The Onion’s Tips For Passing Gun Control Legislation

[Ichingcarpenter]

Write gun control legislation. Pass gun control legislation.



Before voting on gun control bill, try, if you can, to remember any recent examples in which guns have been used to kill innocent people.



Acknowledge that it’s going to be hard to buck the pressure of the high-powered gun lobby, but not that fucking hard, dumbass.



Consider if overwhelming public support for a particular measure is something you want to be associated with or not.



Inform your decision by researching whether guns are good or bad when placed in the wrong hands.



Muster everything that’s left in your black, desiccated heart to do something that might actually be of service to someone other than yourself.



Carefully assess the other side of the argument wherein mentally unstable people can buy weapons at a gun show with no problem whatsoever, and then realize there is no other side of this argument.



Put on your stupid little suit, run a comb through your greasy hair, go to the U.S Capitol building, pick up your fancy little gold pen, and pass a fucking gun control bill.


http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-onions-tips-for-passing-gun-control-legislatio,32103/

[FSogol]

1. K & R. n/t

[Baitball Blogger]

2. Superb!

[Paladin]

3. God bless The Onion. Now and always.

[aikoaiko]

4. Also: Don't make stupid, useless laws that won't save lives.

But only serve to make the anti-RKBA folks feel good about themselves.

[Orrex]

7. 'No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this,36131/

[aikoaiko]

9. Was this supposed to be a response to my reply?

I didn't say the violence couldn't be reduced.

[Orrex]

10. Nor did you propose any ways that it might be

One hopes that we can avoid such vague pleasantries as "improved access to mental healthcare," which in practice amounts to clapping one's hands and wishing really hard that gun violence will subside.

[aikoaiko]

13. Sure...

I think we can do a better job of identifying those people who are potentially dangerous beyond what we do now. There are serous due process and privacy issues, but I think it can be worked out. More people would be denied firearms through NICS checks. Maybe even someone like Rodgers.

We can improve private sales by requiring a NICS check and opening NICS to the public.

And we can improve access to mental health and end the drug wars.

These things are doable -- especially opening NICS to the public and they wouldn't interfere with the RKBA.

Do you have any suggestions or do you just repost Onion pieces?

[Skittles]

25. I think every fucking asshat open carrying in a fast food joint is potentially dangerous

paranoid assholes

[aikoaiko]

33. I'm not as afraid of people with guns as you and others are, but I...

...recognize that you are. I don't support these open carry demonstrators. Many people on gun boards (even very conservative boards) are calling them out. Eventually, open carry in public establishments will be made illegal if they don't stop. States could do it now if they wanted.

Sometimes I think they are using the "fight them there instead of here" model of controlling the conversation. While people are arguing and fussing over open carry they are not attacking concealed carry.

[Skittles]

48. I AM NOT AFRAID OF GUNS

I was trained to shoot by my uncle and in the military - I SIMPLY DO NOT CARE FOR GUN HUMPERS - THINKING AMERICANS ARE SICK OF THEM

[heaven05]

57. +1000

[Hoyt]

26. Responsible gun owners can do a background check now using an FFL, but they won't.

The system should not be opened to general public. Instead private gun sales should he handled through an FFL where proper records will be kept and the FFL has accountability. Just another obstruction thrown up to impede better gun laws.

Gun owners don't have to wait for laws, they can quit adding to their weapons cache, quit promoting more guns in more places, etc. But they won't. They expect us to coddle them no matter what atrocities happen because of their toys.

[aikoaiko]

32. It is inconvenient, some expense, and there is a papertrail

Nevertheless, many people do use an FFL to facilitate a transfer.

You could get a lot more people to do it if NICS were publicly available. Why would you put up an obstacle?

