly carry out a horrific mission. . . . .
Why would I assume this? Should I also give up my knowledge of history? Of constitutional law? I just don't get the purpose of giving up my interests or my knowledge before I get on with the rest of the question.
StainlessSteel215 said:
. . . . I think everything can be improved upon, and I would like to get honest feedback on a a few very serious proposals. What do you think of these measures on purchases for NEW gun owners?
• A mandatory waiting period of 10 days from point of interest until permission to purchase the gun and pick it up on purchases for NEW gun owners. A cooling off "layaway" period of sorts and the background check happens ONLY after the 10 days are up.
Several problems. First, as pointed out, there are times when someone needs a gun to defend themselves right now. A prosecutor in our office recently got his first death threat. He's a squeaky-clean individual, passed a background check to get his law license, another to get certified to access the Arkansas Crime Information Center, and probably yet another to get certified to prosecute. Why should he have to wait 10 days?
Second, there is no data (of which I am aware) that indicates that waiting periods have ever deterred a crime. On the other side, though, there are stories of folks getting killed during the waiting period.
Third, one of the beautiful things about rights is that you don't have to vote on them. The fact that some person, somewhere could, in theory buy a gun and use it for a heat-of-the-moment crime is really not a reason for everyone to have to wait to get their guns. Following that reasoning, we could put waiting periods on cars, bleach, gasoline, diesel fuel, fertilizer, crowbars, baseball bats, lead pipes, kitchen knives, belts, lighters . . . and just about anything else. If someone walks into the LGS, fuming and ranting, swearing up a blue streak and wants to buy a gun
right now, the LGS is within its rights to decline to make the sale.
StainlessSteel215 said:
• A VERY strict examination/interview where applicants are screened using a universal standardized test of sorts. Every gun store will have an expert on duty with extensive training in mental health to properly evaluate each applicant's body language and communication. (they would check for signs of drug or alcohol abuse, mental illness, malicious intent or impulsive tendencies, or ANY indication that the gun would be illegally transferred to someone else). If candidate doesnt meet the minimum score needed based on various criteria, gun store can refuse the purchase.
This one causes me significant heartburn. The costs have already been mentioned, so I'll let it suffice to say that this would close the doors on many small gun shops. From my perspective, I'm also concerned about who would set the standards and what those might be.
StainlessSteel215 said:
• A NEW gun buyer would have to demonstrate a basic knowledge of proper gun handling and safety practices, obviously each instance would be different depending on the type of firearm.
Why? Do we require basic knowledge of the components and implements necessary to exercise the other consitutional rights? Do we require someont to know what a "curtilage" is in order to exercise their Fourth Amendment rights? Knowledge of a religious text to exercise their First Amendment rights? The fact that someone else could improperly use a firearm tomorrow is no reason to place hurdles in my path to keeping and bearing my arms, is it?
StainlessSteel215 said:
• Minimum 15-day waiting period when applying for carry license.
Except for those states that require no license to carry, many (if not most) application procedures take more than 15 days. Are you suggesting an additional 15 day period? Most of the folks who apply for licenses are not out committing crimes with their firearms. (Take a look at the Texas Department of Safety statistics. They're the only ones I know of that actually compare concealed carry license holders to the general public.) The folks who are out knocking off liquor stores probably didn't apply for carry permits, anyway. Personally, I'd much rather see carry licenses done away with altogether.
StainlessSteel215 said:
I feel these are VERY minimal regulations that would have a very insignificant impact on responsible gun owners. I do think some regulation is important. If these simple ideas could help reduce the amount of impulse buyers who NEED A GUN ASAP to possibly carry out a malicious act...I think they would be well worth it. Thoughts?
My thoughts: I don't think that any of the measures you mentioned would have an impact on crime. What's more, I don't consider "gun crime" to be any less heinous than, say, "crowbar crime." One's a shooting, the other's a bludgeoning. Neither one strikes me as something I want done to me. Finally, the thought of restricting the rights of the law-abiding, simply based on the risk that the less-law-abiding might break the law later, does not make sense to me. History seems to suggest that the less-law-abiding will simply break the laws in question.
Furthermore, merely being the object of a mental health inquiry carries a considerable stigma in many cultures, and the person is often stripped of a valid means of appealing the decision almost by default; after all, how can one logically object to his/her situation if he/she is not of sound mind?