Revisiting Gun Laws in the U.S.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by long island leprechaun

Well, we have a constitutional right to own property, but we also have the Fifth Amendment that says we can deprived of that property as long as "due process of the law" is followed. Guns are property. Houses are property. Cars are property, horses are property. The Constitution doesn't enumerate every form of property that is covered, but it certainly allows for regulations to govern our access to it. For example, I could not purchase my apartment without homeowner's insurance, or good credit, etc. I have a consitutional right to own my home, car, etc. but I have to jump through various hoops to get it and maintain it.

I'm personally less concerned about the liability angle in Doggin's article than I am in finding a method to do mental health background checks in a way that protects privacy. Each state would have to draw up clear criteria for exclusion from gun ownership and have a system for screening. One possibility is a system similar to the evaluations done when one applies for
Social Security Disability. Criteria could parallel those used to screen candidates to carry weapons in the police force. The state contracts medical and MH providers who do an independent assessment. And I do think this would be of value, to some extent to prevent violent crimes toward others, but even moreso to reduce the number of suicides by guns, which is an even bigger number statistically. That too would be a public service.

Let's take this mental health thing one step further. If you can (with a reasonable degree of accuracy) detect in mental background check the likelihood of a violent crime being committed with a gun. Could you not detect the likelihood of any violent crime being committed by an individual?

Why not just order these tests done every 5 years or so (maybe when you get your drivers license renewed) and just sweep all the future murders off the street when the results come in.

[long island leprechaun]

Originally Posted by Axil

Let's take this mental health thing one step further. If you can (with a reasonable degree of accuracy) detect in mental background check the likelihood of a violent crime being committed with a gun. Could you not detect the likelihood of any violent crime being committed by an individual?

Why not just order these tests done every 5 years or so (maybe when you get your drivers license renewed) and just sweep all the future murders off the street when the results come in.

I'm sorry, but taking a point to an extreme to attempt to dismiss it is a gigantic fail. I think you can, with a reasonable degree of accuracy in the context of a psychiatric evaluation, determine if someone has a recent history of hospitalization, if they are taking medications for a mental illness, in treatment for a mental health condition, the nature of the mental illness and the severity, a history of co-morbid conditions such as drug or alcohol use, suicide attempts/gestures, etc. A release to consult with the individual's providers could also be required. Having been in this field now for more than 25 years, I can attest that there will be many cases that are frankly obvious re denial of gun possession. Won't capture every potential gun abuser, but even if such a screening eliminates 25% of the certifiably disturbed from access, it's worth the trouble. The regulations could allow those denied to reapply within a reasonable time frame if their condition is shown to improve significantly enough to meet threshold criteria. Risk assessment is done all the time in mental health arenas, as well as in areas of employment involving possession of a weapon.

[gunnails]

Originally Posted by long island leprechaun

I'm sorry, but taking a point to an extreme to attempt to dismiss it is a gigantic fail. I think you can, with a reasonable degree of accuracy in the context of a psychiatric evaluation, determine if someone has a recent history of hospitalization, if they are taking medications for a mental illness, in treatment for a mental health condition, the nature of the mental illness and the severity, a history of co-morbid conditions such as drug or alcohol use, suicide attempts/gestures, etc. A release to consult with the individual's providers could also be required. Having been in this field now for more than 25 years, I can attest that there will be many cases that are frankly obvious re denial of gun possession. Won't capture every potential gun abuser, but even if such a screening eliminates 25% of the certifiably disturbed from access, it's worth the trouble. The regulations could allow those denied to reapply within a reasonable time frame if their condition is shown to improve significantly enough to meet threshold criteria. Risk assessment is done all the time in mental health arenas, as well as in areas of employment involving possession of a weapon.

================================================

Not sure how we do this and at the same time protect every ones constitutional rights?
I think/thought part of the trouble is mental health providers not being able to report there concerns to the FBI data base.

Regardless I think this line of thinking goes leaps and bounds further in preventing mass shootings then gun free zones, registering guns or limiting the type of guns Americans can buy.