[metalbot]

42. Why not just start enforcing current NICS checks?

I've said this before here, and it gets very little traction, but it bears repeating:

The government is not currently enforcing EXISTING violations with NICS. In 2010, NICS denied 72,659 purchases. Of those denials, roughly 34,000 were of people who were either convicted felons or facing felony indictments, and another 13,000 were fugitives (though it is possible that there is some overlap between these numbers, so using 34,000 rather than the sum is probably more appropriate). Each of the people who filled out the NICS check form committed a felony in doing so, because they lied on the form. You might think that the government would jump at the chance to put 34,000 felons who committed another felony trying to buy guns in jail. You would be wrong. The federal government prosecuted just 44 of them.

I'd be vastly more supportive of expanding background checks if the government were actually enforcing the law on the existing ones.

[aikoaiko]

43. I'm totally on board with that.

Arrest and jail those who are knowingly prohibited and try to get a gun

[Hoyt]

64. First, your next door neighbor could check to see if you've done something in your past to

keep you from buying a gun. They won't know what, but they will know you did something and are likely a very bad person.

Most importantly, there is no consequence if you do not keep the proper paperwork regarding the transfer and you have no accountability (negative outcome if you don't do it correctly).

In fact, let's say you sell a gun to someone who shoots up a school. The police come to your house and say we think you may have sold this gun to someone and we need to make sure you did it properly.

We already know that many gunners on DU have said if their most favored guns (the ones that can kill a lot of folks) were outlawed, they'd keep them and say, "oh I had it on a boat that sunk." So what are most gunners are likely to say, "I did check their background, but I'm sorry I have no record of the transaction, my dog ate it or some such bull." You have no accountability like an FFL who could lose their license.

Finally, the fact that many say it is an inconvenience to have to go to an FFL indicates that gunners don't give a crud, they aren't will to make a little effort to ensure a proper background check. I believe most gun fanciers will sell a gun for a fistful of cash without regard to the buyer's background. In fact, gun fanciers often set up a table at gun shows and sell some guns without a background check, citing the law that does not require a casual seller to check backgrounds. Then, you'll turn around and claim there is no loophole in the law. The fact that it costs you $30 is a small price to pay if you really give a dang.

My opinion is that the majority of gun owners don't care, and your post indicates that.

[Orrex]

34. A few

Mandatory gun registration with permanent forfeiture of rights to gun ownership for anyone found in possession of an unregistered firearm, along with escalating jail time for each infraction.

Failure to report a missing or stolen firearm within 24 hours will qualify the owner as an accessory if the firearm is later used in a crime. If the owner claims not to realize that the weapon is missing, then it's the owner's fault for failing to keep track of his guns.

Strong limitations on number of guns owned unless the prospective owner can document why he needs fifteen rifles, six pistols and nine shotguns.

Permanent nationwide database of gun registrations. Any firearm discovered to be missing from that database must be registered upon discovery or else impounded and destroyed, with associated penalties for the owner. Failure to register a firearm renders the owner permanently ineligible to own additional firearms beyond those already legally owned and registered. Database need not be open to the public.

Permanent nationwide database of background checks for gun purchases, and all gun sales must include a documentation of successful background check. Database need not be open to the public.

A failed background check renders the applicant ineligle to purchase firearms for one year. This is cumulative, so that the second failed check will render him ineligible for two years, etc.

Permanent and publicly accessible record of a gun's "trail" from point of import/manufacture to point of sale. Identity of the end purchaser need not be disclosed to the public.

If a firearm is sold without registering its sale and the successful background check, and if the firearm is later used in a crime, the seller forfeits all current firearm-related inventory and is permanently barred from future firearm sales, with mandatory imprisonment for future infractions.

Any crime committed with a stolen or unregistered firearm will carry a mandatory 20 year sentence in addition to sentencing for the crime itself.


That's a few for starters. I'm sure that gun advocates will rail against them as the frenzy of a gun-grabbing nanny state, but I'd rather set an overly ambitious goal, knowing that any result would fall far short of that goal.

[aikoaiko]

36. Of course you are free to wish for what you want.

The registration factor does set off many gun owners.

Good luck with that.

