Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 10-18-2019, 04:14 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Since the phrase "gun control" itself seems to have a negative impact with some gun owners, I can't see how any proposed laws involving actual gun control can pass muster.
The phrase "gun control" is not the issue. The actual effects of the legislation are. If Congress were to re-label the "Hearing Protection Act" as "Gun Control Act of 2019" and pass it, gun owners and RKBA activists would celebrate. OTOH, if you were to label a bill "Firearm Freedom for All" and its actual effect were to substantially restrict the range of options gun owners could choose from when purchasing a firearm, they would not be celebrating, in spite of the happy-sounding name.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 10-18-2019 at 04:18 PM.
  #52  
Old 10-18-2019, 04:15 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
If you're asking for commentary / discussion on Canada and/or the UK's gun laws in this thread, it's not really the right place for that. If there's some specific policy they've implemented that you think merits consideration, given the guidelines in the OP, please propose it. The "demonstrable level of harm" would depend on the specifics of the proposal. If ammunition normally costs $0.30 per round and your proposal raises the price to $0.33, multiplied over the billions of rounds of ammunition purchased each year by law-abiding gun owners, it's a significant cost. If it used to take people buying guns an average of 30 minutes to complete the transaction, and your proposal would now make it take 90, that extra hour of time, again multiplied across the tens of millions of gun purchases each year, is a fairly substantial imposition on law-abiding gun owners' time. If previously gun owners could choose between any of 1,000 different models of guns, and your proposal would limit that choice to 500 or 100, that's a significant negative effect on gun owners. Do those examples clarify the concept sufficiently for you?
It does, thanks. It helps me understand where you're coming from with respect to what you consider to be "harmful" or "burdensome". I'll leave it for others to decide for themselves whether those bars are sufficiently satisfied.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #53  
Old 10-18-2019, 04:20 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The phrase "gun control" is not the issue. The actual effects of the legislation are. If Congress were to re-label the "Hearing Protection Act" as "Gun Control Act of 2019" and pass it, gun owners and gun rights activists would celebrate. OTOH, if you were to label a bill "Firearm Freedom for All" and it's actual effect were to substantially restrict the range of options gun owners could choose from when purchasing a firearm, they would not be celebrating, in spite of the happy-sounding name.
What about the links I gave for laws regulating gun ownership for the mentally ill? Which(if any) of those listed do you favor, and would you support a more unified approach?
  #54  
Old 10-18-2019, 04:40 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
What about the links I gave for laws regulating gun ownership for the mentally ill? Which(if any) of those listed do you favor, and would you support a more unified approach?
The more unified approach is the federal standard of "adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution" (for which there's a fairly significant amount of case law and other supporting rules and guidance that clarify). That could probably be clarified further (e.g. I think the appropriate standard is something along the lines of AZ's "Has been found to constitute a danger to himself or herself or others pursuant to court order..."), and I wouldn't mind if all states adopted that standard to unify their approach rather than adding their own individual list of mental health disqualifiers to it. I'd also like to see more mechanisms codified into law for people to have their rights restored who were once suffering from mental illness but have recovered and gone on to live productive and healthy lives, and are no longer a danger to themselves or others. I recognize that historically reporting this data to the appropriate federal authorities has not been consistently good, and I'd likely support efforts to improve accuracy.
  #55  
Old 10-18-2019, 04:50 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
I speak for myself, and I am not claiming to speak for anyone else, but I think that I can articulate the position of many.

The goal of us "gun grabbers" is simple. We want to see fewer people injured or killed due to the irresponsible or criminal use of firearms. The reason for this goal is that we want to see fewer people injured or killed as an overall goal. The reason for this is that we generally want people to be happier, healthier and more productive.

Given the goals as stated, it would be extremely counterproductive to outright outlaw guns, and then go violently round them all up. It may reach the nominative goal of "getting the guns off the streets", but it would not reach the goal of making people happier, healthier, and more productive.

The goal of reducing gun death and injury has a few categories.

1. Accidental. Kid or irresponsible adult uses a gun in an unsafe manner, resulting in the death or injury of themself or another.

2. Criminal. During or as a crime, a criminal uses a gun to injure or kill another.

3. Suicide. During a brief moment of despair or depression, a person uses a gun with the intent of causing their own death, causing either death or injury.

4. Self defense. In the process of defending oneself from a real or perceived threat, uses a gun to kill or injure another.

So, the goal of gun legislation should be to ensure that guns are only in the hands of responsible, law abiding, and mentally stable people, this would reduce the amount of violence in all of those categories.


I believe that most of these can be significantly improved simply by keeping track of our guns better.

It's an almost everyday occurrence that some toddler gets ahold of a gun and shoots themselves or another. And that's the ones that make the news. The toddlers who don't pull the trigger, or do but don't hit anyone, are less likely to make it in the news. That means that there are far too many people out there using their couch cushions as a gun safe, which is a bad idea even when there are not children around. Not that adults are not capable of making fatal mistakes as well.

Criminals also get these guns largely due to poor securing. You can buy a gun on the black market for far less than you can in a gun store, as long as you don't mind knowing that it is stolen and was traded for drugs. Gun owners who do not take responsibility for securing their guns are a major part of this supply.

As far as suicide goes, I do believe that suicide should be a right, but I would also be against selling Lotto ticket/poison pill combo packs at the convenience store. Because of the number of guns in society, people feel the need to get a gun to use for protection. I mean, I've got two dogs, and though I'm working my way into my 40's, I can still hold my own in a fight. I am fairly confident in my ability to defend my home from those who would want to do me ill... unless they have a gun. If they have a gun, then I kinda think that I need one too. So, as the chances that the random burglar is armed goes up, so does my calculus that I need a gun to defend myself. If I have a gun, then the momentary lapse of judgement and feeling of despair is easy to translate into opening the nightstand and pulling a trigger rather than getting up to face another day. If I don't have a gun, then I just think about it, and then get up and face the day. I know that the suicide figure gets tossed by gun advocates in these debates, and often nefarious motives are attributed to those who bring it up, but I do see gun suicide as a problem that can be reduced.

Finally, self defense. You have every right to self defense, as do cops and anyone else that is in danger. The problem is, is that with so many criminals having access to guns, it's hard to take a chance. If it is rare that a criminal has a gun, then you have no reason to shoot someone out of fear that they will shoot you. If it is as common as it is that criminals have guns, then it starts making sense to shoot at things that you perceive as a threat.


So, my proposal is actually simple, a registry and buy back. You have a gun, you register it, and as part of the registration, you sign an affidavit saying that you have properly secured you guns. No one is going to come look at them. If you do not want to go to the bother of securing your guns, you can sell them to the police. If you want to sell some of your guns, but keep and register others, you can do that too.

If you transfer a gun, then you should make a record of that transfer. I would recommend updating the govt about it, but as long as you have the valid paperwork, there is no hurry. Just keep in mind that if it comes up in connection with a crime, then you may be inconvenienced when LEO come to ask you about your gun.

To transfer a gun, you must first make sure that they are eligible. I can think of many ways of doing this, but the easiest is that you can pre-pass the background check. For instance, if you have a valid CCW, then you have passed a background check already, and are eligible.

If a gun is stolen, you should report this to the police as soon as possible. If they are properly stored, then it will be very obvious that they are stolen, as your gun safe has been destroyed by the effort of getting it open. Report this to the police, and when they see that you were doing your due diligence, they will thank you, and I actually have no problem with them then offering you a pro-rated buy back for your lost guns.

Enforcement: Pretty lax, honestly. Unless you are manufacturing, modifying, or selling guns illegally, there will be no active investigation in trying to "retrieve" unregistered guns. If you have an encounter with a cop for another reason, and they find an unregistered gun on you, in your house or car, then they will confiscate it, and give you a fine(I like the idea that the fine would be the buyback value, but I'm not tied to that). If you are using that gun as part of a crime, however, obviously the consequences would be a bit more severe. OTOH, illegal activities with the guns, including sales and modifications, would have increased enforcement.

If your unregistered, unsecured gun is used in an irresponsible manner, however, there may be consequences greater than just a fine.

The only other things that I would add would be to tighten up CCW requirements a bit, as is, the class, in Ohio at least, is a joke. I would require that CCW training for any public carry, and carrying of a rifle in public would require that you have a valid hunting permit relevant to the gun you are carrying, and that you are in or near an area where such hunting is allowed. Guns properly secured in your car would not be considered to be in public.

The point of this is that, because guns are just so easy to get, they are all over the place. It would not take all that much of people doing a better job keeping track of their guns, and suddenly the guns in the blackmarket start drying up, and becoming more expensive. If I'm a junky, I can use a $30 gun that I got from my drug dealer (who traded it for drugs from some other junky that stole it from your house) to hold up a store to steal for my next fix. If I need to pay $1000 for the gun, then I'm much less likely to have one. I don't think it would require tightening the flow to the black market all that much to make prices skyrocket, and I know that they will not be as prevalent in the hands of criminals if the prices were much higher.

I consider this to be a very slight imposition on gun owners and advocates that will result in a substantial reduction in gun injury and death. I do not see how it interferes with a responsible law abiding person from procuring guns for self defense or recreation.

If we wanted to stop *all* gun violence and death, then that would indeed require draconian measures, and have some rather unfortunate side effects, but just like having cars, we are talking harm reduction here, not a complete elimination.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 10-18-2019 at 04:54 PM.
  #56  
Old 10-19-2019, 06:01 AM
Bear_Nenno's Avatar
Bear_Nenno is offline
Endowment Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 9,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I speak for myself, and I am not claiming to speak for anyone else, but I think that I can articulate the position of many.