[gunnails]

Ironic.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anti-gun newspaper hires armed guards for protection
3 days ago
If the Journal News hoped that publishing the names and addresses of pistol owners in New York's Westchester and Rockland counties would decrease the number of guns in its proximity, boy, did that backfire. In the ultimate irony, the paper has hired private gun-toting guards to protect its West Nyack headquarters after its name-and-shame campaign drew massive criticism. Editor Caryn McBride reported assorted threats, including zillions of angry phone calls and a creepy email wondering "what McBride would get in her mail now." Despite the fear factor, the well-armed paper hopes to expand its interactive where-the-guns-are map, but Putnam County officials are refusing to dish out stats. At least the paper can add a ginormous dot over its own offices.

http://www.rocklandtimes.com/2013/01...and-dangerous/

[Brooklyn Jet]

Even better....

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/04...data-officers/

Law enforcement officials from a New York region where a local paper published a map identifying gun owners say prisoners are using the information to intimidate guards.

Rockland County Sheriff Louis Falco, who spoke at a news conference flanked by other county officials, said the Journal News' decision to post an online map of names and addresses of handgun owners Dec. 23 has put law enforcement officers in danger.

"They have inmates coming up to them and telling them exactly where they live. That's not acceptable to me," Falco said, according to Newsday.

Robert Riley, an officer with the White Plains Police Department and president of its Patrolman’s Benevolent Association, agreed.

"You have guys who work in New York City who live up here. Now their names and addresses are out there, too," he said adding that there are 8,000 active and retired NYPD officers currently living in Rockland County.

Local lawmakers also say that they intend to introduce legislation that prevents information about legal gun owners from being released to the public.

The newspaper published the online map last month alongside an article titled, "The gun owner next door: What you don't know about the weapons in your neighborhood." The map included the names and addresses of pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.

While the paper ostensibly sought to make a point about gun proliferation in the wake of the school shooting in Newtown, Conn., the effort may have backfired. A blogger reacted with a map showing where key editorial staffers live, and some outraged groups have called for a boycott of parent company Gannett’s national advertisers. Ironically, the newspaper has now stationed armed guards outside at least one of its offices.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/04...#ixzz2HDrc7OF3

[Axil]

Originally Posted by long island leprechaun

I'm sorry, but taking a point to an extreme to attempt to dismiss it is a gigantic fail.

I agree. I'm trying to figure out where exactly your point differs from my extreme though.

Originally Posted by long island leprechaun

Having been in this field now for more than 25 years, I can attest that there will be many cases that are frankly obvious re denial of gun possession.

Again, if this is true. If there are indeed situations where it's obviously appropriate to deny an individual one of thier constitutional rights.

Why, in this situation is it not appropriate to remove them from society entirely until their condition improves? In your 25 years experience in the field, what is it you see in this individuals that increases their risk for violence with a firearm only.

[long island leprechaun]

Originally Posted by Axil

I agree. I'm trying to figure out where exactly your point differs from my extreme though.




Again, if this is true. If there are indeed situations where it's obviously appropriate to deny an individual one of thier constitutional rights.

Why, in this situation is it not appropriate to remove them from society entirely until their condition improves? In your 25 years experience in the field, what is it you see in this individuals that increases their risk for violence with a firearm only.

Violence is extremely hard to predict, whether toward oneself or toward others. Even in situation where someone declares an imminent threat, it can't be guaranteed that that person will carry it out. On the other hand, if someone has a recent history of suicidal behavior, has relatively severe post traumatic stress, has impulse control issues, suffers from command hallucinations, has a recent history of other forms of violent behavior, suffers from paranoid delusions, etc. I would argue that it might just be better if that person doesn't handle a deadly weapon. Firearms are simply the more extreme example of a deadly weapon. Does that mean I think crazy people should not have butcher knives? Yes, that would be a good thing to keep out of their possession as well. But I'd be content with at least beginning with keeping firearms out of their hands.

Re taking rights away or regulating access to them, this is done with virtually every right provided by the Bill of Rights. Firearms are not above the standard of every other right. They should be regulated sensibly.

[dickkotite]

buying insurance is just silly.

I'm VERY pro gun. That being said, Im all for sensible ways of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.... HOWEVER I just cannot simply think of any way of doing it without infringing on the rights of the 99.9% who are responsible. ANY IDEAS?