[Orrex]

37. I appreciate the reciprocated snark.

If on-point Onion articles don't satisfy you, and carefully enumerated goals of responsible gun laws don't satisfy you, then I'm not sure what kind of discussion you're hoping to have.

[aikoaiko]

41. I was curious about your stance since you wondered about mine.

I think antiRKBA folks making the case for registration and making a crime out of not reporting being a victim of a crime will promote massive resistance and fewer restrictions being put into place.

so carry on.

[Orrex]

45. Ok.

Last edited Thu May 29, 2014, 01:45 PM - Edit history (1)

I think we can do a better job of identifying those people who are potentially dangerous beyond what we do now. There are serous due process and privacy issues, but I think it can be worked out.

That's a big "if." Short of daily, comprehensive psychological evaluations of every person in the country, I don't see how this could be implemented realistically. A great many people who reveal themselves as actually dangerous don't appear potentially dangerous prior to the event. Sure, assholes like Rodgers did a lot of telegraphing before his spree, but I'm not confident that other killers give off warning signals that could be discerned beforehand.

We can improve private sales by requiring a NICS check and opening NICS to the public.

I'm ok with this.

And we can improve access to mental health

That might catch some small fraction of the small fraction of mentally ill people who commit crimes with guns, but it risks trampling on the civil rights of the others. Do we force psychological treatment on people who refuse it? Are we ok further stigmatizing mental illness by effectively assuming that diagnosable/treatable mental illness is a factor in a significant fractino of gun crimes?

and end the drug wars.

We should definitely end the drug wars, but I'm not convinced that this will have a demonstrable effect on non-drug-related gun crime. It might reduce gun sales, which is a good thing, but it's not clear that this will reduce gun crime in turn.

I think antiRKBA folks making the case for registration and making a crime out of not reporting being a victim of a crime will promote massive resistance and fewer restrictions being put into place.

It's a mistake to equate a call for responsible gun legislation with "antiRKBA folks." By your reasoning, nothing can be done at all unless we first and foremost promise not to hurt the NRA's feelings.

So carry on.

[aikoaiko]

58. There is a point of agreement between the NRA and those who want more restrictions

We all, well mostly, agree that some people cannot be trusted with firearms. The interest of the NRA is to make sure that those who can be trusted (trusted enough) can still access firearms and that there is due process for disqualifying people. Due process is a tough. I'm not ready to post my idea on DU yet, but I'm thinking through a mechanism where people could identify someone as dangerous, and that could temporarily prevent them from acquiring a firearm through a NICS check until vetted (a la Jersey). But they would have to be notified of being on the list and have a fair mechanism of getting off the list. Just an idea I've been working with.

The NRA and Democrats once worked together on improving the info being collected and used by NICS.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nra-democrats-team-up-to-pass-gun-bill/

After 52 years in Congress, John Dingell knows it sometimes takes a "rather curious alliance," such as between the National Rifle Association and the House's most fervent gun control advocate, to move legislation.

That's what took place Wednesday when the House, by voice vote, passed a gun control bill that Rep. Dingell, D-Mich., helped broker between the NRA and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y.

With the NRA on board, the bill, which fixes flaws in the national gun background check system that allowed the Virginia Tech shooter to buy guns despite his mental health problems, has a good chance of becoming the first major gun control law in more than a decade.

Once you take bans off the table (and registration, too), and we focus on legitimate means of disqualifying people from owning guns, things can improve. I think several of the mass murder shooters could have been denied their firearms.

And incremental improvement is the way to go. Try for too much and the pushback could deny any improvement.

[Lonusca]

71. "but I'm not confident that other killers give off warning signals

that could be discerned beforehand. "

You don't think Lanza, Laughner, and Holmes gave off warning signals?

Come to think of it - how many of the recent mass shooters could be described as NOT giving off warning signals?

[Orrex]

72. Are we only worried about mass shooters?

Shocking though they are, they represent a small fraction of gun fatalities.

Why ignore the thousands upon thousands of annual firearm deaths?