The goal of us "gun grabbers" is simple. We want to see fewer people injured or killed due to the irresponsible or criminal use of firearms. The reason for this goal is that we want to see fewer people injured or killed as an overall goal. The reason for this is that we generally want people to be happier, healthier and more productive.
Those are great goals. But the problem is that they end up clouded behind attempts to ban "assault weapons" and certain rifles, which statistically are involved in accidental shootings, criminal acts, suicides, and self-defense are far cry less than handguns.
And then there's the desire to ban "high capacity magazines" which are irrelevant in accidental shootings, suicides, and home defense. And while they might be relevant in criminal activity, look at the statistics. On average, fewer than four rounds are fired in a criminal assault involving firearms. Only four rounds? So what does it matter if a magazine holds 30 rounds or 15 rounds or 10 rounds?

Unfortunately, most gun control proposals do not focus on facts or statistics. And they don't try to tailor the control to the actual mechanism of injury. Instead, they go after things that are popular to attack, like assault weapons and magazines, because they probably don't even care about getting a useful law passed. They probably just want to keep the dialogue going so that they can get votes and donations.

Quote:
It's an almost everyday occurrence that some toddler gets ahold of a gun and shoots themselves or another. And that's the ones that make the news. The toddlers who don't pull the trigger, or do but don't hit anyone, are less likely to make it in the news. That means that there are far too many people out there using their couch cushions as a gun safe, which is a bad idea even when there are not children around. Not that adults are not capable of making fatal mistakes as well.
Let's start there. This is a good point, and something I think we'd all agree on preventing. What law can we propose to prevent this? Laws already exist that make it illegal to store a firearm where a child can access it. Yet, you're right, there are still kids being harmed this way. How do we prevent it? Increase punishment? Probably not. That doesn't seem to work with anything. Increase prosecutions? Maybe. It seems like a lot of the times, the family isn't prosecuted. Perhaps it's because someone feels they've suffered enough. How about this: Make these kinds of shootings strict liability crimes, like statutory rape. That way, the prosecution doesn't have to waste time proving that the method of storing the firearm was unsafe. Rewrite the law, at the federal level, that states it is illegal for a child to possess, even temporarily, a firearm within a home or dwelling. This is a strict liability offense, punishable by 10 years in prison and or a fine of up to $250,000. Then, you make prosecution mandatory, and create a minimum sentencing guideline of no less than 3 years in federal prison.
There's not debate in court about weather the person took reasonable efforts to keep the gun out of the reach of the child or store it in a safe manner. The fact that a round was fired inside a home by a child, suggests--by itself--that the weapon was not stored safe enough, regardless of method. And the fact that the round was fired, means that the child possessed a firearm in a home, and therefore a crime has been committed. The owner of that firearm goes to prison.

Quote:
Criminals also get these guns largely due to poor securing. You can buy a gun on the black market for far less than you can in a gun store, as long as you don't mind knowing that it is stolen and was traded for drugs. Gun owners who do not take responsibility for securing their guns are a major part of this supply.
Maybe a law requiring proper storage to prevent theft? Kind of like the current law that requires proper storage to keep the firearm away from kids. So, not a draconian as the new law I proposed above, but create a law similar to our current one that says everyone must store firearms in a manner to prevent theft. The problem with that, is this would discourage people from reporting the theft of their guns for fear of prosecution. So... I've got nothing. I think your overall gun control proposal mostly addresses this issue, though I'll discuss it separately below.

Quote:
As far as suicide goes...
I think the suicide issue is not a gun issue. People who want to kill themselves are going to do it. We're never going to solve that by focusing on guns, even if we had a magic button that removed every firearm from the country. To often people pride themselves on how they've reduced "suicides by firearm" but the actual rates and numbers of total suicides didn't change a bit.

Quote:
Finally, self defense. You have every right to self defense, as do cops and anyone else that is in danger. The problem is, is that with so many criminals having access to guns, it's hard to take a chance. If it is rare that a criminal has a gun, then you have no reason to shoot someone out of fear that they will shoot you.
I think you miss the point here. Firearms for self-defense are not only for use against an armed attacker. They are for use against [i]any[i] attacker capable and intent on committing a forceable felony against your person, causing great bodily harm or death. Firearms are the great equalizer. Not just for the "old lady" cliche, but any smaller, weaker person. Such people should not have to fear their attacker or fear for their safety. They should not have to wait for law enforcement to come rescue them. If the attacker is big and strong, or if the attacker has a knife or a bat (more popular for criminals than firearms, and causing more deaths than firearms by the way), then a person can and rightly should, use a firearm in self-defense. So, even if we had a magic button that took all firearms away from every criminal, this would not be a reason to limit law-abiding people from owning firearms for self-defense. Criminals can still be dangerous without having guns.

Quote:
So, my proposal is actually simple, a registry and buy back.
First, I hate the idea of gun buybacks--at least, how they are currently done. And I don't quite understand your proposed buyback program where the government pays someone for their stolen firearm?
As for the registry, the biggest hurdle in passing such a law involves the paranoia associated with the government having a list of firearms or firearm owners. I wonder if there would be some kind of way to use block-chain, crypto technology to keep a registry that allowed firearm transfers to be tracked, and only allowed transfer to authorized people, but without anyone able to pull up a complete list. Something like that would satisfy more opponents of registries (not all, but more).

I think it is a great idea to have a system that readily identifies people who are legally allowed to purchase firearms versus those who are not. A universal background check, as it is being proposed, isn't a terribly good system. It doesn't address abuse of the system (people using it as a general background check service) or the costs associated with increasing the staffing and infrastructure to the NCIC, etc.

I think something like Illinois's FOID card might be the way to go. Anyone with a FOID card can legally buy firearms and ammunition. BUT, the card (and the list of card holders) should not be issued or maintained by the government. I'd propose allowing the NRA or the CMP to be the holders of the list. And specifically adding text to the Bill that forbids the federal or state government from ever asking to be provided with the list for any reason. I'd support a gun registry that also worked the same way. Let the NRA or CMP handle it. That way, they can't complain about the government having the information. And they can charge a fee for the service and the cards.
Registration is handled once per transaction and never expires. FOID cards are valid for 6 months. A person does not need a valid NRA-FOID card to possess a firearm or purchase ammunition (after all, the firearm registration will have his/her name on it). But if someone wants to buy a firearm or purchase some more ammunition, then their NRA-FOID card should be valid. Private sellers cannot transfer to someone without a valid NRA-FOID card. They can get transfer the firearm right away as long as the person's NFOID is valid, and then they have like 10 days or something to report the transfer (online or by mail), and 30 to 90 days later, the new owner gets the registration. In the meantime, the bill of sale or something is enough. I don't know, I'm just kind of thinking of this as I type. But I like where it's headed...
What do you guys think?
  #57  
Old 10-19-2019, 06:05 AM
Bear_Nenno's Avatar
Bear_Nenno is offline
Endowment Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 9,073
I think maybe have the NRA handle the owners, and the CMP handles the firearms. If the NRA refuses to play, then allow any private organization for the chance to compete for the contract. I'm sure, once the government says "This is happening. Either you get to be the sole protector of the valuable list of legal firearm owners in the country, or someone else will", then I think they will do it.
  #58  
Old 10-19-2019, 06:09 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
I think the suicide issue is not a gun issue. People who want to kill themselves are going to do it.
This would be laughably wrong, if dead people were something to laugh about. Check the chart here for a study of how removing one kind of suicide method impacted overall suicides.
  #59  
Old 10-19-2019, 06:21 AM
Bear_Nenno's Avatar
Bear_Nenno is offline
Endowment Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 9,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Here is a state-by-state listing of laws stating weapons restrictions when it comes to the mentally ill. If you look at states like Alabama it is easy to note the extreme vagueness(How unsound a mind, and who makes the determination) and compare it places like The District of Columbia , then note the dozens of variations among the rest: it is a hodgepodge of little-understood laws, that need to be consolidated, clarified and enforced.
The purchase of firearms is handled at the federal level, though. States can make things more restrictive, but they can't make them less restrictive. Well, Alaska would argue differently, but that's a completely different debate. Anyway, it's relevant to look at what the federal government says about restrictions pertaining to mental health. I think the vagueness of legislation from some of the states is simply because there is no need to draft another law on top of the current federal law.

But, I agree that this is one area that needs to better "consolidated, clarified and enforced". The same way there are standardized Federal forms for purchasing firearms, there should be a standardized Federal form for reporting the adjudication or determination of mental defectiveness or commitment to a mental institution. Currently, the ATF says the following people cannot legally possess a firearm:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Form 4473
[Persons] Adjudicated as a Mental Defective: A determination by a court,
board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked
subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) is
a danger to himself or to others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or
manage his own affairs. This term shall include: (1) a finding of insanity by a court
in a criminal case; and (2) those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility.

[Persons] Committed to a Mental Institution: A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes
commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments
for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.
So, pass a law that codifies and identifies every "lawful authority", and make the reporting mandatory. Formalize and simplify the reporting process. Every mental institution should have a stack of ATF Forms for the reporting of those who are committed for reasons other than observation or voluntary admission. Failure to report results in loss of license. Every court, board, commission, or lawful authority should have these forms and understand the reporting requirement. Also, it would be a good idea to update regulations governing HIPAA to ensure there is no legal backlash from that end.

