[iamatworknow]

>I believe this pure split you refer to is the fault of the gun control advocates.

In my experience it's been the other way around. I'm a gun owner and gun control advocate; a seemingly impossible combination in the eyes of most gun rights advocates.

When I've said to other gun owners in the past that common sense regulations make sense, not only have I been told that opinion means I don't deserve the guns I legally own now, it also means that if I were in danger and a gun owner was around who could stop it they should let me die because I'm not on really on their side.

That's right -- gun owners should not help me in a life or death situation because I think there should be some limits to gun ownership, despite being an owner myself who would also be subject to those limitations.

[angersock]

> common sense regulations make sense

See, and like that you've lost me. That's exactly the sort of politicized weasel-wording that has been used repeatedly to pick away at gun owners.

State what precise regulations you mean, and then we can have a productive discussion.

[CWuestefeld]

I think the very phrase you pointed out is a big part of the problem: "common sense regulation". This seems to be designed to slip past any rational discussion. If you can say that something is "just common sense", then you've excused yourself from needing to provide the logical foundation for your argument.

[iamatworknow]

You're not off to a good start in a debate when your opening salvo includes the phrase "politicized weasel-wording". I'm not a politician. I'm a gun owner who thinks it's okay for there to be some restrictions on gun ownership that I would also have to abide by because I genuinely believe it would make things safer.

Think for a second about why you chose those words instead of simply asking, "what do you consider to be 'common sense regulations'?" Are you subconsciously (or perhaps intentionally) trying to antagonize me by being pre-emptively dismissive of whatever I have to say next? That's usually the case in these discussions, in my experience, and if so, there's no point in continuing at all, because you've already made up your mind to disagree with whatever I have to say.

But in case I'm reading too far into that remark, I will share what I consider to be "common sense regulations":

I think a permitting process should be required for all gun ownership that involves a thorough background investigation. That's for all firearms -- long guns, pistols, all of them. You should need to present this permit when making all further firearm and ammunition transactions, including private party transfer and at gun shows.

Usually the immediate rebuttal to this is "well the Constitution says I have a right to guns!" Setting aside the semantics of the second amendment and our interpretation of what the authors meant by it, the end result of this proposed permitting process is not actually much different from the way things are setup today. Currently if you're a convicted felon you can't own a gun. The only difference is that for things like rifles and shotguns, law enforcement today doesn't know you own one since there is no permitting or registration process. The only difference is that instead of taking away the gun when you're a felon caught with one, you just aren't able to get it in the first place.

The next rebuttal is that now the government has a list of gun owners with this system that they'll use for whatever nefarious purposes you can imagine, but you're a fool if you think they don't already have this information. Your identity is sent to NICS currently when you buy a gun, and there's no way they aren't logging this information already. The only difference under my plan is that this registration would be more transparent, and you get an ID card proving you're fit to own a firearm.

And hell, we're all tech minded people here. There's no reason why this whole system can't anonymized in a blockchain or something like that.

Private party transfer and gun shows would be a bit trickier to regulate, but if the plan is universal among all states, then you can simply say that if you are the registered owner of a gun and it's used in a crime, even if you didn't fire the gun, unless you processed the transfer you're personally liable.

And really, that's all I mean by "common sense regulations". As I said, I'm a gun owner and I would be happy to live with this system. That is, knowing that everyone else is subject to it as well. The problem is that such a plan would need to be instituted nationwide, otherwise it's pointless since you can just drive to another state and bypass the whole thing. In the minds of most gun control advocates registration = loss of freedom, as opposed to the minor inconvenience it would be for law abiding citizens, so I doubt it would ever be possible.

[vsl]

> The next rebuttal is that now the government has a list of gun owners with this system that they'll use for whatever nefarious purposes you can imagine, but you're a fool if you think they don't already have this information

I'm Czech ("the Texas of EU", with ~3% of population having a carry permit) and finally a gun owner after EU's decisively not common-sense latest round of gun control regulations (proving, by the way, the fear of ever-sliding next round "compromise", to be a very real one).

I have mixed feelings about such registries.

