Gun Control Laws - Where are we really? Where to go? (1 Viewer)

[Ditkaless Wonders]

FYP. Since Heller IIRC

Heller Skelter.

 

[Joe Bryant]

When analogies require one to consider things that aren't happening in order to compare them to things that are happening, then you are comparing fantasy to reality. The argument that is being built on the analogy cannot be realistic, because it's based on fantasy. 

Thanks. I'll gladly drop any analogies to get back on what I think is the real point. Lots of people seem to have a disconnect between what laws are already in place and what laws we'd like to have in place. As one who'd like to see more gun control, I think that's a significant point.

The last bit of this thread has been a good example of why it's hard to talk about this type of stuff. It becomes more a discussion of how apt the analogy is or if there's another thread on the board like this. I get it. I do it too. It's a good reminder for me that it's important to stick to the issue. Thanks.

 

[Gally]

Meh. I’ve got 3 students of mine that are probably going to be expelled on Wednesday for bringing and using a marijuana vape pen to school.  They’re actually good kids who did something really stupid.

I think what is being put out though is having a structure that if you do any of these X things then you lose the ability to purchase a gun.  If you want to purchase a gun don't do any of these things.  It doesn't matter if you are a good kid and made a mistake (one bad enough to get expelled from school) you still can't buy a weapon. 

It shows that your decision making can be questionable under certain circumstances so why risk putting a weapon in the hands of someone that makes bad decisions. 

 

[Politician Spock]

Thanks. I'll gladly drop any analogies to get back on what I think is the real point. Lots of people seem to have a disconnect between what laws are already in place and what laws we'd like to have in place. As one who'd like to see more gun control, I think that's a significant point.

The last bit of this thread has been a good example of why it's hard to talk about this type of stuff. It becomes more a discussion of how apt the analogy is or if there's another thread on the board like this. I get it. I do it too. It's a good reminder for me that it's important to stick to the issue. Thanks.

In some threads it's not even a discussion of how apt the analogy is, because it's been proven over and over and over and over again that the analogy is flawed, but yet the same posters keep posting the analogy over and over and over and over again. 

This thread didn't actually dive deep as other threads into the flawed car analogy given for the most part it was kept to regulating speed. Speed of cars/guns is good analogy. How fast a car can travel and how fast a gun can shoot are good questions, as well as good things to regulate. Society should be allowed through government to decide how fast cars can be driven to keep a safe society and how fast guns can shoot to keep a safe society. It's when the car analogy starts down the path of "a car can be used to kill another person so if we're gonna ban guns we need to ban cars too" that it falls apart. So kudos on having a thread where your toes only dipped into those waters. And kudos for pulling out of it. 

 

[cockroach]

Why would this guy single out weed users and not alcohol... pretty certain alcohol is involved in a very high percentage of gun mishaps.  And DUI is not a felony

 

[tonydead]

I see that too. And that's the perfect time to introduce the "If kids were getting regularly murdered by Corvettes, do you think we'd do something?"

The other thing I like about it is it's a real live example of how opposing sides are currently existing. 

Another common thing I see is the "slippery slope" argument. I understand it. It's a real thing and the government doesn't feel trustable by many. People will say, "If they limit one type of gun, they'll keep pushing for more and more". My answer to that is a speed limit. They set the speed limit to 65. If people feel good about that, there is no real push to move it to 50 then 40 and then 30. It stabilizes. I think we'd see the same with guns.

I think most people in favor of gun control aren't looking to eliminate every single gun. Most just want something that feels reasonable to them. 

Roughly 35,000 deaths by gun a year compared to 1,300,000 by car. 

The majority of the deaths by gun are by handgun.  Banning the assault rifles, while appealing after a school gets shot up by one, doesn't do much in number reduction.  You'd have to go after semi-automatic handguns too.   You're never going to reach a point where the gun guys feel a revolving 6 shooter is reasonable. 

Feels weird having to post the same thing in three different threads.  