Last edited by Bear_Nenno; 10-19-2019 at 06:22 AM.
  #60  
Old 10-19-2019, 06:56 AM
Bear_Nenno's Avatar
Bear_Nenno is offline
Endowment Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 9,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
This would be laughably wrong, if dead people were something to laugh about. Check the chart here for a study of how removing one kind of suicide method impacted overall suicides.
Laughably wrong? Did you read the entire paper? Your link goes directly to the England-Wales chart. Convenient for your argument. But, the Scotland Chart shows something completely different. It shows the number of non-CO suicides rose enough to create an overall rise in total suicides, despite the fall in CO suicides. That chart would support my hypothesis. Interesting, right? That the subject is nuanced and not completely researched or understood, such that neither hypothesis is "laughably wrong"? I could be right. Or you could be right. There is likely evidence to support both claims. I'd also look at suicide rates in places like South Korea, that have almost twice the rate of suicides despite the lack of readily available suicides. I'd also like to see the chart you linked to carried over for another decade or so. My guess is that the effect you noted is only short term, and that in a couple years, the non-CO suicide rates eventually rise enough to fill the gap. I think in the United States, if all guns were banned, there would probably be a similar effect where, for the first 5-10 years, overall suicide rates would decrease along with the reduction of firearm suicides, but then after that 5 years or so, the non-firearm suicides would rise enough to compensate. Without treating the mental health issue associated with all suicides, I don't think the reduction of firearms will have a lasting effect on the suicide rates in America.
What did the authors of your study say about the discrepancy in the two charts? I wonder if they claimed one of the charts was "laughably wrong"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Study
[T]here are intriguing differences between different demographic subgroups in how the trends in the two agent-defined groups of suicide are related. Thus among the elderly men, especially those of England and Wales, both rates have declined and the group as a whole has become much less suicide-prone. Among men below 45 years of age in the same region a fall in CO suicides has been counteracted by an increase in other forms... Lastly, and perhaps implicit in the preceding point, is the overriding question of how the removal of a single agent of self-destruction can have had such far-reaching consequences. There is no shortage of exits from this life; it would seem that anyone bent on self-destruction must eventually succeed, yet it is also quite possible, given the ambivalence (or multivalence) of many suicides, that a failed attempt serves as a catharsis leading to profound psychological change. For others it may be that the scenario of suicide specifies the use of a particular method, and that if this is not available actual suicide is then less likely. Virtually nothing is known about such questions.
(Underlying and bolding for emphasis is mine)

They are not as convinced of your conclusion as you are. I thank you for linking to the study, though. It was an interesting read.

Last edited by Bear_Nenno; 10-19-2019 at 07:00 AM.
  #61  
Old 10-19-2019, 07:25 AM
Bear_Nenno's Avatar
Bear_Nenno is offline
Endowment Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 9,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
Laughably wrong? Did you read the entire paper? Your link goes directly to the England-Wales chart. Convenient for your argument. But, the Scotland Chart shows something completely different.
I should clarify, that what it shows is not "completely" different. There is an overall decline in total suicides, but the effect is not the same as the England and Wales chart where the overall rate continues to drop, despite the rise in Non-CO suicides. The reduction of CO suicides was so great, that the increase in Non-Co suicides did not compensate. But in Scotland, specifically from 1966 to 1968, the rise in Non-CO suicides completely negated the drop in CO Suicides. The overall rate remained at about 10 per 100,000. Additionally, the overall rate seems to less affected by the reduction in CO suicides, and coincides more with the changes in the Non-CO rate. There was a noticeable temporary affect around 1963-1964, but after that, it seems the Non-CO rates began to compensate. The overall rate rises and falls as the Non-CO rate rises and falls, and despite another drastic decline in CO Suicides, the overall rate merely plateaus, then it falls again and rises in line with corresponding fall and rise in Non-CO rates. I'm almost motivated to find some charts showing the rates for the rest of the 1970s and beyond. Short term affect, or sustained reduction? Certainly this would be a good study to piggy back off of.
  #62  
Old 10-19-2019, 08:02 AM
Bear_Nenno's Avatar
Bear_Nenno is offline
Endowment Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 9,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
This would be laughably wrong, if dead people were something to laugh about. Check the chart here for a study of how removing one kind of suicide method impacted overall suicides.
A quick search didn't turn up a chart for the rest of the 1970s, but by 1981 the overall suicide rate was 14.7. So it does appear that after 1971, the overall suicide rate continued to rise, despite the complete removal of coal from domestic gas supplies by 1975 and the corresponding drastic reduction in CO Suicides as the gas supply changes began in the mid 1960s. By 1981, the suicide rate returned to previous levels.
The chart you referenced showed a peak male suicide rate around 14 in 1963/64 and a female rate around 10. This was in England and Wales. For Scotland, it was about 12 for males and 6-7 for females.
By 1981, the overall UK rate for males was 19.5 and for females, 10.6. According to your study, by 1975 the percentage of CO in domestic gas was practically zero. It dropped drastically from the early-mid 1960s and was zero by 1975.
But the overall rate of suicides in the UK rose from 1965 to 1981. That suggests the non-CO methods of suicides rose to compensate for the lack of CO availability, and continued to rise, resulting in an overall increase in not only total suicides, but in the rate per 100,000 as well.
I believe that there will be a similar result if all guns were magically removed from the United States. Suicide rates might go down temporarily, but that's it. The suicide issue is not a gun control issue.
  #63  
Old 10-19-2019, 01:07 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Wow...just...wow. No difference between a 'law abiding' gun owner and a 'criminal'. That's...just unreal. It's like saying there is no difference between a 'law abiding' black person and a 'criminal' black person. Seriously. No hyperbole. That's really fucked up.
Are you saying that there is some type of genetic marker that criminal persons carry that would allow us to identify them before they commit crimes ? Or that would allow us to prevent people who, in the future, will shoot their spouses out of the blue from buying guns ?
I mean, by all means if you do have that sort of information, share with the class. It would tremendously simplify things.

Unless your argument is that, in becoming (scare chord) criminals, people lose some fundamental part of their humanity or morph into something altogether Other ? Like, seriously, what, in your eyes, is the fundamental difference between a law abiding person and a criminal person beyond the fact that the latter have committed at least one crime ?

Quote:
As for the nut in Las Vegas, the difference was, just like with any other criminal, the person in question went from being law abiding to a criminal murderer. You probably don't realize this, but people aren't born criminals, they become criminals by doing criminal acts. You don't target citizens, even non-gun citizens () BEFORE they do something criminal, you go after them after they become criminals. And do all that trial and lock em up stuff.
The salient problem with that approach is that the dozens of people who were killed by the lone nut are still dead after the trial. It's a bit of a bummer, that.
  #64  
Old 10-19-2019, 01:16 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,976
Oh, and you absolutely DO target citizens before they do something criminal. Such as, for example, require that they learn how to drive and prove they both know and obey traffic laws before they are allowed to drive a car. You also require their car to be within certain specific limitations and in good repair and insured.
It would be bonkers to suggest that everyone should be allowed to drive, and drive whatever the fuck they damn well please, just sort it all out after they've caused a pileup because fuck red lights or their rocket car exploded while stuck in traffic, taking a dozen of other cars with them, wouldn't it ?

Last edited by Kobal2; 10-19-2019 at 01:16 PM.
  #65  
Old 10-19-2019, 01:34 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
The entire debate is utterly meaningless. There is no meaningful distinction between a "law abiding" gun owner and a "criminal" gun owner besides the fact that the latter has commited at least one crime. The nut who shot up Las Vegas was a law abiding gun owner, so was whatshisname who shot up the Aurora cinema while dressed as the Joker. As are the thousands of people who never did anything wrong and never broke the law until they shot their wives/husbands in the face.
Except that in a risk based approach, mass shootings are a drop in the bucket compared to the 10000 handgun criminal killings a year.

If we stopped criminals from shooting citizens, that would be a huge saving of lives.
  #66  
Old 10-19-2019, 01:51 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Except that in a risk based approach, mass shootings are a drop in the bucket compared to the 10000 handgun criminal killings a year.

If we stopped criminals from shooting citizens, that would be a huge saving of lives.
Who said it was an either/or ? That being said, don't felons lose their guns rights in the US already ?
  #67  
Old 10-19-2019, 01:56 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Except that in a risk based approach, mass shootings are a drop in the bucket compared to the 10000 handgun criminal killings a year.

If we stopped criminals from shooting citizens, that would be a huge saving of lives.
Also, terrorist deaths are a drop in the bucket, even if you only look at year 2001. And yet hundreds of millions of dollars are spent trying to thwart them, not to mention a bunch of burdensome restrictions on citizens which may or may not be reasonable. Because we realize that while the total aggregate number of deaths is not necessarily high, the *context* of those deaths is a lot more harmful and traumatic for the dying people and their survivors and the community as a whole than, say, ten thousand smokers slowly coughing away their cancerous lungs on a hospital bed.
  #68  
Old 10-19-2019, 02:27 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Yes, or at least I'd prefer that punishment take place after a crime has been committed, and that it fall on those who have committed it. Over in ATMB, there's an active thread where LHoD is arguing against collective punishment. I'd prefer gun control efforts similarly not preemptively punish "the whole class" of gun owners for the bad acts of a few. If there were laws that had a minimal negative effect on law-abiding gun owners and a substantial effect on preventing crime, I'd certainly consider supporting it.

harm, imposition, burden, inconvenience, cost, punishment, etc. are all fine. If you'd prefer to use a different word that gets that general point across, have at it.
Do you consider drivers' licenses and automobile registration undue burdens? They can be quite expensive. One can imagine laws where everyone can drive, no checks, until they cause damage to others.
How about DUI laws? They criminalize a risk, since a person can be arrested before causing any harm.
As for mental health, would you support an increase in taxes to provide decent mental health services, which we don't have now? How many false positives would you accept - people not really at risk for doing harm who would be prevented from owning guns in order to reduce the number of people who are at risk from getting them.
  #69  
Old 10-19-2019, 02:42 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
Those are great goals. But the problem is that they end up clouded behind attempts to ban "assault weapons" and certain rifles, which statistically are involved in accidental shootings, criminal acts, suicides, and self-defense are far cry less than handguns.
And then there's the desire to ban "high capacity magazines" which are irrelevant in accidental shootings, suicides, and home defense. And while they might be relevant in criminal activity, look at the statistics. On average, fewer than four rounds are fired in a criminal assault involving firearms. Only four rounds? So what does it matter if a magazine holds 30 rounds or 15 rounds or 10 rounds?