[Lonusca]

73. It seems the mass shootings are

the ones that bring out the strongest debate between the two sides. And this one in particular. Toughest gun laws in the country, a guy broadcasting he's about to go off. He creates his own media legacy. IMO if these mass shootings didn't get the media attention they do, they would be A LOT less frequent.

Approximately 10x more people are killed by gunfire per day, every day, than in Santa Barbara. The gun control debate seems to fall (relatively) silent in between mass shootings.

It's not ignoring the 30K deaths. Sooner or later, both sides will do that on their own

[metalbot]

44. You could start with the easy ones

"Any crime committed with a stolen or unregistered firearm will carry a mandatory 20 year sentence in addition to sentencing for the crime itself."

I'm not sure why you would limit this to stolen or unregistered. I mean, if someone decides to rob a store, and they have a licensed gun, that's no worse than having an unregistered one. There is nobody on either side of the political fence that will object to this, and possession of a firearm while committing a crime carries enhanced penalties in most states. Of course, by crimes, I assume you mean drug crimes as well, like marijuana users who are busted at home and have a hunting rifle in a safe?

"A failed background check renders the applicant ineligle to purchase firearms for one year. This is cumulative, so that the second failed check will render him ineligible for two years, etc. "

Background checks can fail for one of two reasons:
1. The system misidentified the person making the check. Clearly, we should not be banning someone from owning a firearm because they have a common name and the system did something wrong.
2. The person is not eligible to buy a firearm, never will be, and has committed a felony by attempting to do so.

Those are literally the only two possibilities. If we decide that #1 does not warrant a penalty (which it shouldn't), then maybe we should just enforce the existing penalty (multiple years of jail time) for felons who attempt to purchase guns and commit perjury on the form? In 2010, the last year for which I can easily google statistics, there were 34,000 people who were either convicted felons or facing felony indictments who committed perjury when filling out a form applying for a NICS check. The DoJ prosecuted exactly 44 of them.

Could we maybe start with that, see if jailing 34,000 felons who are trying to buy guns affects gun violence levels, and take it from there?

[Orrex]

47. I like that.

Any crime committed with a stolen or unregistered firearm will carry a mandatory 20 year sentence in addition to sentencing for the crime itself.

I'm not sure why you would limit this to stolen or unregistered. I mean, if someone decides to rob a store, and they have a licensed gun, that's no worse than having an unregistered one. There is nobody on either side of the political fence that will object to this, and possession of a firearm while committing a crime carries enhanced penalties in most states.

Is possession of an unregistered firearm a 20-year sentence in itself? My intent it to create an incentive not to have an unregistered firearm, making that firearm "worse" than a registered one, with an additional penalty beyond that already imposed for possession of a firearm during a crime.

Of course, by crimes, I assume you mean drug crimes as well, like marijuana users who are busted at home and have a hunting rifle in a safe?

By "hunting rifle," I assume you mean a licensed and registered firearm purchased legally? Further, I stipulated "any crime committed with a stolen or unregistered firearm," and I don't believe that smoking pot overlaps with that unless they're using the rifle barrel as a bong. In short, unless the unregistered firearm is integral to the crime committed, I don't think it's relevant. The registered hunting rifle might be found in the safe while executing a subsequent search warrant, but that's still different from committing the crime of smoking pot with a stolen or unregistered firearm.

If we decide that #1 does not warrant a penalty (which it shouldn't), then maybe we should just enforce the existing penalty (multiple years of jail time) for felons who attempt to purchase guns and commit perjury on the form? In 2010, the last year for which I can easily google statistics, there were 34,000 people who were either convicted felons or facing felony indictments who committed perjury when filling out a form applying for a NICS check. The DoJ prosecuted exactly 44 of them.

Sounds good to me. Lock 'em up.

[Eleanors38]

49. "...a few for starters." No wonder controllers fail. nt

[Orrex]

52. By "controllers" you no doubt mean

"People who express reasonable concern about unchecked gun ownership and the naked worship of firearms as demanded by the NRA and its acolytes."

