A Sane Discussion About Gun Violence

[Adrift]

But taking guns away from law abiding citizens, and/or blaming them for the problem is completely fair, eh?

Yes to the first, no to the second.

[RumTumTugger]

Do criminals still use guns in cities and jurisdictions where they are banned?

Exactly criminals by nature do not care about what the law says they will break it to get what they want.

[Jedidiah]

I do not - but it's a good question. I am not sure why "democractically controlled" makes any difference. Because of the current breakdown in our political structure, rural areas are pretty solidly Republican, Urban areas are pretty solidly Democrat, and the "great war" is on for the suburbs. Look at pretty much any election results map and you can see this breakdown. Vermont for example, is a deeply blue state. But if you look at voting broken down by state legislature districts, most of the state is red. The blue is concentrated in the main population centers, so it dominates the state. I have to imagine that gun violence is also concentrated in population centers (though I cannot claim to know that for sure). Put those two things together, and you get "Democratically controlled" - but it is not clear to me that this correlation has a causal element to it.

It may, however, be the basis for the meme. I can look for data, but I'd be interested in knowing why you think this matters?

The meme claims that cities like DC, Chicago, etc - long time democratic strongholds with strong gun control make up a large part of the gun deaths.

Perhaps the best way to ensure impartiality is to identify a small set of study groups, maybe 3 proposed by each side, and fund all of them equally from both sides?

I think that might work if we give formal rebuttal and require that all info is actually agreed upon by both sides. I won't hold my breath.

Studies show that 22% of guns are legally acquired without a background check. I don't think the background checks we have are "bad." I think they are too slow (creating the nead for wait times most gun owners don't want), and I think they need to be extended to be done universally - for all gun acquisitions. I had not thought about your point about legal gun owners - but it makes sense: if two people have already passed a background check, there is no reason they should be required to pass another one to exchange firearms. If the person acquiring the firearm has not had a check, I believe it should be required.

I would love to see the source of this 22%. I asked around a while back about the supposed gun show loophole and was told there was no such loophole. We can disagree on this. A private transaction should be a private transaction until evidence arises to show that the particular person or persons involved is dubious.

That raises a question in my mind. Do background checks expire? If someone has purchased a firearm, are they required to renew their background check periodically?

I think, unless you have some sort of special clearance (I think CP mentioned this earlier or in another thread) you would have to pass a background check each time you want to buy a gun. Not sure about this. If you mean do I have to do a repeat periodically after I have already gone through on check, I do not think so. If that were the case I would find that strongly immoral.

Then perhaps what the government should do is fund an independent agency (perhaps the NRA?) to maintain that database?

No! No data base period. My comments about the government were just additional to the illegal (in my opinion) nature of such an intrusion into privacy.

I'm going to challenge this - hopefully respectfully. Yes - there are "gun grabbers" on the "pro gun-control" side of the discussion. That does not make everyone advocating for solutions to the gun violence in our country a "gun grabber." Some of us respect the right to own and use firearms, for sport, for hunting, for target practice, or as a tool (i.e., on a ranch). It is difficult to make any headway on finding a solution when every discussion or observation is countered with "don't take my gun!" I repeat, I do not advocate for a reduction in firearms. I do not have data to suggest that is the solution. I DO advocate for getting that data, and if it turns out that the data unequivicollay shows that a reduction in gun ownership will reduce the violence, then I WOULD advocate for that type of gun control, if it can be done while simultaneously preserving the right to bear arms (i.e., reducing the total number, or perhaps the type, of firearms that can be acquired). But I do NOT advocate for any of that without data that shows us it would make a difference.

While this may be your position, it is not the position of the leftists in government. They occasionally admit the ultimate goal is to severely limit private ownership of guns.

We seem to be in agreement on criminal convictions. I had not considered "public threats" but it makes sense. That leaves us with "mental health." Are you eliminating "mental health" entirely as a basis for limiting access? So someone clinically diagnosed to be bipolar or schizophrenic? Someone with diagnosed cognitive impairments (i.e., adults with reasoning levels of children). Would you place an age restriction on gun ownership?

I am very leery of so called mental health professionals. How often have they declared someone to be no longer a threat, and been shown wrong. There is altogether too much subjectiveness in the field.

And age limits for gun ownership will only eliminate law abiding kids. Gang members in the inner city will not be subject to these.

Absolutely - and especially given the passion I believe you have for this subject.

I am passionate about this. I am not a gun person, but I see this issue as very important to the well being of the nation. I own a compact semi-auto hand gun (which I have owned for over a year and never fired) and two rifles which I have not fired since I lived out in the bush. These put food on my table - a .22 I have had since childhood, and a WWII 7mm Mauser I bought, with no background check, almost 50 years ago. My passion is not for my benefit but for what I see as the well being of this once great nation.