Unfortunately, most gun control proposals do not focus on facts or statistics. And they don't try to tailor the control to the actual mechanism of injury. Instead, they go after things that are popular to attack, like assault weapons and magazines, because they probably don't even care about getting a useful law passed. They probably just want to keep the dialogue going so that they can get votes and donations.
I do not see how any of this has any relevance to my post. It sounds like you are just complaining about what other people do here. If any of that was actually addressed to me in response to my post, feel free to reiterate your points.
Quote:
Let's start there. This is a good point, and something I think we'd all agree on preventing. What law can we propose to prevent this? Laws already exist that make it illegal to store a firearm where a child can access it.
Laws exist, yes, but not universal laws. That I can see, only 11 states have any laws about firearm storage, and only one of those require it at all times. I am not doubting what you say, but I would like to see the law that you are referring to here.
Quote:

Yet, you're right, there are still kids being harmed this way. How do we prevent it? Increase punishment? Probably not. That doesn't seem to work with anything. Increase prosecutions? Maybe. It seems like a lot of the times, the family isn't prosecuted. Perhaps it's because someone feels they've suffered enough. How about this: Make these kinds of shootings strict liability crimes, like statutory rape. That way, the prosecution doesn't have to waste time proving that the method of storing the firearm was unsafe. Rewrite the law, at the federal level, that states it is illegal for a child to possess, even temporarily, a firearm within a home or dwelling. This is a strict liability offense, punishable by 10 years in prison and or a fine of up to $250,000. Then, you make prosecution mandatory, and create a minimum sentencing guideline of no less than 3 years in federal prison.
That was more or less my point. If you register your gun, you sign an affidavit that you are keeping your gun secure. This should make you strictly liable for any accidents that occur with it.

I agree with the "they've suffered enough" part. Well, agree that it is used, not that I would allow it. You know who really suffered? The person injured or killed by your* carelessness.

Specifics as to punishment are details we can get into. But the underlined part there is a bit ambiguous. Who is breaking the law here, the child, or the adult who did not properly secure the gun?
Quote:
There's not debate in court about weather the person took reasonable efforts to keep the gun out of the reach of the child or store it in a safe manner. The fact that a round was fired inside a home by a child, suggests--by itself--that the weapon was not stored safe enough, regardless of method. And the fact that the round was fired, means that the child possessed a firearm in a home, and therefore a crime has been committed. The owner of that firearm goes to prison.

Maybe a law requiring proper storage to prevent theft? Kind of like the current law that requires proper storage to keep the firearm away from kids. So, not a draconian as the new law I proposed above, but create a law similar to our current one that says everyone must store firearms in a manner to prevent theft. The problem with that, is this would discourage people from reporting the theft of their guns for fear of prosecution. So... I've got nothing. I think your overall gun control proposal mostly addresses this issue, though I'll discuss it separately below.
Once again, can you point me to the current law that you keep referring to? I have done a bit of a look about, and I'm not finding what it is that you are talking about.

If I break into your home when you are not around, and I find your gun in your nightstand and take it, then you were negligent in securing it. I do think that you should face some penalty for that.

If I go tot he effort of bringing in a crowbar or other means of breaking into your safe, you've done due diligence. Reporting those guns stolen will result in no prosecution,

So, yeah, people may fear reporting their guns stolen, if they were not properly secured, but if they turn up later in connection with a crime, then you are going to be in even bigger trouble.

My suggestion to someone in that situation: Go break open your gun safe with a crowbar, and then call the police.
Quote:
I think the suicide issue is not a gun issue. People who want to kill themselves are going to do it. We're never going to solve that by focusing on guns, even if we had a magic button that removed every firearm from the country. To often people pride themselves on how they've reduced "suicides by firearm" but the actual rates and numbers of total suicides didn't change a bit.
We won't stop it, not, but I do think that we would decrease it.

Let's say that we've come out with a new product for our convenience stores. You can buy a lottery ticket and a poison pill together. Would you favor legislation that would prohibit its sale? Would you buy the argument that focusing on poison pills will not solve suicide, and therefore, shouldn't be addressed at all?

We supposedly live in this great country, and we live at the best time for pretty much anyone to be alive. We should have a very low suicide rate. Guns allow a moment of despair or depression to become permanent. Most other forms of suicide require more planning and are less effective.

I do think that mental health and social safety nets are the way to prevent suicide in general, but I also think that decreasing the number of guns in the hands of criminals, and therefore, decreasing the number of people who feel that they need a gun for self protection, will decrease the number of suicides done on impulse.
Quote:
I think you miss the point here. Firearms for self-defense are not only for use against an armed attacker. They are for use against [i]any[i] attacker capable and intent on committing a forceable felony against your person, causing great bodily harm or death. Firearms are the great equalizer. Not just for the "old lady" cliche, but any smaller, weaker person. Such people should not have to fear their attacker or fear for their safety. They should not have to wait for law enforcement to come rescue them. If the attacker is big and strong, or if the attacker has a knife or a bat (more popular for criminals than firearms, and causing more deaths than firearms by the way), then a person can and rightly should, use a firearm in self-defense. So, even if we had a magic button that took all firearms away from every criminal, this would not be a reason to limit law-abiding people from owning firearms for self-defense. Criminals can still be dangerous without having guns.
Not sure that this is in response to what I said. I said absolutely nothing about limiting law abiding people from owning firearms for self defense. I said that if criminals were less likely to have guns, then law abiding people would not feel as great a need for a gun for self defense. Some still would, but the calculation would change for many.

I specifically mentioned my circumstances, and that I do not feel the need for a gun for self defense, except against someone with a gun. The number of criminals that have guns has a direct bearing on whether or not I feel I need one.

Against anyone not armed with a gun, my dogs will be a far greater deterrent and defense to me and my home than a gun will. To someone armed with a gun, my dogs just get killed attempting to defend me and my home.

I also point out in the statement that you responded to about cops. Cops have a fear that the criminal has a gun, and so are much quicker to shoot than if criminals having guns is rare.
Quote:
First, I hate the idea of gun buybacks--at least, how they are currently done. And I don't quite understand your proposed buyback program where the government pays someone for their stolen firearm?
Why do you hate buybacks? Is it that they are mandatory? If so, then that has nothing to do with my proposal. If not, then what is it that you dislike about them?

I'm not tied to the idea, but it seems that if you can get at least part of the value of your gun by reporting it stolen, then you will be encouraged to report your guns as stolen if you find them missing.
Quote:
As for the registry, the biggest hurdle in passing such a law involves the paranoia associated with the government having a list of firearms or firearm owners. I wonder if there would be some kind of way to use block-chain, crypto technology to keep a registry that allowed firearm transfers to be tracked, and only allowed transfer to authorized people, but without anyone able to pull up a complete list. Something like that would satisfy more opponents of registries (not all, but more).
In my scenario, the paranoid can hold onto their guns. If they are that paranoid about the govt getting them, then they are probably not easy pickings for junkies either.

I don't understand the fascination with block-chain. If you want to keep the list secured, there are ways of doing that. I don't think that block-chain would do what you are looking for here.

What I would do, in my amateur knowledge of cryptography, if I wanted to keep the list from being used for data mining, would be to allow lookup by serial number, but not by name. So, you have a gun used in a crime, and you put in the serial number. It pops up with the last registered owner of the gun. If you put in a person's name, then you get nothing. Some hashing and cryptography would be useful here, but I would let the experts sort that out.
Quote:
I think it is a great idea to have a system that readily identifies people who are legally allowed to purchase firearms versus those who are not. A universal background check, as it is being proposed, isn't a terribly good system. It doesn't address abuse of the system (people using it as a general background check service) or the costs associated with increasing the staffing and infrastructure to the NCIC, etc.
Like I said, a CCW should be considered to be passing a background check. There should be other ways, as well, for those who want to purchase guns, but not carry them in public.
Quote:
I think something like Illinois's FOID card might be the way to go. Anyone with a FOID card can legally buy firearms and ammunition. BUT, the card (and the list of card holders) should not be issued or maintained by the government. I'd propose allowing the NRA or the CMP to be the holders of the list.
I see much more potential for abuse in having private entities holding onto such a list than the government. You would have to saddle them with quite a number of laws to make sure that they did not use it for their own profit.