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Before a gun store can sell a firearm to an ordinary citizen, the citizen should have to get government approval.

This is not going to fly. the 2nd Amendment by definition is an individual right. It's not a governmental privilege.

If government approval means getting a license, it should fly under Heller. In Heller, Washington DC had three separate policies that were originally at issue: a ban on carrying handguns, a licensing requirement for carrying handguns, and a law requiring that handguns be stored in a disassembled (inoperable) state.

The ban and the disassembly requirements were struck down as unconstitutional. The licensing requirement was upheld by the lower court and unaddressed by the Supreme Court because the party challenging the DC laws conceded to the Supreme Court that he’d be okay with having to get a license (the requirements for which included not being a felon and not being insane). 

 

[tonydead]

For the record there are a lot of new studies that show speed limits and slow driving are actually responsible for causing more accidents.   The speed of any particular section of highway should be regulated by the drivers, not an arbitrary number set by law for whatever reason.  It is much safer to drive the same speed as everyone else.  When everyone else is speeding 10 miles over the speed limit, the few cars actually going the speed limit cause people to slow down, change lanes and speed up much more often.  

 

[ericttspikes]

I think a better comparison than corvettes are rpg's, surface to air missiles, tanks, and other weapons of war. 

If we truly need the ability to rise up against the government, we need weapons that can fight against our own military.

Comparing a weapon of war to a corvette seems like it diminishes the seriousness of the weapon. Its job is to kill. 

I agree. I think the entire issue is that the 2nd amendment is murky to begin with; "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It was poorly written. Militia, security, people, arms; all those aren't defined. "Arms" back then were muskets and flintlock pistols. Really skilled shooters might get off four rounds in a minute. Today, anybody can spray hundreds of rounds in minutes.

There is no way anyone can tell me that the founders could envision modern day weapon technology when they wrote that. The NRA (and their bought and paid for legislators) push a dangerous absolutist view of the 2nd. Even Biblical interpretations are modernized for changing times and cultural values. For example, slavery. There isn't anything in the Bible that explicitly opposes slavery. It was an economic and cultural reality at the time of the writing, yet it's interpretation has changed with the times.

Technology has moved so fast that a weapon of war has been miniaturized. Large capacity, automatic arms should be classified with other weapons of mass destruction and be available to law enforcement and military only. The 2nd Amendment needs modernization IMO.

 

[Gally]

Roughly 35,000 deaths by gun a year compared to 1,300,000 by car. 

The majority of the deaths by gun are by handgun.  Banning the assault rifles, while appealing after a school gets shot up by one, doesn't do much in number reduction.  You'd have to go after semi-automatic handguns too.   You're never going to reach a point where the gun guys feel a revolving 6 shooter is reasonable. 

Feels weird having to post the same thing in three different threads.  

I think the crux of the argument is "mass" killings.   The ban on assault rifle movement is trying to cut down on the mass killings.   I don't think most are overly concerned with the total number of death by guns.

 

[tonydead]

I think the crux of the argument is "mass" killings.   The ban on assault rifle movement is trying to cut down on the mass killings.   I don't think most are overly concerned with the total number of death by guns.

Sure, and I'd vote for a ban on assault rifles.  I'm all for it because they don't really have any practical use for sane people.  But, I suspect the shooters would just move on to the next best/new thing.  The problem is the advanced well built guns today.  They reload fast and shoot faster.  A semi-automatic handgun isn't that much of a downgrade I suspect, especially at close range like inside a school.  I think the AR15 has been used primarily because of a popularity.

 

[tonydead]

Technology has moved so fast that a weapon of war has been miniaturized. Large capacity, automatic arms should be classified with other weapons of mass destruction and be available to law enforcement and military only. The 2nd Amendment needs modernization IMO.

Including handguns?  Two problems:

1- What do you do with the hundreds of millions already in people hands?

