Mass Shootings Proposal II [ON TOPIC]

[yoink 321]

This actually isn't my preferred solution, but is something I've suggested to Derek.


I've been going round in circles trying to think how a database and background checks can be made to work for gun control, and I just don't think it's possible in a centralized way. It's too big and complicated to have a solution that won't be full of holes or to cumbersome to be managed effectively at a federal level.
Background checks are (in part) ineffective at the moment because of how they're done, how databases don't link to each other and how impersonal it is - but what if it wasn't?

What if, when you apply to buy a gun, the system sends an email to your local trained LEO. (Not training in just law enforcement, but in this specific process). They then (without your knowledge of who) go and directly interview several family members and neighbors and after impressing upon them the responsibility and possible consequences of gun ownership ask if they would be willing to act as a reference for your application.

Doing this face to face with the 'are you really ready to take responsibility if the person you recommend goes and shoots up a school' type of conversation will (I think) result in a much more careful consideration than just a 'please provide a reference' on a form somewhere.


There are 3 possible answers to this interview: Yes, No and I'd prefer not to say / don't really know them.

At this point the process bifurcates. A no from a direct family member is cause for rejection of your application and a flag goes on your file. You may apply again after a suitable waiting period (say 2 years). If the people who know you best aren't willing to say that you're responsible enough to own a gun, then you're probably not.

The friends and neighbors don't have such a direct impact because they don't know you as well, and there are possible social interactions to consider. But if one of them say no it's like a minor-fail in a driving test. Not cause for immediate rejection, but does trigger a deeper background check. 3 minor fails and your application is rejected.

Each year, those people who have been a reference for you are contacted by mail and asked to renew their affirmation of responsibility. Now there are 4 options: yes, no, I have no opinion and I've lost contact.

Based on those responses your eligibility for continued gun ownership gets updated for another year.

No big central databases and a much more manageable invasion of privacy. It's also an ongoing, local, confidential appraisal of your suitability for gun ownership.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

You say "without your knowledge of whom". Does the applicant choose who is interviewed?
Or have the option of saying "this person will not give an honest answer"?Is there an appeal process for rejections?

I know some people who would say "no" because they don't think anyone should own a gun.

I know others who would say "no" because they just want to screw over a family member.

I know some who, if faced with the idea of 'are you ready to take responsibility if..." would say "no" because they aren't willing to take on that responsibility no matter how they feel about the person (and I might fall in that category).

Overall, more thorough background checks might be a good idea.

But I would have to be convinced that they would be fair.

That is, would they do anything to stop this sort of thing without unreasonably stopping people who wouldn't do this sort of thing?

And there would need to be 'due process.' A transparency of the procedure and an appeal process. For example, the 'no fly list' is a perfect example of the lack of it. No idea how one gets put on it. No way to find out if you are on it. No process for those on it to show they don't belong and get removed.
But there's no 'right' to get on an airliner. The 'right to travel' can be argued, but the counter to that (correct IMO) is that air isn't the only way to travel, there are alternatives.

After all, this is a right. Bill of Rights and the SC decisions make it clear that the "people" in the text are individuals. Agree or disagree, that's how it is set up.
Reasonable restrictions can be put in place, but I'm not sure your proposal is that.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[wmw999 2,447]

I live in Massachusetts now; background checks here, at least for handguns, involve an interview and a waiting period. Don’t think it involves interviews with references, but it might. It’s been that way for 40+ years. Gun crime outside the cities is very low, even though drugs are a problem. The cities aren’t war zones, but then it’s a small state, and easy for someone to cross the border.
But if you get popped for an unlicensed handgun it’s pretty severe.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[yoink 321]

wolfriverjoe

You say "without your knowledge of whom". Does the applicant choose who is interviewed?
Or have the option of saying "this person will not give an honest answer"?Is there an appeal process for rejections?

I know some people who would say "no" because they don't think anyone should own a gun.

I know others who would say "no" because they just want to screw over a family member.

There would absolutely have to be an appeals process. And people would have to supply reasoning for a 'no' vote, I think.

The interviewees absolutely must NOT be selected by the person applying - it would negate the whole purpose as only definite yesses would be proposed.

[rifleman 70]

In the UK you are required to supply two referees for a firearms application (only 1 for a shotgun) but there are rules as to who may act as a referee.

"The referee(s) who have agreed to act for you must have known you personally for at least two years and must be resident in Great Britain. A referee must not be a member of your immediate family, a registered firearms dealer, a serving police officer, a police employee, a Police and Crime Commissioner or a member of their staff, or a member of, or a member of staff of, the Scottish Police Authority. Referees must be of good character and any references they agree to provide must be given freely and not on payment."

Atheism is a Non-Prophet Organisation

[DanG 1]

Your proposal is interesting, but it would make life much more dangerous for a battered spouse trying to buy a gun for protection from their abuser.

There is also the problem of paying for it. You'd have to have cops who's sole job is going around conducting gun purchase interviews.

- Dan G

[councilman24 37]

As said above too many none substantive reasons for any particular individual to say no. No one else get to arbitrarily change your rights. Wouldn't stand up to due process.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[gowlerk 2,192]

Quote

Your proposal is interesting, but it would make life much more dangerous for a battered spouse trying to buy a gun for protection from their abuser.

You must be kidding. Men shoot their women with such alarming regularity that it only gets reported locally unless they kill the whole family. A woman who shoots and kills an abusive husband is almost certainly going to go to jail for many years unless they can prove they were in imminent physical danger.

This is one of the most fallacious pro-gun arguments I've ever heard. Congratulations.


Edit to add, it was just pointed out to me below that you likely were not using this a pro-gun argument. Just to point out a flaw in a plan. Had me going there for a while.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[GeorgiaDon 362]

I didn't take Dan's comment as "pro-gun", I though it was just pointing out a legitimate unintended consequence. One would not want the batterer finding out that his victim is planning to buy a gun for her protection, and then grant him the power to deny her access to that protection. It doesn't mean the idea is without merit (he did say it was "interesting") but it might need some tweaking, as all ideas do to contend with real-world complications.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[BIGUN 1,314]

In most cases with technology; if you can think it - it can be programmed.

Of concern would be the amount of human resources and subjective input by the "referees." IMO - your proposal doesn't provide for the existing amount of un-registered guns. That has to be addressed. Existing guns need to be registered or forfeited by incentive or law or a combination of both.

If vehicles can be tracked from manufacturer to grave, insurance, and warrants by a database feed to LEO in the field; why can't the same be done for weapons.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.