We are not talking about a registration here, but whether or not someone has passed a background check. I have no idea why you think that the information that is currently being supplied by the govt being in the govt's hands would be something to be afraid of.
Quote:
And specifically adding text to the Bill that forbids the federal or state government from ever asking to be provided with the list for any reason. I'd support a gun registry that also worked the same way. Let the NRA or CMP handle it. That way, they can't complain about the government having the information. And they can charge a fee for the service and the cards.
Registration is handled once per transaction and never expires. FOID cards are valid for 6 months. A person does not need a valid NRA-FOID card to possess a firearm or purchase ammunition (after all, the firearm registration will have his/her name on it). But if someone wants to buy a firearm or purchase some more ammunition, then their NRA-FOID card should be valid. Private sellers cannot transfer to someone without a valid NRA-FOID card. They can get transfer the firearm right away as long as the person's NFOID is valid, and then they have like 10 days or something to report the transfer (online or by mail), and 30 to 90 days later, the new owner gets the registration. In the meantime, the bill of sale or something is enough. I don't know, I'm just kind of thinking of this as I type. But I like where it's headed...
What do you guys think?
I think all of that is overly complicated, and is involving private entities that may not want to be involved, and doing so in such a way that those private entities are much more likely to abuse the information than the government, which is where they have to go to get that information in the first place.
  #70  
Old 10-19-2019, 03:17 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,370
Use a gun in a crime, lose your trigger finger. Sell a gun to someone missing a trigger finger, lose your entire hand.

Now, starting from that position, let's work our way back to something reasonable.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #71  
Old 10-19-2019, 03:27 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by DinoR View Post
...
Close the "boyfriend loophole." Federal law prohibits gun sales to those with misdemeanor domestic violence convictions involving a spouse, live in significant other, or someone you've had a child with. Have multiple DV convictions where you have assaulted non-resident partners or family members... here's your gun! I'd argue those are one of the kinds of violent criminals that we should be keeping guns away from. Currently, we are not even trying to keep guns out of their hands.
The issue with this and the Domestic violence rules is that it is kind of a Ex post facto law.

Example in point: I had a friend who was a police sgt in a small city PD. Many years ago, long before the domestic violence ban was enacted, his wife divorced him (and he admitted his very long hours and OT was a primary cause, the fact his wife was cheating on him came from that likely). She, to make the settlement better, charged him with domestic abuse. No evidence, no calls to police before that, no ER visits, no bruises or anything. (But of course you can have abuse without any of that, i concede), however the timing was very suspicious. His lawyer got him a very sweet plea deal- no time, no fine, just attend a anger management class, plead no contest. So he took the deal to settle the divorce.

Later the law was passed and he couldnt own a gun. If he had know that his career would have ended due to the plea, he would have fought it. Many more men did the same.
  #72  
Old 10-19-2019, 03:35 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by DinoR View Post
They do inconvenience the law abiding though. FFL holders charge for the service. Something like grandpa has decided he's too old to hunt and wants to give his guns with family history to various children and grandchildren is an example. That can be quite a bit of hassle and cost hundreds of dollars to do with universal background check requirements. One way to address those kinds of concerns are close relation exceptions; it's not really a universal background check at that point. Trying to use technology to craft a system that let's private parties get an answer from NICS without involving an FFL holder is another possible change.


That's already covered by the Lautenberg Amendment that prohibited gun sales to those with some, but not all, misdemeanor DV convictions. Those convictions are career enders. It takes a conviction though. A lot of domestic violence, even that which produces arrest, doesn't result in charges let alone conviction.
Yes, I agree- better background checks, with a blood relation exclusion. If the IRS considers you a relative under their regs (so not cousins, etc) then you can pass but you have to keep paper on the transfer. Reasonable exclusion.

Except that the Lautenberg Amendment included those with past convictions.

I would have the ATF define "dealer' to get rid of the strawman dealers. After theft, they are the #1 way criminals get ahold of guns. Let us say if you sell more than 12 guns (curios and relics excluded, along with blackpowder, etc) a year you are a dealer.
  #73  
Old 10-19-2019, 03:45 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
...
What do you mean stronger laws? Straw purchases are already 100% illegal. The punishment is up to ten years in prison and a quarter million dollar fine. What would you propose?....
Altho in general this is a well written and thought out post (it is very true that many who want to ban guns dont know anything about either the gun they wanna ban or the laws already in place, for example even Kamela Harris)- the ATF and other feds know there are a few hundred individuals who buy many, many guns at discounted retail, then turn around and sell them for a much higher price- often to criminals. This is a large source of guns for criminals.

That can be fixed by defining who is and who is not a "gun dealer" . Say- anyone who sells more than 12 guns a year is a "dealer".
  #74  
Old 10-19-2019, 03:48 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Despite the bit of well-poisoning about what the intentions are of those who wish to control firearms, I have to ask if any laws(or proposals of laws) that you have seen to date have met with your approval? This information would give us a clue as to what you are looking for and/or steer us in the right direction.
Better background checks, with a blood relative exclusion.

Red flag laws with full due process. If the ACLU sez your red flag law is bad, then it is.

Get rid of the professional straw man sellers.
  #75  
Old 10-19-2019, 03:51 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
What about the links I gave for laws regulating gun ownership for the mentally ill? Which(if any) of those listed do you favor, and would you support a more unified approach?
If they meet approval by the ACLU with proper Due process, then great. Otherwise no.
  #76  
Old 10-19-2019, 04:01 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
...
The goal of us "gun grabbers" is simple. We want to see fewer people injured or killed due to the irresponsible or criminal use of firearms. The reason for this goal is that we want to see fewer people injured or killed as an overall goal. The reason for this is that we generally want people to be happier, healthier and more productive.

Given the goals as stated, it would be extremely counterproductive to outright outlaw guns, and then go violently round them all up. It may reach the nominative goal of "getting the guns off the streets", but it would not reach the goal of making people happier, healthier, and more productive.

...

I believe that most of these can be significantly improved simply by keeping track of our guns better.

It's an almost everyday occurrence that some toddler gets ahold of a gun and shoots themselves or another. And that's the ones that make the news. The toddlers who don't pull the trigger, or do but don't hit anyone, are less likely to make it in the news. That means that there are far too many people out there using their couch cushions as a gun safe, which is a bad idea even when there are not children around. Not that adults are not capable of making fatal mistakes as well.

Criminals also get these guns largely due to poor securing. You can buy a gun on the black market for far less than you can in a gun store, as long as you don't mind knowing that it is stolen and was traded for drugs. Gun owners who do not take responsibility for securing their guns are a major part of this supply.

As far as suicide goes, I do believe that suicide should be a right, but I would also be against selling Lotto ticket/poison pill combo packs at the convenience store. ..... I know that the suicide figure gets tossed by gun advocates in these debates, and often nefarious motives are attributed to those who bring it up, but I do see gun suicide as a problem that can be reduced.

F......

.....

...

If a gun is stolen, you should report this to the police as soon as possible. If they are properly stored, then it will be very obvious that they are stolen, as your gun safe has been destroyed by the effort of getting it open. ....
I appreciate a risk based approach to gun control and reducing violent crime!

Most states require gun locks or safes if you have kids in the house. This should be all states, I concur.

You definition of "secure" seems to mean "gun safe". These are expensive, make you a target for thieves and most importantly, make your gun useless for home defense. As long as your gun is secured when you have kids, that is all that shoudl be required.

In the other GD thread about knives in GB, we have discussed guns and suicide. It was made clear by several cites from several posters that the link between gun availability and increased suicides is tenuous and not proven.
  #77  
Old 10-19-2019, 04:07 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
This would be laughably wrong, if dead people were something to laugh about. Check the chart here for a study of how removing one kind of suicide method impacted overall suicides.
Japan has a much higher suicide rate than the USA, yet NO guns.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_la...s_in_Australia

In 1981 Suicide reduction from firearm regulation is disputed by Richard Harding stating where, after reviewing Australian statistics, he said that "whatever arguments might be made for the limitation or regulation of the private ownership of firearms, suicide patterns do not constitute one of them.[77] " Harding quoted a 1968 international analysis of twenty developed countries "cultural factors appear to affect suicide rates far more than the availability and use of firearms. Thus, suicide rates would not seem to be readily affected by making firearms less available."[78]..Multiple studies have been conducted by Jeanine Baker and Samara McPhedran, researchers with the International Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting (WiSH). In 2006 they reported a lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, they found little evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide, but did for suicide.[85]... ...] In 2012, McPhedran and Baker found there was little evidence for any impacts of the gun laws on firearm suicide among people under 35 years of age, and suggested that the significant financial expenditure associated with Australia's firearms method restriction measures may not have had any impact on youth suicide...A 2008 study on the effects of the firearm buybacks by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi of University of Melbourne and La Trobe University studied the data and concluded "the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates."[65]..n 2009 a study published in the Journal of Sociology examined the rate of firearm suicide in Queensland. They found that "gun suicides are continuing to decrease in Queensland" and is "most likely as a function of ongoing gun controls".[90]

In 2009 another paper from the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention at Griffith University also studied suicide in Queensland only. The said "No significant difference was found in the rate pre/post the introduction of the NFA in Queensland; however, a significant difference was found for Australian data, the quality of which is noticeably less satisfactory."[91]

A 2010 study by Christine Neill and Andrew Leigh found the 1997 gun buyback scheme reduced firearm suicides by 74% while having no effect on non-firearm suicides or substitution of method.[92]


I think that's seven studies that said no reduction in suicides by the gun ban, with three that said there was a reduction.

However, what does stand out is this a "1968 international analysis of twenty developed countries "cultural factors appear to affect suicide rates far more than the availability and use of firearms. Thus, suicide rates would not seem to be readily affected by making firearms less available.""



https://www.rand.org/research/gun-po...y-suicide.html

Summary: Empirical research on the causal effects of firearm availability on the risk of suicide is consistent with the claim that firearms increase suicide risk, but this research cannot yet rule out some other explanations for observed associations between guns and suicide. There are, however, theoretical or logical arguments for believing firearms elevate suicide risk that are sufficiently compelling that individuals and policymakers might reasonably choose to assume that gun availability does increase the risk of suicide."

