The Gun Control Debate Thread

[DogofWar1]

Want to kickstart the mental health evaluation? How about anyone arrested has to go through a mental health evaluation. I was getting coffee in the breakroom and it was suggested on Fox (which caught me completely off-guard).

 

Criminal justice reform advocates have been pushing for that for quite a while.  Mental illness is relatively common among repeat offenders and certain classes of first time offenders.

 

Problem is, that kind of stuff is blocked by hard-on-crime advocates, since a mental evaluation of incompetent is viewed as an "out," which leads to one of two things, either basic evaluations are discounted in court to ensure that people still get punished, or the mental health system post-evaluation is terrible, as bad or worse than prison, and treatment is almost always an after thought.

 

Some attorneys I worked for (in VA) discussed how an insanity defense and evaluation is really a last resort, even if the client is legitimately mentally incompetent, because they ship you off to a facility that is basically impossible to get out of.

[Hersh]

I am pro-gun. Private gun ownership has been settled law for years, and a Constitutionally protected right. It's amazing how something that is "settled law" that you disagree with should be contested, but "settled law" you agree with is beyond reproach. But I digress.

 

To this subject, there are very simple and common sense based reforms that can be implemented without seriously restricting a gun owner's rights:

 

1) Close the gun show and private sale loophole - make all sales subject to the laws that exist

 

2) Waiting periods - there is no reason a gun purchase can't be delayed by 7 days (you wait for online purchases to be shipped, right?)

 

3) Trigger locks - require all firearms stored in the home to have trigger locks (yes, a "hollow" law since you can't enforce it until something goes wrong)

 

4) Background checks - more thorough, since the 7 day waiting period makes it easier to go deep

 

5) Training - require all firearm purchasers to show proof that they attended a training course conducted at their local firing range (yes, there will need to be standards approved by the govt); only one training course is required, not for each firearm

Yet the NSA having your calling records is a massive invasion of privacy? Why is one OK and one bad? POV?

 

I'm skipping most other posts since you laid out some solid reform ideas worth discussing. 

 

What about limits on how many guns you can buy in a month or year?

 

Or limits on how many non-hunting rifles you could own at one time while really defining very specifically what a hunting rifle actually is?  

If you own over a certain amount of guns, you need to register them?

 

I don't know, just throwing ideas out there.

[Popeman38]

I'm skipping most other posts since you laid out some solid reform ideas worth discussing. 

 

What about limits on how many guns you can buy in a month or year?

 

Or limits on how many non-hunting rifles you could own at one time while really defining very specifically what a hunting rifle actually is?  

If you own over a certain amount of guns, you need to register them?

 

I don't know, just throwing ideas out there.

I think a limit per month and cumulative total over 12 months for an individual is fine. There is no logical reason to need to buy 12 in a month (assuming the gun show loophole is closed).

[Stugein]

What about limits on how many guns you can buy in a month or year?

 

Or limits on how many non-hunting rifles you could own at one time while really defining very specifically what a hunting rifle actually is?  

If you own over a certain amount of guns, you need to register them?

To this I would ask; if someone has been determined, through whatever means available (background checks, mental health checks, character references, etc.), to be a non-threat to general public safety and not part of an excluded class (felons, etc.) and is thus legally allowed to purchase guns, does him buying an additional gun (or 3) over a given number of weeks or months make him somehow inherently more dangerous?  In what way?  What safety gap are we closing with such a limit?

Edited October 2, 2015 by Stugein

[RichmondRedskin88]

I'm honestly afraid when I read comments of some NRA people. They act like a terrorist group will invade America at any moment. Some sound like trigger happy nut jobs that would shoot a person running down the street at night.

[Corcaigh]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. American culture/society breeds narcissism.

 

For many in American society, everyone telling you when you are growing up how awesome you are and that the possibilities are unlimited (the American dream is yours if you do a little work) ... breeds a high degree of self-centeredness. That viewpoint grows over time and when found in that portion of society that are born to be assholes you get a dangerous combination. Then when life places those people in situations of adversity they demand their 'rights', they demand 'respect'. They lack the capacity to recognize that others have rights too. 

 

A portion of those narcissists will try to make their mark in a mass shooting.