Perhaps making all gun sales in EVERY STATE legal ONLY through a gun shop? In other words, when I buy a gun new, the paperwork is filled out and my ssn gets associated with a pistol's serial. If I want to sell it, myself and a buyer WOULD HAVE TO go to a gun shop and that serial # gets taken off my ssn and on to his ssn. This way, there are no loopholes. There is a record of buying/selling for everyone. If a gun shows up in a murder, and that serial is connected to bob jones 1000 miles away, and bob (and the govt) have no paper trails proving a legal resale then one can assume that bobby boy is selling to ghetto hoods.

This would have to be Nationwide, and many states will not welcome this. It will also have to apply to indians and gun show sales. Not easy

In Florida, I sold a cheapo 9mm that was an eyesore to my collection to a guy on craigslist. he came, handed me 250 bucks and left. I did jot his license plate number down on the DL and threw it in my safe for the hell of it. Im sure the guy was part of the 99.9%, but who really knows. I kinda felt weird about it but by law it was a private sale and perfectly legal. In fact, I went above the call of duty by jotting his plates # down. If it winds up as a murder weapon in chicago in 5 years, they will come to me and ask. I will tell them I sold it to a guy. That will be that. If they are not dicks, I will provide the plate number but I am out of the equation either way. Is this right?

so to beat all this, just grind out the serial #'s. again, like i said, there is NO way of fixing any of this. It is what it is

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by dickkotite

....making all gun sales in EVERY STATE legal ONLY through a gun shop?

In other words, when I buy a gun new, the paperwork is filled out and my ssn gets associated with a pistol's serial.

If I want to sell it, myself and a buyer WOULD HAVE TO go to a gun shop and that serial # gets taken off my ssn and on to his ssn. This way, there are no loopholes. There is a record of buying/selling for everyone.

If a gun shows up in a murder, and that serial is connected to bob jones 1000 miles away, and bob (and the govt) have no paper trails proving a legal resale then one can assume that bobby boy is selling to ghetto hoods.

This would have to be Nationwide, and many states will not welcome this. It will also have to apply to indians and gun show sales. Not easy.

Add a process for reporting a gun stolen (and some penalty if you get your stolen more than once ffs), and this is the BEST plan I've heard of.

Make it so.

Edit: For the "stolen" thing, I'd make it a rime to allow your firearm to be stolen for a 3rd time. This would be a felony, with a punishment of....nothing. But as a Felony, you would lsoe the right to legally buy or own a firearm. Making it the third, instead of first or second, leaves room for the unlucky bastards amongst us, but I could be convinced to make it the 2nd.

But otherwsie, a brilliant idea IMO. Ownership is absolutely protected, but every gun and serial number is tracked, and only at Federally Licenced Gun Stores. If crime is committed with your gun, you are in trouble, even if it wasn;t you who used it, unless you reproted it stolen.

"Lose" too many, and you lose the right to own, like any other Felon.

Sign us up. I'd vote for that.

[BushyTheBeaver]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Add a process for reporting a gun stolen (and some penalty if you get your stolen more than once ffs), and this is the BEST plan I've heard of.

Make it so.

Edit: For the "stolen" thing, I'd make it a rime to allow your firearm to be stolen for a 3rd time. This would be a felony, with a punishment of....nothing. But as a Felony, you would lsoe the right to legally buy or own a firearm. Making it the third, instead of first or second, leaves room for the unlucky bastards amongst us, but I could be convinced to make it the 2nd.

But otherwsie, a brilliant idea IMO. Ownership is absolutely protected, but every gun and serial number is tracked, and only at Federally Licenced Gun Stores. If crime is committed with your gun, you are in trouble, even if it wasn;t you who used it, unless you reproted it stolen.

"Lose" too many, and you lose the right to own, like any other Felon.

Sign us up. I'd vote for that.

This will never happen. The NRA will not allow it.

Actually, IMO, none of the proposals in thread, while many have merit and/or good intentions behind them, will come to pass. John thinks there will be "some" sort of bill in the wake of Newtown. I would bet anything that there will be no change to the law. If anything, I'd predict a loosening of current controls.

[gunnails]

Originally Posted by BushyTheBeaver

This will never happen. The NRA will not allow it.

Actually, IMO, none of the proposals in thread, while many have merit and/or good intentions behind them, will come to pass. John thinks there will be "some" sort of bill in the wake of Newtown. I would bet anything that there will be no change to the law. If anything, I'd predict a loosening of current controls.