That is so wishy washy that it could mean anything.

. Other relevant international evidence is reviewed in the essay on Australiaís experience banning certain firearms through its National Firearms Agreement. However, that law also does not provide strong evidence of a causal effect of gun prevalence on suicide risk. As we conclude later in the report, although there is some evidence that the 1996 agreement reduced firearm suicides in Australia, studies also found significant reductions in nonfirearm suicides at the same time, calling into question whether the reductions in firearm and nonfirearm suicides were caused by the new law or some other concurrent events....



Available empirical research does not provide strong causal evidence for the effects of gun prevalence on suicide risk.
  #78  
Old 10-19-2019, 04:33 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Most states require gun locks or safes if you have kids in the house. This should be all states, I concur.
Can you show me where you are seeing this? All I am seeing is the list of 11 states that have any laws at all about storage, and only a couple of them require it for kids.
Quote:
You definition of "secure" seems to mean "gun safe". These are expensive, make you a target for thieves and most importantly, make your gun useless for home defense. As long as your gun is secured when you have kids, that is all that shoudl be required.
Well, a safe, anyway. You can put your gun in my little safe that I use for storing my important documents. If you want something made for guns, then you would need a gun safe, but I only see that as an issue if you have a bunch of them, or have big ones. In any case, guns are expensive, a safe for them would be a small part of the ownership cost.

I do not see how they make you a target for thieves. A thief wouldn't know that you have one, and if they did, then they would avoid your house, as they would have a hard time getting them.

Gun locks just keep the trigger from being pulled, they do not prevent the gun from being removed from the home, and there is no gun lock that I couldn't defeat with unlimited time and a few tools from the hardware store.
Quote:
In the other GD thread about knives in GB, we have discussed guns and suicide. It was made clear by several cites from several posters that the link between gun availability and increased suicides is tenuous and not proven.
I see that you have decided that you do not think that there is a link, but I think that it is very motivated cherry picking that leads you to that. It is impossible to "prove" a correlation, hell, smoking hasn't been "proven" to cause cancer, unlike gun suicides, where you can certainly see that the gun was used for the suicide. Yes, some may have chosen to use a different method if a gun were not available, but you can clearly see that they chose the gun.

Do you believe that all suicides are well planned and thought out, and that none are ever on impulse?

Last edited by k9bfriender; 10-19-2019 at 04:34 PM.
  #79  
Old 10-19-2019, 04:49 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 36,028
Red herring. All laws fall heavier on the law abiding. Criminals don't obey laws. So we lock them up. That's how it is supposed to work.
  #80  
Old 10-19-2019, 05:14 PM
Bear_Nenno's Avatar
Bear_Nenno is offline
Endowment Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 9,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I do not see how any of this has any relevance to my post. It sounds like you are just complaining about what other people do here. If any of that was actually addressed to me in response to my post, feel free to reiterate your points.
Yes, I am complaining about what other people do. You claimed to be articulating the position of many. I agree that your statement accurately represents the intentions of many people interested in gun control. What I am saying is that many of these people, despite their intentions, are pursuing legislation that won’t actually address their concerns.
Quote:
Laws exist, yes, but not universal laws. That I can see, only 11 states have any laws about firearm storage, and only one of those require it at all times
I believe it’s closer to 27 states that have Child Access Protection laws, and a few of them (I’m mostly familiar with Florida) make it criminal for adults to not properly store their firearms. Yes, these are not universal laws, and I would definitely support a Federal Law similar to Florida’s. But I wouldn’t stop there. The point of my post was to make a universal law that is more effective than the current access prevention laws on the books. The point of this thread, I thought, was to share gun control proposals. The laws that exist are written with terms phrases like “in a location which a reasonable person should believe that a minor can’t access the firearm” or “store the firearm in a such a way if one reasonable believes a minor might access it” etc. So, if a child gains access to a firearm and shoots his/her sibling on accident, the state has to argue the “reasonableness” of the storage. Also, in Florida, the law says that keeping a gun in a locked safe is reasonable enough. What I proposed was the believe that the mere fact a minor gained access to the firearm and discharged it should be enough proof that the storage method was not adequate. So I believe a universal, strict liability crime would be prudent. See Florida SS. 790.174 for the text of their statute. It’s also only a misdemeanor, while I proposed a Federal Law that should be a felony.
Quote:
That was more or less my point. If you register your gun, you sign an affidavit that you are keeping your gun secure. This should make you strictly liable for any accidents that occur with it.
That isn’t what “strict liability” means. A strict liability offense is like with age of consent laws, it doesn’t matter if you reasonably thought the minor was of legal age, and it doesn’t matter if the minor had a fake ID, or that the minor lied, or whatever. It doesn’t matter if a reasonable person would have thought the minor was old enough. Being a strict liability offense, the prosecution only has to prove that the sex occurred and that the victim was a minor. That’s it. In my proposed strict liability offense, the prosecutor would only have to prove that a firearm was discharged by a minor inside the home. That should be enough to prove that the storage method was inadequate. Yea, you had it in a safe, but your child knows the combination, or you leave the safe unlocked, or whatever. It doesn’t matter. Your defense attorney doesn’t get to try and convince the jury that you were responsible, but this little accident just happened. Also, I proposed mandatory prosecution and minimum sentencing.
Quote:
I agree with the "they've suffered enough" part. Well, agree that it is used, not that I would allow it. You know who really suffered? The person injured or killed by your* carelessness.
So we agree, then. This was exactly my point.
Quote:
Specifics as to punishment are details we can get into. But the underlined part there is a bit ambiguous. Who is breaking the law here, the child, or the adult who did not properly secure the gun?
Was that really ambiguous? The owners of the firearm. The adults.

Quote:
Once again, can you point me to the current law that you keep referring to? I have done a bit of a look about, and I'm not finding what it is that you are talking about.
You do realize I am proposing a new law, here. Right? The laws I am talking about are called “Child Access Prevention” laws, or CAP. You should be able to find plenty of them out there. And just from reading them, you should be able to tell all of mriad ways a prosecutor can have difficulty gaining a conviction due to the wording. You could also look up plenty of news articles where parents were not even charged, even in states with CAP laws, due in no small part to the fact that a conviction would be difficult, and the issue already stated about people sympathizing with the gun owners for losing their child. For the text of one specific CAP law, see the statute referenced above.
Quote:
If I break into your home when you are not around, and I find your gun in your nightstand and take it, then you were negligent in securing it. I do think that you should face some penalty for that.
I agree. The only problem with that is the fact that people would not report their firearms stolen if that were the law. Now the criminal is running around with a gun that isn’t even reported as stolen because the original owner didn’t want to get himself in trouble. So that’s kind of where the idea hits a wall.
For it to be imposed, then some kind of gun registry would need to exist. Because even if the gun wasn’t reported stolen, the gun would not be registered to that criminal, so the police can go back to the original owner and start asking questions. I realize that you also proposed a registry, and this would go hand-in-hand with that. I was just addressing the merits of such a law on its own, without the registry. I wasn’t attacking your proposal or anything. I was just saying that I do think there should be a unified federal law regarding storage of firearms. Right now, every gun has to be shipped with a lock. But the ATF has no requirement that they be used, and only some states require proper reasonable storage.
Quote:
If I go tot he effort of bringing in a crowbar or other means of breaking into your safe, you've done due diligence. Reporting those guns stolen will result in no prosecution…
So, yeah, people may fear reporting their guns stolen, if they were not properly secured, but if they turn up later in connection with a crime, then you are going to be in even bigger trouble
But only if there is a registry. Otherwise, nobody is going to know that the weapon used in a crime was ever stolen in the first place, and would never know who the previous owner was.
Quote:
We won't stop it, not, but I do think that we would decrease it.
I don’t think it will decrease. At all. Maybe only temporarily, but then that would have been time we could have spent focused on a real solution. Looking at suicide rates in developed countries, there doesn’t seem to be anything that suggest countries with easier access to guns have a higher suicide rate.
Quote:
Let's say that we've come out with a new product for our convenience stores. You can buy a lottery ticket and a poison pill together. Would you favor legislation that would prohibit its sale? Would you buy the argument that focusing on poison pills will not solve suicide, and therefore, shouldn't be addressed at all?
I don’t think it would reduce the suicide rate. As for my support for the legislation itself, I doubt I’d be against it. It’s an interesting question. I’m sure I’ll continue thinking about this one for a while.