[DogofWar1]

To this I would ask; if someone has been determined, through whatever means available (background checks, mental health checks, character references, etc.), to be a non-threat to general public safety and not part of an excluded class (felons, etc.) and is thus legally allowed to purchase guns, does him buying an additional gun (or 3) over a given number of weeks or months make him somehow inherently more dangerous?  In what way?  What safety gap are we closing with such a limit?

 

Well, behavioral changes do occur in people, and some of these, sadly take stable, reasonable people, and make them less so.

 

Lots of mental illnesses do not appear until adulthood. It's terribly sad to see a successful business person just utterly implode due to a mental illness starting in their late 20's, but it happens.

 

Sometimes it might be less drastic, but no less dangerous.  The people who were lured in by Manson likely were, for the most part, reasonably balanced human beings, but maybe they were susceptible to whatever advances he made, and the result was significant change in personality, and ultimately, actions.

 

If a person buys Sudafed a couple times a year, that's normal.  If they buy it 50 times in a month, something changed.  A gun owner who buys maybe a gun every three years over a 12 year span suddenly buying 5 guns in a month?  You know, no need to no-knock warrant the guy or interrogate his grandma, but, you know, maybe just check in on him.  See if he's still okay in the head.

 

I'm honestly afraid when I read comments of some NRA people. They act like a terrorist group will invade America at any moment. Some sound like trigger happy nut jobs that would shoot a person running down the street at night.

 

I think some legitimately believe that, but there's another portion that also is seriously and deathly concerned that the US government is about to become a totalitarian regime, and the only thing stopping that is unfettered gun ownership.

 

The response to Jade Helm 15 was basically that whole thing in a nutshell. There is a serious concern that anything that involves the federal government in gun control, no matter how logical or obvious that thing is, is a precursor to a federal takeover and enslavement via the government.

 

I wish I was joking.

[Bacon]

I want a national gun registry. If you want to fearmonger about it, that's your call, but it needs to be done. Gun owners need to be given regular psychological screenings to make sure that they are mentally equipped for the responsibility of owning a gun. Just because you had good intentions for your gun in 2011, doesn't mean you do now. Trigger locks are a must and could go a long way toward preventing family members from getting hold of a weapon in the household. Proper storage is crucial. Simply put, whatever creates some distance between the impulse to kill and the hand on the trigger could be beneficial in limiting mass homicide. The determined will try, but it should be a real pain in the ass.

There's no chance that all the guns will be melted down this week or in 20 years. America is different in that regard. So the entire system of distribution needs to be rebuilt from the ground up and we need to do everything in our power to make sure that our country's gun owners are as responsible as they claim to be, which is where training comes into play. The 2nd amendment connects gun ownership with a "militia." It should take a lot of work and responsibility to own a gun, a responsibility that is maintained, if we follow that logic.

Above all, I'm sick of hearing the "but it won't stop crazed killers" qualification that's attached to any suggestions for reform. We have no idea how changes to policy will affect the culture over the span of several generations. I want the chance to find out. No more hand-wringing from the right.

Edited October 2, 2015 by Bacon

[tshile]

I'm skipping most other posts since you laid out some solid reform ideas worth discussing. 

 

What about limits on how many guns you can buy in a month or year?

 

Or limits on how many non-hunting rifles you could own at one time while really defining very specifically what a hunting rifle actually is?  

If you own over a certain amount of guns, you need to register them?

 

I don't know, just throwing ideas out there.

 

I like those ideas. A lot.

 

I see zero chance of them happening. I imagine the argument would be that the second amendment isn't about hunting.

 

The real problem with this discussion, is that people are (somewhat) guessing as to what the problem is. Because the NRA has been very successful in stopping the documentation required to know, at any given time, where X gun is and how it got there.

Sure, we have investigations, researchers, and so forth that do the best they can to figure out where certain types of guns are/come from, or how guns for certain types of people get from where to where, etc.

 

But we don't have a reliable way of documenting this stuff. So when it comes to asking how to stop guns from getting into the hands of criminals, or into the hands of those with questionable mental stability, we're left trying to remember how many stories had what kind of details. Or what one research group was able to put together based on limited informaiton.