================================================== =

I tend to agree, yet I would not be surprised if there was a new ban/ limit on magazine capacity or other certain types of so called assault rifles.
Whatever new laws passed IMHO will be inefective feel good BS.

The problem gun owners have with registration is they fear this would be a means to some how in the future to round up guns.


Currently, as of 1968 I believe, all new guns sold must be done through a FFL (Federal Firearm Licensed dealer). These FFL's must keep a paper record of all gun sales for I believe a minimum of 20 years. But the federal govt. by law is not allowed to compile a list of what guns were sold to what people. All FFL sales also require a back ground check.

Private sales do not require a back ground check or require a bill of sale, no records are needed by law.

So a Smith & Wesson 9mm is found at the scene of a crime. Investigators would contact Smith & Wesson and they would say they supplied that gun to dealer XXX In June of 2002, Investigators would go to dealer XXX and ask to see a record of sale, Dealer XXX would look it up and say we sold this gun to John Smith in August of 2002. Investigators would go to John Smith and ask what up with the gun you bought. At this point John could say I lost it, it was stolen, I sold it to some dude, or just as likely refuse to answer any questions.

Of the 12 guns I own 6 were produced after 1968 when the law began to require serial numbers on all guns. 9 were gifted to me (no trace of ownership, as the original owners are dead), one of them I bought at a pawn shop in 1978 (shotgun), in 1978 there was no back ground check required for rifles and shot guns, and since it has been over 20 years and the pawn shop has long been out of business, I assume no records of purchase exist any longer.
My two pistols I bought 4 and 3 years ago in Face to face sales legally without back ground checks, although I and the sellers did make hand written bill of sales similar to how you would do if you bought or sold a car. Thes are for our private records.
One I bought in the parking lot of a Jack in the Box, the other I bought in the parking lot of a local Starbucks.
There is no trail of ownership for any of my fire arms other then the shotgun whose records are likely no longer in exist, and the hand written bill of sales.

If someone came to me to ask about the one of the pistols or the shotgun, I could say nothing, just shut the door. or I could lie and say I had a tragic boat accident, or I sold them to some dude, etc.

This is the case for all of the 300,000,000 that exist in the US today, although I kow some states like NY and NJ do have registration for hand guns and not sure how that all shakes out.

Point is, gun regitration would be a tough sell, and hard to implement on the 300,000,000 all ready in existence.

[dickkotite]

Good points gun nails


Lets face it,there is no solution. It is what it is.

I would rather the govt NOT know about my toys and yes gun owners feel that all this is to divide and conquer (and its a reasonable assumption) anyways. Today, it's registration. Tomorrow it's confiscation.


still, more kids drown in backyards swimming pools every year than by gun deaths. Well, maybe not true this year, but you get the point. People die...accidents happen....it's just something that might need to b accepted

[dickkotite]

And in the end, I predict that there will be no legislation...all this will die down and go away

[PlumberKhan]

America has so many gun deaths because we are a nation of paranoid weirdos.

End of story.


There is no other explanation as to why other countries who have just as many guns but have 90% less gun violence.

We are a nation of fat paranoid idiots.



I say make guns easier. Hopefully, we will all off ourselves.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by long island leprechaun

Violence is extremely hard to predict, whether toward oneself or toward others. Even in situation where someone declares an imminent threat, it can't be guaranteed that that person will carry it out. On the other hand, if someone has a recent history of suicidal behavior, has relatively severe post traumatic stress, has impulse control issues, suffers from command hallucinations, has a recent history of other forms of violent behavior, suffers from paranoid delusions, etc. I would argue that it might just be better if that person doesn't handle a deadly weapon. Firearms are simply the more extreme example of a deadly weapon. Does that mean I think crazy people should not have butcher knives? Yes, that would be a good thing to keep out of their possession as well. But I'd be content with at least beginning with keeping firearms out of their hands.

And i would argue for a binary solution. Either you are too crazy to be a part of society, and you're institutionalized (no guns or butter knives for you). Or you're a functional human being with a medical condition, and you're entitled to the same rights as the rest of the functional human beings. You're not arguing for regulating the rights of someone with a history of suicidal behavior or depression, you're arguing for denying it entirely.