2- How are you going to convince gun guys to go back to regular pistols?  It's not unreasonable for them to think they would be at a disadvantage in a home invasion if they only had a revolver.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Another one from a friend. Sorry to you use you guys here as my rebuttal writers, but I know many are much better versed and more knowledgeable than I am on the topic.

For a civil rebuttal, what would you say to this:

I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.e5205d944b3b

By Leah Libresco October 3, 2017

Leah Libresco is a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site. She is the author of “Arriving at Amen.”

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.

When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gunowner walks into the store to buy an “assault weapon.” It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, arocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.

As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless.

As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United Statesevery year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn't even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help?

However, the next-largest set of gun deaths — 1 in 5 — were young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides. These men were most likely to die at the hands of other young men, often related to gang loyalties or other street violence. And the last notable group of similar deaths was the 1,700 women murdered per year, usually as the result of domestic violence. Far more people were killed in these ways than in mass-shooting incidents, but few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them.

By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.

Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections.

Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.

Even the most data-driven practices, such as New Orleans’ plan to identify gang members for intervention based on previous arrests and weapons seizures, wind up more personal than most policies floated. The young men at risk can be identified by an algorithm, but they have to be disarmed one by one, personally — not en masse as though they were all interchangeable. A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.




8

 

[ericttspikes]

Including handguns?  Two problems:

1- What do you do with the hundreds of millions already in people hands?

2- How are you going to convince gun guys to go back to regular pistols?  It's not unreasonable for them to think they would be at a disadvantage in a home invasion if they only had a revolver.

Dunno. Let's have a debate on what "large capacity" is and go from there. For home protection, I would think a shot gun would be a better choice anyway.

 

[tonydead]

Dunno. Let's have a debate on what "large capacity" is and go from there. For home protection, I would think a shot gun would be a better choice anyway.

I think capacity is a red herring the gun guy secretly laugh at when no one is watching.  The guns are advanced enough that limiting magazine capacity doesn't do much.  It takes a well practiced gunman about 1 second to change magazines.  But, yeah close as many loopholes in the law you can like the use of drums instead of magazines.

 

[tonydead]

Another one from a friend. Sorry to you use you guys here as my rebuttal writers, but I know many are much better versed and more knowledgeable than I am on the topic.

For a civil rebuttal, what would you say to this:

  Maybe stay off Facebook?  

j/k,  PM Shuke 

 

[Politician Spock]

Another one from a friend. Sorry to you use you guys here as my rebuttal writers, but I know many are much better versed and more knowledgeable than I am on the topic.

For a civil rebuttal, what would you say to this:

Many on the pro-gun side continue to point out that getting rid of AR15's and the like is only attacking 1% of the problem, as 99% of gun violence has nothing to do with them. While they seem to think they're making a point against me, they're actually not. As I know the vast majority of gun violence is suicide. Which is why ultimately I think if you really want to make a dent in gun violence overall, you need to repeal the 2nd amendment. Because as long as people can own a gun even as simple as having no more than a single bullet, you'll still have two thirds of the existing gun violence. 

But right now we're not trying to solve all gun violence. We're trying to return our schools to places where our kids go to be educated without having to be treated like they're in prison. If that's simply 1% of the gun violence overall, then yes lets focus on that 1%. Will banning AR15s and the like help? Of course it will. And we know that because they've been banned before. Since that ban ended in 2004 and the manufacturers have flooded the country selling them, mass school shootings have risen 183%. We don't need to look at what other countries did. We just need to look at what we did in the past. 

 

[ericttspikes]

I think capacity is a red herring the gun guy secretly laugh at when no one is watching.  The guns are advanced enough that limiting magazine capacity doesn't do much.  It takes a well practiced gunman about 1 second to change magazines.  But, yeah close as many loopholes in the law you can like the use of drums instead of magazines.

I don't get a sense that many of these mass school killings are at the hands of skilled gunmen. I could be wrong. 