 

You want to make informed decisions about how to stop guns from getting into the hands of the wrong people? Let's start tracking them first, so we have real information.

 

And here you hit yet another road block. That will likely never be allowed. The NRA has been very successful in blocking this, and to be honest I have no idea what SCOTUS rulings they've managed to get along the way; it's possible SCOTUS has already made this impossible.

 

I seem to recall studies that the vast majority of guns are coming from very few sources; ie: the vast majority of gun sellers are on the up and up, but enough aren't that guns just flow to the streets with ease. But we can't track those to know who is who. Futhermore there are rules about how often the ATF can inspect gun dealers, and what they can hold them accountable to; rules about how often they have to inventory their stock.

 

The fundamental parts required to do anything about this have been broken by the NRA. Until those are fixed we're all just throwing **** against the wall to see what sticks, and the NRA is finding the piece that sticks here and there and just knocking it off with ease.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Wow no one wants to address San Francisco and their laws vs the second amendment from the post above?

[tshile]

Wow no one wants to address San Francisco and their laws vs the second amendment from the post above?

 

New York did the same thing, if I recall correctly.

[TheGreatBuzz]

New York did the same thing, if I recall correctly.

Im a gun owner and am all for reasonable gun law reform. But I think places like San Fran screwed it up by giving people at the NRA a place to point to. I think what San Fran has done should be illegal. It also gives the nut jobs something to be legitimately concerned about.

[Bacon]

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Bay-Area-cities-homicide-rates-show-striking-6023054.php

 

Ya don't say?

[tshile]

Im a gun owner and am all for reasonable gun law reform. But I think places like San Fran screwed it up by giving people at the NRA a place to point to. I think what San Fran has done should be illegal. It also gives the nut jobs something to be legitimately concerned about.

 

I agree.

 

The extreme gun control people have done themselves a great disservice in many ways. In some ways it's like how the extreme right has done themselves a disservice in the abortion discussions (that is: everything they do is easily colored as working towards their preferred extreme; outlawing or making it virtually impossible to get guns/abortions.) They've tried so hard, for so long, that at a certain point it doesn't even matter whether their requests are reasonable, it's just too easy to see an ulterior motive whether there is one or not.

 

It also doesn't help that most of them don't seem to understand the basics about how a gun works. Things like the assault weapons ban were dubbed the 'scary looking weapons ban' for a reason, and when you start approaching things that way you just end up getting mocked. When you don't appear to actually know the subject you're discussing, the ulterior motives come back into play (again, whether they're there or not.)

 

It sucks because I bet a solid portion of the population, whether they own guns or not, would agree to some pretty basic gun control laws to make the situation better. But, as others have said in other threads on other subjects, there doesn't seem to be room for compromise anymore in today's political discourse.

 

Unfortunately, for me, when forced to choose an extreme I have a hard time choosing the pro gun control crowd because at the end of the day all I see are policies that are going to make it harder for someone who obeys the law to obtain guns and does little (if anything) about the criminals we're supposed to be stopping.

 

A middle ground option would be nice once in a while, though.

[mcsluggo]

Im a gun owner and am all for reasonable gun law reform. But I think places like San Fran screwed it up by giving people at the NRA a place to point to. I think what San Fran has done should be illegal. It also gives the nut jobs something to be legitimately concerned about.

 

if people in the Ozarks don't already know that people in San Francisco dance to a different beat ... then maybe this'll learn 'em

 

 

 

Edited October 2, 2015 by mcsluggo

[tshile]

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Bay-Area-cities-homicide-rates-show-striking-6023054.php

 

Ya don't say?

 

Police leaders and criminologists say they aren’t certain what is behind the historic dip in homicides, which mirrors state and national trends and comes even as California thins overcrowded prisons under court order.

 

Theories include improved policing strategies that focus on the highest-risk offenders, increased use of video and other technology, stronger community programs, and lessening tension related to street-level drug dealing.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Any chance the two sides can have a abortion/gun control negotiation? A little give and take on both topics to get some good done? Or are both sides to concerned with what they consider an "absolute right" to make concessions to get something the declare to want so much?

[mcsluggo]

I agree.