[Eleanors38]

53. No, those just getting "started." nt

[Orrex]

55. You don't know how negotiation is supposed to work, then?

If you have a goal in mind, you don't start the negotiation by opening with that goal, because every concession that you make will diminish your goal.

If, instead, you identify an outcome beyond what you truly hope to achieve, you can concede certain aspects of that outcome and still wind up with your actual, intended goal.

For example, I might propose four or five reasonable measures in hope that one or two measures get passed, instead of the broad catalog of semi-meaningless laws that we now have on the books.


Enjoy your next NRA sit-in.

[Eleanors38]

62. I'll get "started" on those negotiations right away...

Never been to an NRA sit-in. What are the like?

[Orrex]

63. Hey, you're the gun advocate. You tell me.

Or you could propose reasonable alternatives, if my suggestions are too odious to bear.

[Eleanors38]

66. Done so many X before...

Open NICS to public.

States issue FOIDs.

Continue campaigns for safe gun storage.

Prosecute NICS violations.

Prosecute illegal gun possession cases.

[Orrex]

70. So... Pretty much exactly what I said, but short on specifics.

Glad we're on the same page.

[Eleanors38]

74. Nope. A foid does not reveal you have guns....

only that you are qualified (or not) to own them. NICS checks to see if you have a crim record and/or a finding of mental incapacitation. No record, except as required by an FFL dealers. Other differences, too.

[Duckhunter935]

76. more than you

[Donald Ian Rankin]

59. Good advice. Now, let's pass some sensible UK style gun control that will save lives. N.T.

[BrotherIvan]

5. Fucking Brilliant

Acknowledge that it’s going to be hard to buck the pressure of the high-powered gun lobby, but not that fucking hard, dumbass.

And stop listening to gun nuts whose only care is for their precious.

[Maedhros]

12. To be fair, they can't help it.

The gun is their fetish: a physical embodiment of spiritual power. Their well being and "freedom" depend entirely on their possession of their fetish, and if it were to be taken away they would be bereft of their power. They have no choice but to cling to their power by any means necessary.

[BrotherIvan]

20. I know and it's sad

But the same way that those who fought for civil rights because it was the RIGHT thing to do and didn't care what racists and bigots thought, it must be long past due to quit listening to people who don't give a damn who dies and who suffers because of their paranoid, delusional fear. Every fact in the world supports gun control. It is only the twisted talking points of the NRA and gunners that make it seem like guns are safe. People are dead, families are crying, and they only care about their guns.

As I said on another thread, they have made this country a reflection of their paranoia. It is now scary and unsafe, just as they predicted. A war zone. It's time to come back to reality and make a sane society, because a weekly massacre sure ain't it.

[Hoyt]

27. Exactly. There are gun fanciers on DU who have tried to compare their

sad plight to the real Civil Rights Movement. They have no shame as long as they have access to guns.

[BrotherIvan]

29. I was taken aback at the use of "civil rights" today

I did not realize that gunners think that their guns are essential to life. If that is the case, then there is no middle ground because they do not care for any one else in this society. They are willing to break the civil contract. They don't care about dead children, dead teachers who tried to shield them, dead men and women. They are willing for any number to die as can be seen in any thread where they try to minimize the corpse count.

[klook]

6. ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

- another good one from The Onion yesterday:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this,36131/

ISLA VISTA, CA—In the days following a violent rampage in southern California in which a lone attacker killed seven individuals, including himself, and seriously injured over a dozen others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Tuesday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place.

- more at the link above

[joeybee12]

8. Brilliant...knr

[Leme]

11. too complicated

if it was this easy ......

[iandhr]

14. What does it say...

...when a satire publication is a better source the "real" news.

[billh58]

15. K&R

Also, begin a public service campaign to show that guns are a serious public health menace, and that the right-wing gun lobby markets its products without any warnings or health risk disclosures. It worked for tobacco products, and it could work for the gun violence epidemic too.