Quote:
Not sure that this is in response to what I said.
You said that you have no reason to shoot someone out of fear that they will shoot year if its rare for criminals to have a gun. My response was that if there is a big, strong, unarmed person trying to rob a weak old lady, or some large, violent, unarmed man trying to rape a smaller, weaker girl, then the fear of whether or not they might get shot is irrelevant. They are going to shoot for fear of being hurt or raped, not for fear of being shot. People own guns for protection against violent crime, not for protection against armed criminals. Armed criminals is just one subset of the total threat inspiring people to buy guns for protection.
Quote:
I said absolutely nothing about limiting law abiding people from owning firearms for self defense. I said that if criminals were less likely to have guns, then law abiding people would not feel as great a need for a gun for self defense. Some still would, but the calculation would change for many.
Yea, it is in response to what you said. And you said it again just now. You think that people would not feel as great a need for a gun for self-defense if there were less criminals with guns. I disagree. I think there are enough threats out there, besides guns, that people would still want a gun for self-defense. Strong-arm robberies, those without any weapon at all, occur in greater number than armed robberies. And while I’m not sure how many of the 100,000 forcible rapes that occur each year in this country involve the use of a firearm, but I am confident only a small percentage do.
Quote:
I specifically mentioned my circumstances, and that I do not feel the need for a gun for self defense, except against someone with a gun. The number of criminals that have guns has a direct bearing on whether or not I feel I need one.
Right. And that’s what I was referring to. You feel that the number of criminals with guns has a bearing on whether you need one yourself. I am making the claim that most gun owners do not feel that way, and would choose to have a gun anyway for the reasons I stated.
Quote:
Against anyone not armed with a gun, my dogs will be a far greater deterrent and defense to me and my home than a gun will. To someone armed with a gun, my dogs just get killed attempting to defend me and my home.
Not everyone even owns dogs. And not everyone only has a gun for home defense. Like I said, I think you miss the point here. You’re equating your own situation and fears (or lack of fears) to everyone. I don’t think many people who own guns for self defense would be less likely to do so even if criminals were less likely to be armed with a gun. If criminals magically were prevented from using guns, they would just use more knives or some other weapon. People will still want to own a gun for protection from criminals whether those criminals have guns or not.
Quote:
I also point out in the statement that you responded to about cops. Cops have a fear that the criminal has a gun, and so are much quicker to shoot than if criminals having guns is rare.
Oh, cops. You’re talking about people who shoot out of fear, despite not being victimized in any way? Like when a noncriminal is just reaching for his wallet and gets shot by a cop who (perhaps unreasonably) feared that the criminal was reaching for a gun? So you’re basically talking about unjustified shootings, where someone shot another person (not even a criminal necessarily, just some other person) out of fear that the person had a firearm? In that case, I think I agree with you. Those situations would likely go way down if criminals were not likely to be armed with guns.
Quote:
Why do you hate buybacks? Is it that they are mandatory?
I’ve never seen a mandatory buyback. It’s always random, law abiding citizens turning in guns that were collecting rust in a basement somewhere. Arguably, some of those guns could have ended up stolen and used in a crime. Statistically, the number of guns removed from the street is miniscule. It is such a waste of effort and money to hold a gun buy back. But they seem to make people feel good, like something is actually getting done. I personally just don’t see the point in buy back programs.
Quote:
If so, then that has nothing to do with my proposal. If not, then what is it that you dislike about them?
It has nothing to do with your proposal. I specifically was talking about how they are currently done. I’m talking about current buy backs that occur every so often. I think, more than anything else, they’re just a feel good PR stunt. The police department looks like they’re doing something to prevent gun violence or accidental gun deaths or something.
Quote:
I'm not tied to the idea, but it seems that if you can get at least part of the value of your gun by reporting it stolen, then you will be encouraged to report your guns as stolen if you find them missing.
I see. Maybe. Regarding your proposal, I’d rather we force those people to report stolen guns than encourage them through payment. They should get insurance if they want compensation for it.
Quote:
In my scenario, the paranoid can hold onto their guns. If they are that paranoid about the govt getting them, then they are probably not easy pickings for junkies either.
My point was that a proposal that includes mandatory gun registration will never get off the ground.
Quote:
I don't understand the fascination with block-chain. If you want to keep the list secured, there are ways of doing that. I don't think that block-chain would do what you are looking for here.
Not just secured, but anonymous. The question is how to have an anonymous list that allows the ability of looking up a specific firearm to see who the owner is. There are too many people who are against the government having a list of firearm owners. The NRA is specifically against it. It doesn’t matter how secure the list is. If the government has the ability to instantly know where all of the guns are, then the security of the list is irrelevant. If the point of this thread is to attempt to make proposals that have a chance at actually passing, then a gun registry that is accessible by the government isn’t one of them. But…. To get any use out of the registry, the government would need the ability to look up individual firearms to check for lawful ownership.
[quote[What I would do, in my amateur knowledge of cryptography, if I wanted to keep the list from being used for data mining, would be to allow lookup by serial number, but not by name. So, you have a gun used in a crime, and you put in the serial number. It pops up with the last registered owner of the gun. If you put in a person's name, then you get nothing. Some hashing and cryptography would be useful here, but I would let the experts sort that out.[/quote]My concern is that the government could just enter entire serial number sequences from all the major manufactures and produce a list. What I was thinking was a system where the government enters both the name of the person AND the firearm serial number and the return value is only TRUE or FALSE. The gun is either registered to that person legally, or it is not. For a stolen gun, it’s easy to know the owner. Run the serial number, and the gun comes back stolen, and the original owner is known because that’s part of the report. But when someone happens to be stopped for whatever reason, and that person has a gun, the police will run the serial number to see if it is properly registered to that person. I think a list that allows the cops to do this, but prevents the government from maintain a list of gun owners would work.

Quote:
Like I said, a CCW should be considered to be passing a background check. There should be other ways, as well, for those who want to purchase guns, but not carry them in public.
CCWs are valid for 7 years in Florida, and who knows how long in other states. Plus, many states don’t even offer them. The chance of a person committing a felony in that 7 years is too great to use the CCW as a valid substitution for a background check.
Quote:
I see much more potential for abuse in having private entities holding onto such a list than the government. You would have to saddle them with quite a number of laws to make sure that they did not use it for their own profit.
Agreed. I think it has a much higher likelihood of being passed, though.
Quote:
We are not talking about a registration here, but whether or not someone has passed a background check.
Why are we not talking about a registration? That’s exactly what I was talking about? Do I need to limit my conversation to only things that you want to talk about? I am allowed to respond to your ideas and to expound and expand them with ideas of my own.
Quote:
I have no idea why you think that the information that is currently being supplied by the govt being in the govt's hands would be something to be afraid of.
The federal government has no list of who owns what firearms or even who owns any firearms, except those firearms on the NFA Registry (machineguns and such).
Quote:
I think all of that is overly complicated, and is involving private entities that may not want to be involved, and doing so in such a way that those private entities are much more likely to abuse the information than the government, which is where they have to go to get that information in the first place.
We’re talking about a gun registry as well as a registry identifying people who are buying guns. I don’t think you fully understand the very passionate aversion to having a federal firearms registry, or allowing the government to have a list of firearm owners. I assure you it is real. And it is strong.
My idea for the FOID card was to allow private sellers and buyers to be able to ensure that the person they are selling the firearm to is legally able to do it. I am trying to come up with a solution that will acceptably prevents such a thing from being used by the government to identify people who own guns. I’m also trying to make it more convenient than other proposals of just using the NCIC (and paying an extra fee) every single time. I think FOID cards aren’t a bad idea. However, if the FOID cards are issued by the federal government, then the federal government now has a list of every gun owner. That’s why I proposed a work around.
  #81  
Old 10-19-2019, 05:18 PM
Bear_Nenno's Avatar
Bear_Nenno is offline
Endowment Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 9,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
That can be fixed by defining who is and who is not a "gun dealer" . Say- anyone who sells more than 12 guns a year is a "dealer".
I see. Yea, I'm down with redefining "dealer".
  #82  
Old 10-19-2019, 05:29 PM
Bear_Nenno's Avatar
Bear_Nenno is offline
Endowment Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 9,073

Re-posting due to earlier coding error (and adding a little)


Quote:
What I would do, in my amateur knowledge of cryptography, if I wanted to keep the list from being used for data mining, would be to allow lookup by serial number, but not by name. So, you have a gun used in a crime, and you put in the serial number. It pops up with the last registered owner of the gun. If you put in a person's name, then you get nothing. Some hashing and cryptography would be useful here, but I would let the experts sort that out.
My concern is that the government could just enter entire serial number sequences from all the major manufactures and produce a list. What I was thinking was a system where the government enters both the name of the person AND the firearm serial number and the return value is only TRUE or FALSE. The gun is either registered to that person legally, or it is not. For a stolen gun, itís easy to know the owner. Run the serial number, and the gun comes back stolen, and the original owner is known because thatís part of the report.
But when someone happens to be stopped for whatever reason, and that person has a gun, the police will run the serial number to see if it is properly registered to that person. I think a list that allows the cops to do this, but prevents the government from maintaining a list of gun owners would work.
I brought up block-chain because that would be a method of keeping the list accessible, but ensuring the list was not owned or maintained by the government. This list would not be centralized. It would be everywhere. And possibly, it could allow people to transfer one firearm to another person without the government involved at all. Nobody would have to be involved except the two people executing the transaction. Yet, the list gets updated. I don't know how we'd motivate "miners" to crunch the block chain for each transaction, though. Some kind of incentive that escapes me at the moment. Like I said, it was just a passing thought I had while posting. I haven't put much thought into it.
  #83  
Old 10-19-2019, 05:33 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Japan has a much higher suicide rate than the USA, yet NO guns.
And if people confidently opined that guns were the ONLY contributing factor to suicide rates, you'd have a point.
  #84  
Old 10-19-2019, 05:38 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,976
FTR, and speaking as a relatively frequently suicidal person, I'm reasonably sure the people who actually like me, of which I'm assured they exist, are thankful that I don't have a suicide button. And that because I don't have access to such button I'm forced to consider personal pain issues, and have the time to worry about how it's gonna look and who's going to find my lifeless corpse and so on. Not to mention, I don't enjoy the benefit of Japan's culture being altogether understanding of ending one's life for some reason.
There have been plenty, plenty, PLENTY of nights where, had I had the option of going "fuck it all", I would have. Whether or not my staying on this fucking rock is a net positive is up to y'all, really - my point is, because I don't have a gun, I never impulsively blew my brains out. Or have I ?! You decide.