 

The extreme gun control people have done themselves a great disservice in many ways. In some ways it's like how the extreme right has done themselves a disservice in the abortion discussions (that is: everything they do is easily colored as working towards their preferred extreme; outlawing or making it virtually impossible to get guns/abortions.) They've tried so hard, for so long, that at a certain point it doesn't even matter whether their requests are reasonable, it's just too easy to see an ulterior motive whether there is one or not.

 

It also doesn't help that most of them don't seem to understand the basics about how a gun works. Things like the assault weapons ban were dubbed the 'scary looking weapons ban' for a reason, and when you start approaching things that way you just end up getting mocked. When you don't appear to actually know the subject you're discussing, the ulterior motives come back into play (again, whether they're there or not.)

 

It sucks because I bet a solid portion of the population, whether they own guns or not, would agree to some pretty basic gun control laws to make the situation better. But, as others have said in other threads on other subjects, there doesn't seem to be room for compromise anymore in today's political discourse.

 

Unfortunately, for me, when forced to choose an extreme I have a hard time choosing the pro gun control crowd because at the end of the day all I see are policies that are going to make it harder for someone who obeys the law to obtain guns and does little (if anything) about the criminals we're supposed to be stopping.

 

A middle ground option would be nice once in a while, though.

 

the thing is.... the SF position is widely understood as the extreme.  Not many people are pushing for it nationally, and everyone knows that.

 

On the other hand the NRA position is the extreme in the other direction.  And somehow 50% of the country has become convinced that the NRA position is the only stable equilibrium other than      ^^^that^^^^

 

 

 

how the **** does that happen??? 

[Bacon]

 

 

Those numbers don't "mirror" the national trend, unless the mirror is terribly warped. Our country's homicide rate hasn't dropped by 40% in 7 years. If only.

 

And yes, I agree that countless measures will be involved in successful changes to policy, not just one.

[The Evil Genius]

SF has the benefit of being almost too high income to have many murders. That said, you can probably bet an extremely liberal, extremely diverse, and probably highly under armed population helps keep those stats down too. 

[Bacon]

SF has the benefit of being almost too high income to have many murders. That said, you can probably bet an extremely liberal, extremely diverse, and probably highly under armed population helps keep those stats down too. 

 

Hell of a lot of car theft though!

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-24/watch-my-car-san-francisco-has-greatest-risk-for-auto-thefts

Edited October 2, 2015 by Bacon

[The Evil Genius]

Hell of a lot of car theft though!

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-24/watch-my-car-san-francisco-has-greatest-risk-for-auto-thefts

Yes. But how much is that by people who actually live there vs people who go into the city to steal a $75k Mercedes or Tesla? 

 

I suspect car theft is a migratory crime vs say..murder (which is probably, I am theorizing, perpetrated by people who live in the city they kill in). No stats to back it up..but it makes sense in my mind. 

[Predicto]

if people in the Ozarks don't already know that people in San Francisco dance to a different beat ... then maybe this'll learn 'em

 

[awesome photo]

 

 

 

That picture was taken a block from my house.   I love this town. 

[Predicto]

 

So, Predicto, what are your opinions and ideas on this subject? Or are you only going to sit back and lob grenades at other posters?

 

 

I'm sorry I haven't done that.   I'm tired.   We've discussed this subject a hundred times before, and I wrote a lot of effort posts over the years, just to see the same NRA talking points come up again and again and again.   And those talking points have won the day.

 

Yesterday, I was angry.   Angry that another shooting happened, angry that I knew that nothing could be done about any gun problems because the gun lobby absolutely runs the show.  

 

I apologize for being rude, to you and others.  I'm kind of bitter.   

[Burgold]

Wow no one wants to address San Francisco and their laws vs the second amendment from the post above?

Not sure if it's exactly the same, but I remember when DC tried to regulate guns. They did, but the problem was they could walk across the Key Bridge, drive or Metro and within ten minutes be in one of the most lax gun states. Proximity neutered any good the gun control efforts might have had. They still did some good.

 

DC is not considered the murder capitol of the world anymore. On the other hand, last year, the courts struck down several DC gun laws. This year, the homicide rate has increased dramatically. There are probably a number of factors for the rise in gun violence, but I don't know that we should entirely discount the sudden loosening of gun laws.

 

Ease creates opportunities.