[JJChambers]

16. 1994

[seveneyes]

17. Convince voters that someone will always be there to save them

Otherwise, good people will defend themselves and their loved ones.

[Skittles]

18. yes, they do need to consider the paranoia aspect

can people like you even begin to acknowledge America has a fucking problem?

[billh58]

22. But the NRA and the right-wing

gun lobby told them that there are thousands and maybe millions of terrorists, boogeymen, and rapists hiding under their beds. Out of 30,000 gun deaths a year, around 300 of them (1%) are classified as "justifiable homicides." Go figure...

[seveneyes]

23. People like me?

And what, exactly, kind of person do you think I am?

[Skittles]

24. THINK?

uh no, we know all too well what you are

[Donald Ian Rankin]

61. No, convince them that they'll be safer with gun control.

Gun control reduces people ability to defend themselves, but it also reduces their *need* to defend themselves, making a very large net gain in their safety.

[Dpm12]

19. LOL. That's cool

Thank you, Onion!

[awoke_in_2003]

21. I have never seen the Onion be so serious. nt

[DirkGently]

28. Excellent. n/t

[blkmusclmachine]

30. We need a REAL Opposition Party. One that ISN'T beholden to the 1% that owns Washington DC!!

[Scuba]

38. +1,000

[baldguy]

31. Why s it that one of the only places we find reason & rationality is from our humorists?

[alfredo]

35. Hell yes

[tclambert]

39. But guns are sexy. And they make a man feel tough.

What man doesn't want to feel tough? And yet, half of all men are below average on the toughness scale.

[Eleanors38]

51. And the millions of gun-owning women feel...?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

40. I remember when there was talk of a total ban on hand guns.

[Eleanors38]

50. So do 2A activists. Sums it up, right? nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

54. Just watched "The American President" again recently....

He sells out tough vehicle emissions standards to get a "Crime Bill" passed that had been so watered down that it had no chance of preventing crime.

At the end he reverses himself demanding both tougher emission standards and a ban on hand guns and assault rifles because they are "a threat to national security" and he says he's going to get the public behind him and he's "going after the guns."

No Democrat would EVER say that and a lot of Liberals have been bullied into abandoning that stand.

That movie was 19 years ago.

[Eleanors38]

60. Bullied? No, a lot of Democrats lost their collective asses.

I don't but into Hollywood much.

Bullyism, however, is a worthy topic of discussion and how it works for the practioneer. Bullies just LOVE it when folks complain about them. They get their appetites whetted for more of the same.

That's why I like Wendy and Van de Putte: They don't complain about bullies, they slap back. But they are disturbing to adherents to the political theory of Holy Would. They are Stong backers of 2A.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

65. Actually, it's a myth that Dems lost to the gun issues during the Clinton Years....

They lost due to Clinton selling out his Liberal Base as the Republicans benefited from the Right Wing Noise Machine of the 90s.

It wasn't guns despite what the NRA claims.

[Eleanors38]

67. Not what NRA claimed. What CLINTON claimed.

[aikoaiko]

68. it was Bill Clinton who said his gun control efforts

led to the pushback from the NRA duing the midterms and there after.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

69. he wanted the Dems to shift to the right so OF COURSE he blamed Liberal stands for the loss....

He was the product of the Democrats actually believing the crap that this is a center/right country after the loss of Dukakis.

A lot of people forget those times. Liberals were FURIOUS at Clinton for governing like a Republican. It's just that things have shifted so far to the Right that it's now considered to be "Liberal" to want a background check before buying a machine gun. Hell, some Dems go into full out PANIC MODE at someone like me saying we should BAN ANYTHING.

[davidthegnome]

46. Nail on the head.

Why does this sort of very simple logic and common sense never seem to occur to congress? I suppose it's probably the money they get from the NRA. As long as groups like the NRA can legally bribe our government, they'll probably keep denying any meaningful gun control legislation.

[heaven05]

56. muy mucho excellente

[arcane1]

77. "Truther" bullshit n/t