A Sane Discussion About Gun Violence

[Cow Poke]

Not to mention that a lot of gun safes are designed to be a deterrent to your typical burglar who wants to spend as little time in the residence as possible. Pretty easy for someone who lives there to peal it open.

And/or, the grandfather may have considered them "part of the household" and shared the combination with them - no way to know.

[carpedm9587]

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.

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.

Unfortunately, you are probably correct. Even such a group's findings would likely be rejected by whichever side that sees itself as "losing."

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.

It's based on a study published in the January 2017 edition of of the Annals of Internal Medicine. The study was specifically commissioned to update a poorly done, but often cited, 1994 study that placed the number at 40%. I became aware of it when a news article about Sanders continuing to use the outdated number in his speeches. I've poked around and several sources I found confirmed the study and its validity, so the numbers appear to be good.

The answer to the loophole will differ by state. There is no federal law requiring background checks for personal transactions, gun show transactions, or online transactions. They are required for licensed gun shops. Some states have implemented universal background check requirements, and some proprietors have implemented background checks in all venues as a means of "self protection." But there are holes. For example, the oft cited example of how bad gun violence is in Chicago, which has strict gun-control laws, is partly (possibly) explained by this patchwwork system. Indiana, which is spitting distance from Chicago, has no explicit background check requirements (so it defaults to the federal requirements) and has extremely loose carry laws. It's kind of hard for a major city to enforce strict gun policy when guns are readily available a stone's throw away.

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.

I have to challenge that, Jedidiah. Doctors, teacher, and a wide range of professionals have to renew their licenses periodically. I have to renew my driver's license and, under certian conditions, may have to redo the test. If a background check is required to purchase a gun, why would we not require someone who owns a gun to periodically (i.e., every 5 years?) have to renew the background check? People's health can change. An innocent person can later commit a crime. Why would this be immoral?

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.

So how would you respond to a HIPAA-like requirement that gun dealers maintain permanent sale/ownership records? (it's not clear to me why a database of gun ownership/registration is more of an intrusion into privacy than any ofh the other databases of information that are currently maintained).

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.

Some do, Jedidiah. It's nto clear to me it is most or even many.

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.

There is subjectivity in every field, Jedidiah. Medical doctors get it wrong. No field is perfect. If we refuse to engage in anything that does not meet the criteria of "error free," we won'y engage in very much.

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

Actually, all kids would be subject to the same law. Gang members would, as they do for so many other things, be breaking the law - and subject to it's censure. This appears, again, to be a form of "if some people break it, don't bother." Personally, knowing what I know about adolescent brain development, I would nto advocate a young person owning a weapon until they are at least 21m preferably 25. That doesn't prohibit them from using one - I think sons should still be able to hunt with their dads - for example. But I think the right to go out and purchase firearms should occur well after they are out of high school and when there is at least a chance of frontal cortex development.

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.

And how do you think making background checks universal, and creating a nationwide database of gon registrations would diminish this (still) great nation?

[carpedm9587]

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.

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

If the gun owner was negligent in securing their firearms, and they were then used in the commission of a crime, you don't think there is some responsibility there?

[carpedm9587]

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

(Actually, IMO, it's a good rule. I wish I was better at sticking to it. I let people know I am pulling out because I think it's somewhat rude to just walk away from a discussion midstream. I also want people to know that I am going to continue to read the posts - not ignoring what they have to say. Unfortunately, about 36% of the time, the post either asks a question, or says something that the little guy with the pitchfork on my right shoulder keeps prompting me to answer... )

[carpedm9587]

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.

I think anyone knowing your gun was in a gun locker in a locked house would consider that "due diligence." Anyone can steal anything with enough desire to do so. We are responsible for "reasonable effort," and the description you provide is certainly "reasonable effort." No one is required to recreate Fort Knox. I'm thinking of the guy who leaves guns on the top shelf in their closet, or hanging on a gun rack in an unlocked truck.

[carpedm9587]

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

Yeah.. thanks for catching that

[carpedm9587]

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.

Actually, the needle is moving. The number of Americans wanting to see change (i.e., tightening) of gun control legislation has been steadily climbing, and each of these attacks raises the needle a little. I do not hope for another attack just to raise the needle, but the reality is that there will be another attack - probably within the next month - and the needle will move a bit more. Eventually, the tide will shift and there will be anough "common folk" to outweigh the money and power of the gun industry and the NRA.

[rogue06]

As I said....



In the 'active shooter' situation, where nobody else is armed, it happens so fast that nobody's really thinking "OK, if he swaps magazines one more time....". He's pretty much free to continue swapping magazines until armed resistance stands up, or somebody gets bold enough to run toward him and tackle him.

Or ambushes the shooter as he rounds a corner.

Where I work now we have to watch an Active Shooter video about every two months. The one they had when I first started was actually pretty good, providing sound tips on how to do things like deny access to rooms where the door opens outward and emphasizing that not only do you have the right to fight back but if you do so fight dirty.