Originally Posted by long island leprechaun

Re taking rights away or regulating access to them, this is done with virtually every right provided by the Bill of Rights. Firearms are not above the standard of every other right. They should be regulated sensibly.

You're not arguing for regulating the rights of someone with a history of suicidal behavior or depression, you're arguing for denying it entirely.

*edit*

And i would be against the government having a list of every gun and it's owner. I don't think it would significantly reduce gun violence. It must definitely wouldn't have had an effect on the latest tragedy.

[long island leprechaun]

Originally Posted by Axil

And i would argue for a binary solution. Either you are too crazy to be a part of society, and you're institutionalized (no guns or butter knives for you). Or you're a functional human being with a medical condition, and you're entitled to the same rights as the rest of the functional human beings. You're not arguing for regulating the rights of someone with a history of suicidal behavior or depression, you're arguing for denying it entirely.


You're not arguing for regulating the rights of someone with a history of suicidal behavior or depression, you're arguing for denying it entirely.

*edit*

And i would be against the government having a list of every gun and it's owner. I don't think it would significantly reduce gun violence. It must definitely wouldn't have had an effect on the latest tragedy.

Why the all or nothing approach? If you want to put guns in the hands of rapidly-cycling bipolars and individuals with severe PTSD, or those suffering psychosis, so be it. Why not let people with macular degeneration drive cars, or people with bad credit buy houses without restriction? After all, they haven't killed anyone yet in their vehicles, or not been guaranteed to not pay their bills in the future... whole industries have been built on risk assessment and risk avoidance. This one is a no brainer. Truly. And of course every gun should be registered, and every sale of a gun documented. And yes every gun that is banned by law should be turned in, including those that were sold prior to the law change. Give fair market value and get them out of circulation. Period. If we ban machine guns, there is no sense whatsoever in allowing existing supplies to remain on the streets. That's so plainly illogical, it hurts.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by long island leprechaun

....or people with bad credit buy houses without restriction.....

That's so plainly illogical, it hurts.

We tried that once, in the name of Social Justice. Didn't work out too well.

Again, on topic, I have to ask.....what other rights are we eager to revoke based on our ideas of "mental illness"? Perhaps those suffering Bi-polar Disorder, PTSD, or even just depression, should have their right to vote removed too? Their right to a fair trail or legal representation. Their right to even engage in free speech.

Obvious exageration to make a point. I do not believe it's the States role to become a shrink, and start deciding which of us get to have our rights and which don't based on some idea the State has as to whom is safe and whom isn't. For example, I know some here who would claim anyone who believes in God is mentally ill, and others who would claim that belief in individual responsabillity and accountabillity (i.e. less welfare) would mark one as insane (and heartless and perhpas sadistic and psycopathic too) as well.

I think the best course is one of registration. Like voting, like citizenship, like public protest (or public gatherings), like getting legal representation, all require some form or another of registration with the State.

I appreciate that gun owners don't like the idea. I appreciate they fear confiscation is next.

Well, I don't think it would ever get that far, because I truly believe that after the very first gun was confiscated by some future jackbooted Govt. agent, the word would get out, and we'd have a Civil War on our hands.

In the meanwhile, registartion as detailed above is a very reasonable, very responsible, very logical way of doing business on Guns. And sorry, but if you're unwilling to let the State know you have one, then you're a criminal, same as a voter fraudster, public rioter or any other law breaker, and you should be treated as such. Registration is not confiscation, and your fear is not right enough to permit law breaking of a reasonable mechanic for this issue.

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

What exactly would this liability insurance cover? Are you saying people need insurance in case someone gets a hold of their weapon and starts randomly killing people? How much coverage would be required to pay for such an incident? How does one begin to quantify such a thing. Are we talking property damage, so if a bullet accidentally hits a car then it covers the repair?

Yes. It would be liability insurance that covers death/damages, the same way car insurance does.

This is not a good idea at all Doggin. How would this insurance plan have prevented the shootings in Newton/AZ or Colorado?

The point is that insurance companies are very good - far better than government - at assessing risk, and pricing it appropriately. How would it have prevented the shootings in Newtown/Colorado? Well, it may not have - nothing's foolproof. But if someone with an emotionally disturbed son wants weapons, the insurance coverage for it will cost significantly more than, say, a hunter in the midwest with no history of violence and solid mental health and family context. Would that added cost have prevented Ms. Lanza (or Holmes) from obtaining the weapons that were used to murder others? Possibly. At the very least, risk assessment in connection with gun ownership would be conducted by experts in risk assessment with a direct financial stake in the accuracy of that assessment.