I'm all for having guns in the hands of skilled people and I'm for tying gun ownership to skill level. Like having the ability to own a gun after passing a test or having "hours" on the range. Seems like a win/win for everyone. A ton of business for the gun industry in administering classes and testing, and non gun owning folks might breath a little easier that some unskilled goofball didn't just get a machine gun online cuz the thought it was cool.

 

[Mario Kart]

It's odd how many people claim to want the Constitution adhered to in the 21st century when it comes to policy. It is also odd how people claim to love the Constitution and all it stands for, not to mention protecting "the 2nd Amendment" and how it is a person's right to have a gun. Yet, when the Constitution was written, weaponry like we have today did not exist. A person cannot, logically, stand up and yell "protect the 2nd" then claim an assault rifle is protected under the 2nd.

If it was up to me, America would follow what Australia did to a tee. It's not a pipe dream either. It can be done and should be done. The people who fight for these weapons, fight for the murderers... not the innocent.

 

[Joe Bryant]

  Maybe stay off Facebook?  

j/k,  PM Shuke 

That's probably a good idea.

Although to be fair, most of my facebook has been pretty civil stuff. It's been kind of pleasantly surprising. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Many on the pro-gun side continue to point out that getting rid of AR15's and the like is only attacking 1% of the problem, as 99% of gun violence has nothing to do with them. While they seem to think they're making a point against me, they're actually not. As I know the vast majority of gun violence is suicide. Which is why ultimately I think if you really want to make a dent in gun violence overall, you need to repeal the 2nd amendment. Because as long as people can own a gun even as simple as having no more than a single bullet, you'll still have two thirds of the existing gun violence. 

But right now we're not trying to solve all gun violence. We're trying to return our schools to places where are kids go to be educated without having to be treated like they're in prison. If that's simply 1% of the gun violence overall, then yes lets focus on that 1%. Will banning AR15s and the like help? Of course it will. And we know that because they've been banned before. Since that ban ended in 2004 and the manufacturers have flooded the country selling them, mass school shootings have risen 183%. We don't need to look at what other countries did. We just need to look at what we did in the past. 

I do think acknowledging this in this way is helpful. It is intellectually honest to say, "We're trying to address the 1% and think we can make that better for our schools and kids". 

My perception of the pro gun friends I have is that they believe the anti gun people think most of the gun deaths in the country are caused by assault rifles, not suicides. Being up front and acknowledging the reality will help move the conversation forward I think. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Another one from a friend. Sorry to you use you guys here as my rebuttal writers, but I know many are much better versed and more knowledgeable than I am on the topic.

For a civil rebuttal, what would you say to this:

It’s an article that seems to make some good points. Rather than aiming to rebut it, I’d acknowledge that the problem doesn’t appear to be as easy to solve as we all wish it were, concede that the United States seems to present some especially difficult challenges, and express the desire to try whatever proposals appear to be the most promising, recognizing that we may have to muddle our way through using trial and error before finding something very effective.

One thing that would be nice is end the CDC’s policy of not spending any money to study gun violence.

I would not concede that there’s nothing we can do to reduce suicides. Making it marginally harder to get a gun can delay someone until their worst impulses have passed.

I would also not concede that limiting the types of weapons available wouldn’t reduce the frequency or severity of the mass shootings that make headlines all too often, even if defining those types effectively by statute proves difficult.

But ultimately, those are empirical questions, and the author of that article has the right attitude toward empirical questions. I’m guessing she’d agree that it would be nice to have more and better data — which is where the CDC’s help really ought to come in.

 

[Politician Spock]

I do think acknowledging this in this way is helpful. It is intellectually honest to say, "We're trying to address the 1% and think we can make that better for our schools and kids". 

My perception of the pro gun friends I have is that they believe the anti gun people think most of the gun deaths in the country are caused by assault rifles. Being up front and acknowledging the reality will help move the conversation forward I think. 

