The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Burgold]

it has been in some cases, and I would say it is fairly obvious more deters mass shooters in target selection and potential lethality.

 

Obvious? How?  It seems intuitive, but I've seen studies showing gun control reducing violence. This is the old proving a negative. Do visible guns and lots of them stop violence... if they do we won't know because there was no incident. We only know when it goes horribly wrong.

[tshile]

 

I don't think this is really true.  For several reasons (size, addiction, etc.), drugs are different than guns.  I don't think if you look at a country like Australia there is a large violent illegal sales market for banned guns outside of people that are already involved in other illegal acts that want banned guns for illegal activities (e.g. running drugs).

 

Right, that's the problem with certain laws. You pass them, and the only people that follow them are the ones that aren't criminals and have no desire to break the law. So now you have criminals with guns, and law abiding citizens without, and this creates an issue from the perspective of self defense. This is the issue with many gun control issues.

 

An outright ban would have to be followed by a huge confiscation plan. Both are going to have severe problems legally - both in fighting the legality of it in courts, and fighting the gun lobby in terms of the legislative process (It's not just the NRA, every gun manufacturer has a stake in being able to sell the guns they develop, it is their business...)

 

You're going to have a much better chance of getting compromise by focusing on how people acquire guns, as opposed to trying to remove the ability to legally acquire guns. That has nothing to do with my personal opinion on what should happen, it's just an observation about the current cultural and legal situation with guns.

 

It's to the point where it's almost foolish to compare our stats to other countries, because the other countries have taken steps that are not possible in this country. It would take a significant ruling by SCOTUS to get past the legality of it, and it would take a huge change in public perception to get past the dollars you'd be fighting from the NRA, gun manufacturers, and other pro-gun groups.

Edited June 15, 2016 by tshile

[twa]

Obvious? How?  It seems intuitive, but I've seen studies showing gun control reducing violence. This is the old proving a negative. Do visible guns and lots of them stop violence... if they do we won't know because there was no incident. We only know when it goes horribly wrong.

 

by studying target selection....you can ask any security expert

[jpage520]

Obvious? How?  It seems intuitive, but I've seen studies showing gun control reducing violence. This is the old proving a negative. Do visible guns and lots of them stop violence... if they do we won't know because there was no incident. We only know when it goes horribly wrong.

 

That's one that I struggle with often. The whole, "Give them all guns, and no one shoots anyone!" argument. I think the theory is worth consideration. But I also think the stakes of the implementation of something like that are pretty high. The thing that kinda deters me on it though is some of the stories that come out regarding dummies shooting people for the absolutely dumbest of reasons. Now, granted most of those stories come from a limited sample size since they tend to be parts of sensationalized arguments for one thing or another. On one hand, there may be no headlines at all. But on the other, much heavier hand, you could often see headlines like "15 Dead In 15-way Shooting"

 

 

My personal contribution to the discussion goes something like this. I believe that it is our Constitutional right to own firearms and that should continue. But I don't think anything gets done here without some kind of compromise. Personally, I think there's something to the notion that "A good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun", at least for the most part. So I think one way to expound on that would be to develop some kind of incentivized training initiatives. Folks are gonna buy AR-15s? FIne, but learn how to use the damn thing first. Maybe not require it by law, but come up with something to make it almost a no brainer to do it. Maybe tax breaks or other incentives for the sellers to implement training to new customers.

 

I also would like to see something changed in regards to the "Gun show Loophole". I don't have a problem with private sellers/sales. But something's gotta give there. Don't know what. But something.

 

Also, forgive me for not being very informed on this one. But does the NRA, or any other large entity play any part in actual regulation of any kind? I wonder because if the main argument regarding gun control, from myself included, involves being against federal government regulation of firearms in the light of maintaining Constitutional rights, would it be possible to create a private system of regulation? Something like the ESRB for video games? A firearm self-regulatory board of some kind? I understand the possible conflict of interest here, but I also don't believe it to be impossible for something to exist that could help in providing some transparency.

 

Also, one thing that I've always thought to be something that doesn't help gun enthusiast's case is the ads for guns and related products. So many of these things are geared towards what would seem to be exactly the kind of thing that plays into the Anti-gun crowd arguments about the use of guns. Camo print, military themes, and action movie style ads that seemingly all but say the product is for you to buy and destroy things or shoot people lol. And that's fine I guess, but I just don't think it does much along the lines of helping provide a representation of the responsible gun owner.