[carpedm9587]

Okay boys, stop this until you finish Government 101 - first question - how many jurisdictions are in the United States?Why that matters is that guns obtained legally in South Carolina are used to commit crimes in New York where they could not have been legally obtained.

The ACTUAL issue is federal gun control.

The answer is "thousands" - and they overlap. They are not just bounded geographically, they are also bounded by the type of law being broken. The problem, as you note, is that the federal gun laws are fairly loose. The states can add more laws, but they cannot delete the federal ones. So some states, like Indiana, have little/no goncontrol legislation and default to thefederal laws. Other states, like California, have very strict gun control laws. The resulting patchwork is pretty much a mess.

[carpedm9587]

In a crowded arena, why do I care how long it takes? Unless it's going to be long enough for bystanders to recover and disarm the guy, it really doesn't matter - and in that instance capacity really DOES matter. Even a crappy shot with a fully automatic weapon can hit more than a few people. I could hit someone at 60 yards or so with a BB gun (my nephew - wasn't hurt - think it scared me more than him) as a kid - I can darn sure hit people at point blank with an M-16.

That I couldn't operate it as effectively as a soldier or SWAT unit guy really doesn't make the people with bullets in them feel any better.

The disconnected idea that guns aren't force multipliers if you aren't an expert in their use is just DUMB.

Much as I want to stand and applaud the overall message - this is a discussion fraught with emotion and condescension. Please be careful, in this thread, to keep it respectful. If I call MM on "stupid," I have to call you on "dumb."

[rogue06]

Actually, the needle is moving. The number of Americans wanting to see change (i.e., tightening) of gun control legislation has been steadily climbing, and each of these attacks raises the needle a little. I do not hope for another attack just to raise the needle, but the reality is that there will be another attack - probably within the next month - and the needle will move a bit more. Eventually, the tide will shift and there will be anough "common folk" to outweigh the money and power of the gun industry and the NRA.

Interesting. Back in the 50s and 60s Gallup polls showed that half or more Americans were all for banning handguns (peaking at 60% in 1959) but that has dropped down into the 20s today.

There is a Quinnipiac University poll showing that around two-thirds of respondents said they favored banning "assault rifles." Of course "assault rifles" are heavily regulated and for all practical purposes already banned. It's what happens when folks ignorant about firearms concoct a half-ass poll.

[carpedm9587]

So I guess if you didn't lock your car in the garage but left it in the driveway, or worse on the street, and someone comes along and steals it then uses it to commit a crime the car owner is culpable.

Or those folks who leave their cars running when they dash into a convenience store (generally so they want to leave the AC/heater running), aren't just being foolish but criminally negligent as well.

Who knew.

Let me tackle this, if I may. I have often used automobile-related issues to draw a parallel to gun laws, but I have noted that this analogy has its limitations. The core issue is that a car is designed to transport people/things between two places - and a gun is designed to kill. I should be reasonably careful with my car - and if I leave it unlocked with the keys in it, and a child gets in and succeeds in killing themselves by driving it over a cliff - I could (and should) be held criminally negligent - just as I would be if I have a pool and do not take adequate steps to prevent children from getting into it unsupervised. If someone steals it, and they are a rational/thinking adult, and then use it to commit a crime, what they stole was a car - a vehicle for transport. That they used it to....

...OK...I just stalled...if I follow this through, I clearly end up being criminally negligent if my unsecured firearm is taken by a child who the harms themselves or someone else with it. But what if it is a rational/thinking adult? The only difference between the car and the gun is that the car is designed for transport and the gun is designed to kill. Does that design give me a great obligation to secure it?

...I need to think...

[rogue06]

Let me tackle this, if I may. I have often used automobile-related issues to draw a parallel to gun laws, but I have noted that this analogy has its limitations. The core issue is that a car is designed to transport people/things between two places - and a gun is designed to kill.

The fact that a firearm can be used without ever shooting someone or even firing it, always seems to be ignored by those who make this statement.

[carpedm9587]

I'm not sure what point you think I was making. All I was saying is that reducing the size of magazines won't significantly hinder a skilled and determined shooter. What does it matter if someone only has an 8-round versus 15-round magazine if he can swap magazines in the blink of an eye?

Umm...you're taking an extreme case to make a general argument - it doesn't work, IMO. The vast majority of the population cannot reload at this kind of speed. So if the magazine holds 8 rounds instead of 15 rounds - THIS shooter won't be significantly impacted - but the vast majority of shooters will be. It's an obstacle that helps to reduce the carnage, without significantly impacting gun owners, except for the inconvenience of having to swap magazines more frequently. So we're talking convenience versus lives. To me - that's a no brainer.

[carpedm9587]

Pretty much. I'd personally prefer something like England's gun restrictions, which as I understand it, bans everything but hunting rifles and some shotguns (though I think police should remain armed). But understanding my own personal preferences are idealistic, I think the following would be a great start (from a post I wrote the last time we had a mass shooting),

I actually agree with that list, and would love to see it realized. It provides an avenue for those who need guns to get them, and helps reduce the overall volume of guns. It does not translate into "eliminating all guns."