To be honest, i find it really sad that 21,386 killing themselves with a gun every year gives the pro-gun side a ridiculous argument to the mass shooting issue at hand.

If gun suicides were 0 per year, would that change the mass shooting problem in any way? It shouldn't. But the percentage of overall gun deaths would be drastically different. Thus, the percentage of overall gun deaths from mass shooters is a stat that has zero bearing in the discussion. 

I would say the same if the discussion was gun suicides. If we're trying to do something to reduce gun suicides, what does the relation of gun suicides to mass shooter deaths have to do with the discussion? Nothing. 

 

[tonydead]

Many on the pro-gun side continue to point out that getting ride of AR15's and the like is only attacking 1% of the problem, as 99% of gun violence has nothing to do with them. While they seem to think they're making a point against me, they're actually not. As I know the vast majority of gun violence is suicide. Which is why ultimately I think if you really want to make a dent in gun violence overall, you need to repeal the 2nd amendment. Because as long as people can own a gun even as simple as having no more than a single bullet, you'll still have two thirds of the existing gun violence. 

But right now we're not trying to solve all gun violence. We're trying to return our schools to places where are kids go to be educated without having to be treated like they're in prison. If that's simply 1% of the gun violence overall, then yes lets focus on that 1%. Will banning AR15s and the like help? Of course it will. And we know that because they've been banned before. Since that ban ended in 2004 and the manufacturers have flooded the country selling them, mass school shootings have risen 183%. We don't need to look at what other countries did. We just need to look at what we did in the past. 

Weird, because I can think of a lot more pleasant ways to kill myself.

I'm skeptical that it would make that much difference, but, I'm on board.  I think something has happened to us since Columbine and that was mid way through the Assault Rifle Ban.  Sure ending the ban didn't help, but I don't think it's just the types of weapons, it's the culture.  We need to address the failures in law enforcement in both the Florida and Texas cases.  We need to address mental illness in our country, by far the worst as compared to other countries, starting with mental illness in young adults apparently.  We need to address overpopulation and parenting.  Social media played a part in both Florida and Texas and others, wish there was something we could do about that.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that its likely a whole host of factors that's created this snowball, and yes access to cheap assault rifles that have been popularized in our culture is part of it too. 

 

[tonydead]

To be honest, i find it really sad that 21,386 killing themselves with a gun every year gives the pro-gun side a ridiculous argument to the mass shooting issue at hand.

If gun suicides were 0 per year, would that change the mass shooting problem in any way? It shouldn't. But the percentage of overall gun deaths would be drastically different. Thus, the percentage of overall gun deaths from mass shooters is a stat that has zero bearing in the discussion. 

I would say the same if the discussion was gun suicides. If we're trying to do something to reduce gun suicides, what does the relation of gun suicides to mass shooter deaths have to do with the discussion? Nothing. 

Probably because you've made it clear that you're anti gun period.  Yes, we've been talking about school shootings recently, but, in reply you often stray off into no guns are good period territory.

 

[Sand]

I think the crux of the argument is "mass" killings.   The ban on assault rifle movement is trying to cut down on the mass killings.   I don't think most are overly concerned with the total number of death by guns.

Shouldn't this be the overriding goal?  Most gun crime is with small, concealable pistols.  On the other hand, killings with long guns comes well behind killings with hammers and clubs each year.  (That said I have no problem with making these type of weapons a Class 3 firearm).

Any reasonable gun control legislation should address the biggest causes of gun deaths first and foremost.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If government approval means getting a license, it should fly under Heller. In Heller, Washington DC had three separate policies that were originally at issue: a ban on carrying handguns, a licensing requirement for carrying handguns, and a law requiring that handguns be stored in a disassembled (inoperable) state.

The ban and the disassembly requirements were struck down as unconstitutional. The licensing requirement was upheld by the lower court and unaddressed by the Supreme Court because the party challenging the DC laws conceded to the Supreme Court that he’d be okay with having to get a license (the requirements for which included not being a felon and not being insane). 