[twa]

The NRA and other groups encourage training and safety programs...and fund them

 

add

 

I think we should have classes in schools

Edited June 15, 2016 by twa

[tshile]

The NRA and other groups encourage training and safety programs...and fund them

 

add

 

I think we should have classes in schools

 

Yes... they do.

 

But if legislation was proposed tomorrow that said:

you were required to have x hours of training a year for a concealed handgun permit

you were required to have y hours of training a year to own a firearm

you were required to have z hours of training a year to be allowed to purchase a new firearm

(and you can even further adjust them based on the type of firearm, if it so pleased you)

 

the NRA would absolutely oppose and fight it.

[Larry]

Also, forgive me for not being very informed on this one. But does the NRA, or any other large entity play any part in actual regulation of any kind?

Are you seriously asking if the most powerful lobbying organization in the US has any influence on regulations?

[Burgold]

The NRA and other groups encourage training and safety programs...and fund them

 

add

 

I think we should have classes in schools

I don't think that's what he was asking though it is a good program. I'm not even really opposed to teaching gun safety in schools though I find it ludicrous that many of those who advocate gun safety still find sex education classes controversial (I don't know if you do or not).

 

What he was asking whether the NRA has a hand in writing legislation. The answer is a definitive yes. There have been numerous cases of this spotted. There have also been numerous cases where a Republican Congressmen read a NRA press release as their speech before committee.

[Larry]

. . . though I find it ludicrous that many of those who advocate gun safety still find sex education classes controversial (I don't know if you do or not).

Humorous analogy.

"But, if you teach kids about safe sex, then that will encourage them to have more sex."

"And there is no such thing as sex that's guaranteed 100% safe."

Edited June 15, 2016 by Larry

[tshile]

Also, forgive me for not being very informed on this one. But does the NRA, or any other large entity play any part in actual regulation of any kind?

 

I'm not aware of their direct involvement, like say how the SEC brings in heads of banks, hedge funds, etc to advise them policies.

 

But they directly fund the politicians that vote on the bills, and they have a very, very strong influence there. The gun industry in this country is huge, and while the NRA isn't the only part of that they are a big part of it.

 

The NRA's influence is so strong that there are democrats that are afraid to piss them off. They may not like the NRA, they may think we need a lot more gun control (or even ban guns or at least certain types), but they're terrified of actually running on that platform or doing anything too much in that direction while in office, because the NRA will lead a huge charge against them.

 

Gun rights/gun control is one of the major single-issue issues we have... The NRA has its power for two main reasons, one being it's member base and dues (many members join for discounts at firearms related locations, like say ammo or time at a range), and because there are so many people who will vote against a person for simply threatening to "take your guns away"

[jpage520]

Are you seriously asking if the most powerful lobbying organization in the US has any influence on regulations?

 

Lol I should've worded that better. No. I'm well aware of that.

 

I was talking about from a privatized perspective. Not government regulations. My thought is along the lines of, you don't want the government intervening and altering the Constitutional rights of American citizens through govt regulation? Fine. Develop a private regulatory system with checks and balances that can prove you can do it yourself.

That's why I brought up the ESRB. I thought it to be at least some semblance of an example of what I'm talking about.

[tshile]

Lol I should've worded that better. No. I'm well aware of that.

 

I was talking about from a privatized perspective. Not government regulations. My thought is along the lines of, you don't want the government intervening and altering the Constitutional rights of American citizens through govt regulation? Fine. Develop a private regulatory system with checks and balances that can prove you can do it yourself.

That's why I brought up the ESRB. I thought it to be at least some semblance of an example of what I'm talking about.

 

They are invested in the training and safety part of it because:

1 - it is right to do things a certain way and to treat guns as tools, and respect them as such, and understand how to use them safely

2 - it gives them cover from a PR perspective

3 - it is, in itself, a lucrative business (just look at the number of 'training' things that have popped up in the last 15 years)

 

You can assign whatever percentage/priority to those you want, but I don't think a reasonable person can deny all 3 are at play.

 

The real issue here, is that the NRA works for the gun manufacturers. There is a huge conflict of interest here. Their #1 goal is to make sure the manufacturers can sell their guns, and come up with new guns to sell. So they have no interest in coming up with a policy of say - do not make magazines that hold more than 5 bullets - and even if they were, they have no ability to enforce that.