On one hand, that's what we have here, and it works reasonably well - and gun owners are mostly content with well-balanced legislation that is neither too permissive nor too restrictive.

On the other hand, the risk of such registries is not theoretical for Czechs. In 1939, when Germany invaded [what remained of] the country, one of the first things they did was to confiscate all legally owned weapons — which was only made possible by the registry, and significantly impaired armed resistance. Lesson learned, and practiced decades after the war ended: hidden illegal arms are better than legal ones.

By the way, on the subject of the rest of your comment: everybody needs a permit here and we're fine with the system. Unlike in most of the rest of the EU, you have a legal right for a conceal carry permit, provided that you meet the legal requirements that I think amount to a background check in US: no recent (or, if serious, ever) crime record, no recent relevant misdemeanor (basically DUI or getting into fights, i.e. just the kind of irresponsible person you don't want to have a gun), no relevant medical problems (basically impairing judgment or motor skills). And you have to pass an exam, akin to driver's license, that tests for your knowledge of the law and practical ability to safely handle firearms and hit a target.

You need a permit for every gun too, with paperwork involved in any sort of sale, but the permit is automatic, just bureaucracy (except for firearms with restricted sale in EU, most notably full-auto; the you need to demonstrate a need and may or may not be granted a permit).

[angersock]

Thanks for sketching out the proposed policies in more detail! That's a lot more productive.

Now, to tackle them in reverse order:

> as opposed to the minor inconvenience it would be for law abiding citizens, so I doubt it would ever be possible.

There is no concrete benefit for law-abiding citizens above the system we already have in place here. Like, it's not immediately obvious that the proposed changes clearly make things better (unlike, say, requiring seatbelts in cars).

> you can simply say that if you are the registered owner of a gun and it's used in a crime, even if you didn't fire the gun, unless you processed the transfer you're personally liable.

This fails (badly) to account for firearms that have been stolen. See also: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-e...

If you want to make the argument that "gun owners need to keep better track of their guns"...it's their property, so that should be their choice. We don't require people to know exactly where their car is, or to know where their bicycle is, or where their axes are (even though all of those could and are used to wound others).

> Private party transfer and gun shows would be a bit trickier to regulate

Again, it's unclear that there is good reason or precedent for regulating the transfer of property here.

> you're a fool if you think they don't already have this information.

One could make the same argument about requiring people to cc the NSA on every email they make to people outside the continental US: just because it's happening doesn't mean we should set legislative precedent.

> Currently if you're a convicted felon you can't own a gun.

There has been a lot of work in the last few years to try and restore that right, actually. This makes sense given the arbitrary enforcement of non-violent felonies.

It's hardly assumed that felons (given our current judicial system) have any moral obligation to be unarmed.

> You should need to present this permit when making all further firearm and ammunition transactions, including private party transfer and at gun shows.

Why, exactly? What is the purpose of this?

What benefit or supposed safety do we get from having this?

And if the benefits are so great, shouldn't we just make this near-mandatory training during schooling, as we do with driving?

[srean]

> We don't require people to know exactly where their car is, or to know where their bicycle is, or where their axes are (even though all of those could and are used to wound others).

Comeon that's a terrible false equivalence and I am sure you know it. I can possibly use just a blunt pencil to kill someone, but a gun makes it orders of magnitude easier (even if the intent was not to kill).

If false equivalence are acceptable, let me throw you another one. Why throw hissy fits about nations that have or are building nuclear arms capability. As a third party it is legit to feel unsafe unless you have skin in the game, unless you have demonstrated to some satisfaction that you can handle the capability responsibly. But NPTs are no way as nuanced as that, even hypothetical capability is enough to legitimize a hissy fit and worse: crippling sanctions.

I think its fair trade, if you are not willing to take liability of not being able to secure your gun, you don't get to keep it. If it gets stolen etc, its fine if you alert law enforcement within an actionable window. If something bad is done with your gun you have to convince a judge that you took all reasonable precautions.

[angersock]

Given the massive number of people that have been wounded in car accidents of all sorts, and in terror attacks using machetes and cars recently, I would venture that it is not, in fact, a false equivalency.