I don't know if it's been discussed but Joe's article says 'oh by the way all this is federal law right now.'

So yeah I mean the first thing, and speaking broadly of the nature of the right which to me is the same as all the BOR, but obviously licensing is a reality for guns right now. And I think even Constitutional purists can rationalize that.

Where it breaks down for me is where states seem to differ in regulation from the Feds vs what is noted in that article. I also admit to being ignorant of the basic facts of how Cruz got his weaponry and also basic gun laws. - eta - Reading that article it just seems like if that was the law then Cruz shouldn't have been able to get his weapons.

 

[Politician Spock]

Weird, because I can think of a lot more pleasant ways to kill myself.

I have absolutely no idea what this means as a response to my post at all. 

 

[tonydead]

I have absolutely no idea what this means as a response to my post at all. 

Not much.  I just think it's weird that so many people shoot themselves.   I'd pick a more pleasant way to die.

 

[Politician Spock]

Probably because you've made it clear that you're anti gun period.  Yes, we've been talking about school shootings recently, but, in reply you often stray off into no guns are good period territory.

I do this when the pro-gunners stray into the ARs only account for 1% of all gun violence. If we want to focus on all gun violence, then banning all guns is the way to do that. Because again, any gun that is good enough for self defense is good enough for suicide, and that's two thirds of all gun violence. 

 

[tonydead]

I don't know if it's been discussed but Joe's article says 'oh by the way all this is federal law right now.'

So yeah I mean the first thing, and speaking broadly of the nature of the right which to me is the same as all the BOR, but obviously licensing is a reality for guns right now. And I think even Constitutional purists can rationalize that.

Where it breaks down for me is where states seem to differ in regulation from the Feds vs what is noted in that article. I also admit to being ignorant of the basic facts of how Cruz got his weaponry and also basic gun laws. 

Troubled kid, expelled from school 3 times.  Reported to the FBI at least twice.  Hmmm, maybe there is a way to see if he has a gun and might be planning something.

“He purchased the firearm legally,” Peter J. Forcelli, special agent in charge of the Miami field division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, told the Post. “No laws were broken in his acquisition of the firearm.”

 

[Politician Spock]

Not much.  I just think it's weird that so many people shoot themselves.   I'd pick a more pleasant way to die.

Most do choose another way. But less than 10% of all suicide attempts are successful. Gun suicide attempts are not the majority, but because they are nearly 100% successful attempts, most suicides deaths are due to guns. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

“He purchased the firearm legally,” Peter J. Forcelli, special agent in charge of the Miami field division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, told the Post. “No laws were broken in his acquisition of the firearm.”

So what is the deal with Joe's article then? Can 18 yo's buy automatic rifles under federal law? 

 

[Politician Spock]

So what is the deal with Joe's article then? Can 18 yo's buy automatic rifles under federal law? 

Yes, in Florida 18 year olds can buy AR15s, but they have to be 21 to buy a hand gun. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yes, in Florida 18 year olds can buy AR15s, but they have to be 21 to buy a hand gun. 

That's crazy. Assuming it was 21 for the AR then I take it this crime doesn't happen.

 

[Politician Spock]

That's crazy. Assuming it was 21 for the AR then I take it this crime doesn't happen.

Not this year. 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I honestly don't know.  I should have perhaps narrowed down tim's list to just the "gun show loophole".  We shouldn't have situations where devices designed to kill things are bought and sold with zero guidelines.  I think registering guns in a similar fashion to autos is a good idea.  

And I am merely inquiring as to why it would be a good idea.  What power would it give government to prevent tragedy, what would be the working mechanism?

 

[Politician Spock]

And I am merely inquiring as to why it would be a good idea.  What power would it give government to prevent tragedy, what would be the working mechanism?

I agree. Registering vehicles does nothing to reduce car deaths. It helps investigations, and would help gun investigations. But as for preventing deaths.... nada. 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I agree. Registering vehicles does nothing to deduce car deaths. It helps investigations, and would help gun investigations. But as for preventing deaths.... nada. 