 

The ATF is not looking to the NRA for help on determining what should/should not be legal, for example.

 

It's kind of like the tobacco industry, or the alcohol industry. You cannot expect them to police themselves, it's not in their interest. Their only interest is in selling as much product as possible, protecting themselves for liability law suits, and fighting the government when it tries to restrict them in any way.

[“Misdirection”]

The NRA and other groups encourage training and safety programs...and fund them

 

add

 

I think we should have classes in schools

Agreed.

Perhaps this is an uber-****ization of the 2nd amendment, but why not allow gun sales only through government fronts, like an ABC store set-up? Private sales need to be brought in for inspection/background checked/etc.

This combined with school classes teaching gun safety/training seems like a strong way to control the process while still allowing people their guns. Might lead to more guns, which would keep the industry happy.

Thoughts?

[skinny21]

As the resident gun nut (at least I've been labeled a gun nut not by myself) I'd be mostly fine with that. I'd want handguns registered including revolvers. In exchange I'd want a limit on how long the waiting period can be for each. Say 5 working days for a "short waiting period" and 10 working days for the "long waiting period". After all, if I can get pulled over and the police can immediate find out I have a warrant in Alaska, there is no reason they shouldn't be able to check everything in 10 days. The mental health check part I'd need more details on. And all private party transactions must be filed with some agency to be set up. I think that's pretty good though.

EDIT: Would I have to do all that with EACH gun purchase? Only reason I ask is in Florida currently you get a check and then get issued your CCW. Once you have a CCW, you can walk in and buy with no waiting period. You have to renew your license and get rechecked every so often, 5 years if I remember correctly. Honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about that.

EDIT#2: I assume semi-auto shot guns would require the longer wait?

I'd be happy to lump all handguns, however, I could see someone arguing "what if someone suddenly feels the need for protection. Why should they have to wait?" Or some such. Also, and maybe more importantly, it may undermine the idea of how you're dividing the 2 types of guns.

Don't see a need to have a check for every purchase, you're right. Hesitant to set a timeframe for the waiting period (yet) - I think the professionals would need to decide how long it would reasonably take to conduct a thorough background check.

Good catch with the 2nd edit. Yes.

I can dig it as a compromise. I think there is a way (I don't know that I could do it) in dividing up weapons made primarily for defense and hunting versus those made for offense and mass killing.

I think you have a right to protect yourself or your family. I think you have the right to go hunting. I'm not sure you need the right to have the capability of murdering every citizen in your neighborhood. Someone long ago said that they like going to firing ranges with these high powered weapons because shooting them is a thrill. Maybe we could keep them stored there at these facilities... or have these types of weapons be part of a "well regulated militia" and the others at home.

Yeah, I mean it's such a divisive topic and although I personally may want more, I can understand the need to compromise. Do I think certain people are right to think they may need semi-autos in case the government oversteps its bounds (in a big way)? No, but I also don't want to alienate those people either... because I guess you never know. And alienating a segment of the gun owning population will make the conversation that much more difficult.

I might support that, though mental health check and such would need fleshing out.

what about the millions in circulation?....the majority of pistols now are semi-automatics

it would likely do next to nothing to prevent mass shootings though and restrictions such as that prompt buying sprees

Nothing seems a bit strong of a word there. It won't do nearly enough, I'm sure, but it's a compromise that I hope could make some small difference.

Don't know what to say regarding both mental health and buying sprees. Maybe there's something that could make a difference though. Really, it's about looking to the future - if a law like that passed, it would make it that much more difficult for a person (down the road) to get ticked off and a few days later be armed with a semi-auto in a crowded area.

I'm loathe to get into specifics like that though... both sides get into the "yeah, but what if..." that undermines any move forward.

As to the guns already out there, I don't know that either. Maybe they're grandfathered in but have to abide by the new law if they're sold? Tough to regulate that I'm sure, but it could be incentivized in some way I think.

I'll also add that the loopholes need to be closed as best as possible, selling multiple guns at the same time to one buyer needs to be looked at, the 1% of dealers that's always brought up need to be heavily examined, studies have to be allowed, and agencies (like the ATF) need to have fewer restrictions*.

* like being able to do their paperwork online, for example. My knowledge is insufficient to say much more than that though.

Bottom line is the idea of compromising. No one's gonna be thrilled with this type of legislation, but I'd hope both sides would agree that it's better than nothing. Better yet, I don't think either side really 'loses' in this scenario.