This is a very GOP proposal, btw: the markets work better and more efficiently than government, so harness that strength of markets to help minimize (not eliminate, there is no "magic bullet") the likelihood of repeat tragedies.

The only thing forcing people to buy "insurance" does is put free money in insurance companies hands. It may help reduce the number of guns being purchased legally as well. It certainly would help to create a healthy black market for gun sales though.

In what way would these arguments be any different as applied to, say, car insurance?

By this theory an even better proposal for reducing the number of guns being sold would be to slap a hefty tax on gun sales. Something like a tobacco tax of 100+% of the purchase price. That helps the government get more money and ironically it would likely come from the people most hostile to big government.

Except that simply slaps a cost on everyone equally, without any attempt to assess risk.

If you want to punish middle class folks that simply want to protect themselves the money you take from them should not go to insurance companies. It should go in the tax pool. Maybe use the funds to reduce the deficit or lower taxes for the rest of us.

It's not punishment. It's risk assessment.

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Agree to disagree, I find almost nothing in this idea that would prevent gun crime, prevent mass shootings or do anything else to law breakers.

What it does do is punish the law abiding, provide a profit stream (to be forever maintained by lobyists and politicians) for corporate and State revenue, and impose an intolerable burden on the law abiding's right to engage in their Constitutional Rights.

Can you name any other Consitutional Right you'd force an individual to buy private insurance first, before the State would regulatorily "allow" a law abiding citizen to express that right?

The right to own and use a car.

The answer to the issue of guns is to punish those who break the law and infringe upon the rights of others with guns.

It is not to punish the law abiding, provide yet another revenue stream to the same old same old, and to further restrict the rights of those who have done no wrong, committed no crime, and harmed no person.

I wonder how tolerant you'd be Doggin, if you were forced by the State to buy "Speech Insurance" in case you ever said anything that caused problems, "Voting Insurance" to be sure you vote the right way, or "Legal Insurance" in case you ever commit a crime and need a public defender or need to pay reparations for your possible future crimes.

This is an argument against any regulation of guns at all - including licensure requirements. After all, I don't need a "speech license" or a "voting license". The bottom line is that rights are subject to reasonable government regulation when there is a compelling state interest in such regulation - including freedom of speech (time/place/manner restrictions, no yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, libel laws, etc.), voting (felons lose the right to vote), etc. For gun rights, you are drawing the line, apparently, at licensure and background checks. Why?

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

The right to own and use a car.

Owning and operating a car is not a right.

This is an argument against any regulation of guns at all - including licensure requirements. After all, I don't need a "speech license" or a "voting license".

Yes you do. To vote you must register to do so. To have a public gathering, you are (in almost every jurisdiction) required to get a permit. Both work along a similar line to a "licence" to engage int he activity.

The bottom line is that rights are subject to reasonable government regulation

I reject wholesale your idea of "reasonable" being a mandatory costly private-sector and lobbyist profiting "insurance" foisted on the 99.9999% of legal gun owners, due to the crimes committed by the law breakers and 0.000000000001% of gun owners who engage in mass shooting events.

For gun rights, you are drawing the line, apparently, at licensure and background checks. Why?

First, you assume I do not also support other limitations/definitions. I do, and have said so repeatedly. Clearly I am not supporting private ownership of M1 abrams Tanks or Hellfire Missiles. The "line" is a different debate than the one being had here.

Second, a de facto ban or a de facto "poll tax" of insurance to engage in your rights when you've broken no law is not regulation, it's a ban and it's unconstitutional.

You would not require every public speaker to have public speaking insurance, even though teh very act of public speaking can be far more damaging and dangerous that a single gun. It can incite a riot, cause revolution, result in mass harm to individuals and property, etc.

Again, if you support a ban, say so, don't weasel around the edges dishonestly. Say you want to ban private ownership of guns, or to revoke the right to own them, and then follow the proper procedure of amending the Constitution to do so. Just like they (wrongfully) did with alcohol.

But do not start abusing law abiding citizens due to statisticly insignifigant events committed by alread-law-breaking individuals.