A gun registry, coupled with a ballistics registry for that gun, including tool markings on cartridges, would be very helpful to law enforcement if it were comprehensive, and if it were a rather serious crime to transfer ownership of a gun without registration update, and if there were a substantial penalty requiring immediate reporting of a stolen weapon, and in any case reporting of it BEFORE it was used in a crime, after being too late and seeming suspicious.

The thing is, for many, such a registry would be the first step towards potential confiscation.  Also the logistics of the ballistic data base would be difficult with so many existing weapons.  That said, no question it would be a powerful prosecutorial tool.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I agree. Registering vehicles does nothing to reduce car deaths. It helps investigations, and would help gun investigations. But as for preventing deaths.... nada. 

Arguably it could limit the likelihood of dangerous situations. People who can't pass the rules test, people who can't pass the eyesight test, people with too many DWIs can't get licenses for instance.

 

[Politician Spock]

Arguably it could limit the likelihood of dangerous situations. People who can't pass the rules test, people who can't pass the eyesight test, people with too many DWIs can't get licenses for instance.

License and registration are two different things.

I think licensing would do wonders to prevent deaths. 

 

[tonydead]

Suicides are actually a great argument for banning all guns. Guns are six percent of the suicide attempts and over half of the suicide fatalities. Guns are 85% effective in ending one's life, which is by far and away the most effective method people choose. 

https://www.thetrace.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Pie-Chart-Suicide-Attemps-vs-Fatality-2-e1473271148627.png

I saw a guy jump off a 24 story hotel one time. From the looks of it I'm pretty sure that's 100% effective. 

 

[tonydead]

Coincidentally when someone hits the pavement like that it sounds like a gun shot. 

 

[Politician Spock]

I saw a guy jump off a 24 story hotel one time. From the looks of it I'm pretty sure that's 100% effective. 

Jumping suicide attempts have a 34.5% success rate.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/case-fatality/

And you claimed earlier you'd chose a more pleasant way to die. That's not it. 

 

[Sand]

Like, for example, the fact that our kids are getting slaughtered at school repeatedly by a devastatingly effective weapon.  

Let's not forget the worst school shooting in US history was carried out with .22 and 9mm handguns...  

I think we just react to these things and miss the major opportunity to fix big problems.  Human memories are short and clouded with emotion.

 

[tonydead]

Jumping suicide attempts have a 34.5% success rate.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/case-fatality/

And you claimed earlier you'd chose a more pleasant way to die. That's not it. 

My definition of attempt means they actually jump. And hit pavement 20+ stories later. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I've long said that we should start the gun control discussion with handguns.  They serve no real purpose and can arguably do more damage in a confined setting like a school.  Assault rifles just look scarier so it's easier to get people on board.

Eh I don't know if that's true. If you live in a bad neighborhood a handgun is go-to for self-defense.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I think a lot of gun owners would think twice about owning a gun if they knew they could be held criminally liable if a crime were committed using their gun.  If we don't have a registry then there would be no way of knowing   I think licensing should be required and I would like to see liability insurance be required.

There we go.  I think you will get opposition to such a registry from 2nd amendment folks.  That said, I do happen to agree with your hypothesis and I have been an advocate for amending the 2nd amendment as I do find it anachronistic in this day and age.  I hope for a world where our Constitution serves us, not we it, mindlessly.  

 

[Sand]

What do you think we should do to address the big problem?

A problem wrapped up in the 2nd amendment, legitimate self defense issues, poverty, race relations, and politics?  Peace in the middle east may be easier. 

 

[Politician Spock]

But you said there was a major opportunity to fix big problems that we were missing by focusing on the problem of school shootings. I'm totally game for a major opportunity to fix big problems, now you're telling me it's all but impossible? 

It's whack a mole. It's intentional.