[Jumbo]

Everyone can relax---this whole deal will soon be resolved. Ever the master of smooth moves, sound judgment, and how to prioritize, the idiot pigman who is the Republican's top vote-getter, in a landslide, to be president of the United Sates of America, is having a "special" meeting with the head of the NRA today (not joking). 

[jpage520]

It's kind of like the tobacco industry, or the alcohol industry. You cannot expect them to police themselves, it's not in their interest. Their only interest is in selling as much product as possible, protecting themselves for liability law suits, and fighting the government when it tries to restrict them in any way.

 

Understood. Like I said, I know there's a conflict of interest at play. I tend to always try and look at things to figure out a way to have the federal government intervene as little as possible IF possible. That's my motivation here. What's gotta be done has gotta be done though and something has to give here somehow.

 

I am curious though, in that light, how much the NRA actually spends towards lobbying politicians, legal fees, and other costs attributed to preventing govt regulation in comparison to what it would cost to comes up with such a regulatory system that could appease requirements of what folks tend to refer to as "Common Sense Gun Regulation". I feel like it would have to be a substantial difference.

[twa]

Agreed.

Perhaps this is an uber-****ization of the 2nd amendment, but why not allow gun sales only through government fronts, like an ABC store set-up? Private sales need to be brought in for inspection/background checked/etc.

This combined with school classes teaching gun safety/training seems like a strong way to control the process while still allowing people their guns. Might lead to more guns, which would keep the industry happy.

Thoughts?

 

Isn't existing gun dealer licensing basically the same thing?...which is what is required to deal in volume now

 

for private sale or transfer other than family I might support, but I doubt it....maybe if just for high capacity and caliber weapons

[“Misdirection”]

Isn't existing gun dealer licensing basically the same thing?...which is what is required to deal in volume now

 

for private sale or transfer other than family I might support, but I doubt it....maybe if just for high capacity and caliber weapons

 

I suppose so. I'm admittedly somewhat ignorant on the subject, and haven't been through the process myself.

If that is the same, then I'm definitely with you on teaching in schools.

[tshile]

Isn't existing gun dealer licensing basically the same thing?...which is what is required to deal in volume now

 

for private sale or transfer other than family I might support, but I doubt it....maybe if just for high capacity and caliber weapons

 

It is the same thing.

 

Except gun dealers aren't require to keep records, track of inventory, and are protected from being audited by the government more than once every so many years.

[twa]

It is the same thing.

 

Except gun dealers aren't require to keep records, track of inventory, and are protected from being audited by the government more than once every so many years.

 

so they are like the US govt and FED  

[TheGreatBuzz]

I'm starting to see the ol' Gun Show Loophole term get thrown around again.  I'm curious to see what people think/know of the actual Gun Show Loophole.  No cheating! 

 

For the record I'm against the gun show loophole, I just think it isn't as big a deal as people make it out to be.

 

EDIT:  By that, I mean WHAT IS the gun show loophole, not what you think OF it.

Edited June 15, 2016 by TheGreatBuzz

[twa]

getting my popcorn 

[jpage520]

I'll be the first one to tell you that I'm not "learned up" enough on guns to make significant statements on the finer details of the discussion as a whole. Just a disclaimer.

 

It's my understanding that the "Gun show loophole" is just a reference to the private sale of firearms and its lack of regulation. I know In circles favoring gun control it gets used regularly as a point on "Easy access". But that's about it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Sticksboi05]

NPR: LIVE VIDEO: Democrats Hold Senate Floor In Push For Gun Control

 

Senate Democrats say they are bringing Senate business to a halt in an effort to force some action on gun control.

Sen. Chris Murphy, of Connecticut, said on Twitter that he was prepared to "talk about the need to prevent gun violence for as long as I can."

"For those of us that represent Connecticut, the failure of this body to do anything, anything at all in the face of that continued slaughter isn't just painful to us, it's unconscionable," Murphy said, referencing the shootings at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. "I can't tell you how hard it is to look into the eyes of the family of those little boys and girls who were killed in Sandy Hook and tell them that almost four years later, we have done nothing, nothing at all to reduce the likelihood that that will happen again to another family."

Filibuster engaged in Senate.

[Larry]

Wow. An actual filibuster?

Props to the guy for the courage to actually stand up and put his name to it.