[Jedidiah]

I do believe that the penalty for any crime should be "enhanced" if it is conducted using a gun. Mandatory incarceration. Extended prison term (50% more? 100% more?). No option for probation. Etc. However, I just saw Adrift's response and realize, as I write this, that we lack the data to tell us if any of this would actually make a difference. It seems common sense, but we need to study it to know more.

There is more reason think this might help than the myriad suggestions that focus on law abiding gun owners or non criminal citizens who wish to become gun owners.

I made another proposal I'd be curious to know how it would be received: I wonder if people would not be a lot more careful with their firearms if the on-record owner of the gun faced the same penalty (or at least SOME penalty) as the person using it to commit a crime? Thoughts? (and yes, I know we lack the data for this as well).

Unless there is strong evidence that the "on-record" owner had some complicity this would be punishment for no crime at all.

[Jedidiah]

That makes sense to me, except for the outrage from the masses that accompanies every instance. Where is the balance between what should accompany "we expect the officer to exercise restraint so let's allow the investigative procedure to take place" and rioting in the streets because a cop shot somebody?

Such outrage is always, as far as I know, always a racial issue. Nothing to do with rational dissatisfaction.

[Cow Poke]

It was. "You've previously suggested that teachers be allowed to be armed" is standard English language usage that does not in any way, shape, or form, specify all teachers everywhere. Again, you're making much ado about nothing.

Context, Adrift - in other applications, you seem to get that brilliantly. And I was very clear to be limited in scope. I'll leave this discussion alone.


reserving the right to invoke the Carpe rule at any time

[RumTumTugger]

Yes to the first, no to the second.

So if you were a teacher and one child did something wrong in class you would punish the whole class?

[Jedidiah]

I'll go further - if somebody is negligent in the storage or control of their firearms, and they are used in the commission of a crime....

If the gun is locked in my house it is securely stored. If someone has to break in to steal my gun it is not my responsibility. Plus my gun safe is a small one just lag bolted into the studs in my house. A crowbar would allow the whole thing to be carried away- I can not afford an immovable gun safe.

[Jedidiah]

Agreed. Clearly, a gun that has been stolen and used for a crime should not go back to the owner unless it can be shown the owner was negligent in securing the firearm. And an owner could not be held responsible, for example, if someone broke into their house, and held a knife to the throat of a family member threatening harm unless they turned over their firearms. Negligence would have to be shown. And if a firearm is stolen, and reported as such, there should be some slack cut.

There is an inconsistency in this. I think you mean the gun should go back to the owner unless . . .

[KingsGambit]

Then I'm naive.

Like I said, eventually something will happen that will turn gun legislation on its head. It's only a matter of time and lives.

Like I said last time, I just don't see it happening. If any event could have done it it would have been Sandy Hook, with an entire kindergarten class being massacred, and even this wasn't enough to move the needle. There have been enough shootings by now that they just seem commonplace; Americans don't really have the ability to be shocked anymore.

[Cow Poke]

Like I said last time, I just don't see it happening. If any event could have done it it would have been Sandy Hook, with an entire kindergarten class being massacred, and even this wasn't enough to move the needle. There have been enough shootings by now that they just seem commonplace; Americans don't really have the ability to be shocked anymore.

There's actually a good point there -- along with the desensitization we already experience with all the violence on TV and in movies --- this is seemingly just an extension of that. Kinda.

[Cow Poke]

If the gun is locked in my house it is securely stored. If someone has to break in to steal my gun it is not my responsibility. Plus my gun safe is a small one just lag bolted into the studs in my house. A crowbar would allow the whole thing to be carried away- I can not afford an immovable gun safe.

You are demonstrating reasonable control....

[Adrift]

So if you were a teacher and one child did something wrong in class you would punish the whole class?

I don't consider it a punishment, anymore than I consider having to wear a seat belt a punishment.

[Adrift]

Like I said last time, I just don't see it happening. If any event could have done it it would have been Sandy Hook, with an entire kindergarten class being massacred, and even this wasn't enough to move the needle. There have been enough shootings by now that they just seem commonplace; Americans don't really have the ability to be shocked anymore.

We'll see I suppose. I don't think it'll happen till after this administration, but I'm almost certain it will happen.

[Jedidiah]

I cannot support anything without data. My gut tells me "fewer guns - less gun violence." My gut tells me "lower capacity magazines, less harm done." My gut tells me "eliminate all automatic and semi-automatic weapons, less harm done." but my gut has been wrong on more than one occasion. We need the studies - but we cannot get them in the current climate - so I am left...somewhat rudderless.

My guts do not agree with yours.