Last edited by Kobal2; 10-19-2019 at 05:40 PM.
  #85  
Old 10-20-2019, 01:02 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
FTR, and speaking as a relatively frequently suicidal person, I'm reasonably sure the people who actually like me, of which I'm assured they exist, are thankful that I don't have a suicide button. And that because I don't have access to such button I'm forced to consider personal pain issues, and have the time to worry about how it's gonna look and who's going to find my lifeless corpse and so on. Not to mention, I don't enjoy the benefit of Japan's culture being altogether understanding of ending one's life for some reason.
There have been plenty, plenty, PLENTY of nights where, had I had the option of going "fuck it all", I would have. Whether or not my staying on this fucking rock is a net positive is up to y'all, really - my point is, because I don't have a gun, I never impulsively blew my brains out. Or have I ?! You decide.
Well, I'm certainly glad you haven't decided to go that route. That said, France, which is listed as your location, actually has a higher suicide rate than the US. France is in the top 20 countries (17), while the US, with all our guns, is actually at 27. This is suicides per 100k.

I think it's as Bear_Nenno said earlier...(to paraphrase) suicide isn't a gun control issue, it's a mental health issue. Unless you think that (magically) taking away all our guns would actually put us further from France, say, than we currently are? If we dropped down half (well, a bit less than half of our suicides are from guns, around 19k verse the 49k from all methods, but it would be a significant drop if indeed taking away guns stopped all those or even most of those suicides), we'd be close to the bottom, if not THE bottom of industrialized countries. Which seems rather unlikely, as just taking away guns doesn't solve any of our racial or socio-economic issues, let alone stuff like wealth disparity and US work ethic (i.e. Americans generally get less time off than many other countries workers do).
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #86  
Old 10-20-2019, 03:16 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
Yes, I am complaining about what other people do. You claimed to be articulating the position of many. I agree that your statement accurately represents the intentions of many people interested in gun control. What I am saying is that many of these people, despite their intentions, are pursuing legislation that won’t actually address their concerns.
True. As I said, I am not speaking for them, they may have other ideas as to how to combat gun violence, but I do think that we are all coming from the same place. My point in that statement was in response to the OP's remark that many gun activists consider gun control proposals to be intentionally crafted to harass et al. gun owners. Well thought out or not, that is not the intention behind proposals, the intent is to reduce the harm the guns cause to society.

Many gun rights activists do come into these conversations with the idea that the proposals are meant to hurt them, and so react with extreme hostility towards them, rather than working with them to find a good solution that works for all parties.
Quote:
I believe it’s closer to 27 states that have Child Access Protection laws, and a few of them (I’m mostly familiar with Florida) make it criminal for adults to not properly store their firearms.
Now that I have a new term to google, I can agree with you on this, that there are a slight majority of states that have some sort of law that limits a child's access to household guns. I was looking up laws about storage, and was only finding a short list.

Looking at the list, however, I only see 14 that have laws about storage, and only 3 that impose criminal liability for negligent storage. I took your earlier comment to mean that there were already laws on the books that covered all the guns, not just that there were some states with some laws.
Quote:
Yes, these are not universal laws, and I would definitely support a Federal Law similar to Florida’s. But I wouldn’t stop there.
Is that something that would pass constitutional muster? And if it is, is it something that gun rights advocates would allow?
Quote:
The point of my post was to make a universal law that is more effective than the current access prevention laws on the books. The point of this thread, I thought, was to share gun control proposals. The laws that exist are written with terms phrases like “in a location which a reasonable person should believe that a minor can’t access the firearm” or “store the firearm in a such a way if one reasonable believes a minor might access it” etc. So, if a child gains access to a firearm and shoots his/her sibling on accident, the state has to argue the “reasonableness” of the storage. Also, in Florida, the law says that keeping a gun in a locked safe is reasonable enough. What I proposed was the believe that the mere fact a minor gained access to the firearm and discharged it should be enough proof that the storage method was not adequate. So I believe a universal, strict liability crime would be prudent. See Florida SS. 790.174 for the text of their statute. It’s also only a misdemeanor, while I proposed a Federal Law that should be a felony.
I mostly agree, but the other half of this is that we are trying to come up with laws that would be least burdensome to gun owners. I do believe that a proper "due diligence" is a reasonable standard.

Though I agree with bumping it up to a felony. Maybe a hybrid, strict liability as a misdemeanor, negligence makes it a felony?
Quote:
So we agree, then. This was exactly my point.
Yes, we do.
Quote:
Was that really ambiguous? The owners of the firearm. The adults.
Not extremely ambiguous, no, but I wanted to be sure. Would you put any liability on the minor? Obviously, if a 17 year old uses a crowbar to get his father's gun, and murders someone with it, they would be charged with murder (possibly as a minor), and if a 2 year old finds the gun in the couch cushions and shoots someone, that's entirely on the person who didn't secure the gun, but would the different owners of the guns both be facing the same consequences?

Also, a 17 year old who has an accident with a gun, is that 17 year old liable at all, or only the homeowner?
Quote:
I agree. The only problem with that is the fact that people would not report their firearms stolen if that were the law. Now the criminal is running around with a gun that isn’t even reported as stolen because the original owner didn’t want to get himself in trouble. So that’s kind of where the idea hits a wall.
That's exactly how it plays out right now, I hear all the time in the gun community that people will not report their stolen guns to the police, and it's not even because they think that they will get into trouble. My reason for the partial buyback for reporting stolen guns is to encourage doing so.

Quote:
For it to be imposed, then some kind of gun registry would need to exist. Because even if the gun wasn’t reported stolen, the gun would not be registered to that criminal, so the police can go back to the original owner and start asking questions. I realize that you also proposed a registry, and this would go hand-in-hand with that. I was just addressing the merits of such a law on its own, without the registry. I wasn’t attacking your proposal or anything. I was just saying that I do think there should be a unified federal law regarding storage of firearms. Right now, every gun has to be shipped with a lock. But the ATF has no requirement that they be used, and only some states require proper reasonable storage.
You are correct that my proposal includes some form of registry, otherwise, there is no way to account for anything. You CAP laws would fail, as it would be impossible to prove that the kid got the gun from the house, rather than finding it on the street.
Quote:
I don’t think it will decrease. At all. Maybe only temporarily, but then that would have been time we could have spent focused on a real solution. Looking at suicide rates in developed countries, there doesn’t seem to be anything that suggest countries with easier access to guns have a higher suicide rate.
It would largely eliminate impulsive suicides. It is a bit hard to estimate how many were impulsive and how many are planned, as an exit interview can only by definition account for unsuccessful attempts, but, according to many studies I've seen, somewhere between a quarter and half of suicides are done on impulse.

This makes sense from personal experience. I went through a bit of a rough patch a bit over a decade ago (during the recession), and I really didn't want to get up to go get rejected from another few minimum wage jobs. I, a few times, considered going down the street to the gun range, renting a gun, and taking care of things. But, by the time I got out of bed, dressed, and out of the house, I was feeling better, and instead went to yet another interview. If I had had a gun on my nightstand, maybe I wouldn't have.
Quote:
I don’t think it would reduce the suicide rate. As for my support for the legislation itself, I doubt I’d be against it. It’s an interesting question. I’m sure I’ll continue thinking about this one for a while.
Men make up the vast majority of gun suicides, and most of them are in the age range of being very able bodied. Reducing the threat that these men face will reduce their likelihood of feeling they need a gun, which reduces the chances that there is a gun around during a moment of despair or depression.

In any case, I don't really see the need to focus on suicide so much, as I see that happening as a side effect of decreasing criminal access to guns, not something that requires any action on its own.

Quote:
You said that you have no reason to shoot someone out of fear that they will shoot year if its rare for criminals to have a gun. My response was that if there is a big, strong, unarmed person trying to rob a weak old lady, or some large, violent, unarmed man trying to rape a smaller, weaker girl, then the fear of whether or not they might get shot is irrelevant. They are going to shoot for fear of being hurt or raped, not for fear of being shot. People own guns for protection against violent crime, not for protection against armed criminals. Armed criminals is just one subset of the total threat inspiring people to buy guns for protection.
And if people make the calculation that they need a gun, then I support them in that. I just see that having fewer guns in the hands of criminals changes that calculation, in a favorable way.

If someone tries to rape you, shoot them, I am entirely behind that.

The deaths that I see being prevented are largely the accidental ones that happen because someone was perceiving a threat where there was none. If criminals often have guns, then you need to react quickly, often faster than you can evaluate the situation, which can and has led to tragedies. If criminals rarely have guns, then you can take the time to make sure that it's not your daughter sneaking back in after curfew before you pull the trigger.
Quote:
Yea, it is in response to what you said. And you said it again just now. You think that people would not feel as great a need for a gun for self-defense if there were less criminals with guns. I disagree. I think there are enough threats out there, besides guns, that people would still want a gun for self-defense. Strong-arm robberies, those without any weapon at all, occur in greater number than armed robberies. And while I’m not sure how many of the 100,000 forcible rapes that occur each year in this country involve the use of a firearm, but I am confident only a small percentage do.
Right. And that’s what I was referring to. You feel that the number of criminals with guns has a bearing on whether you need one yourself. I am making the claim that most gun owners do not feel that way, and would choose to have a gun anyway for the reasons I stated.
I think I have explained my reasoning behind that, and I agree that many, if not most gun owners would continue to feel a threat even if no criminal had a gun, but we are not talking about convincing most gun owners to give up their guns, just the ones at the margins that felt that they needed one to combat the threat of criminals having guns. What percentage that is is a good question, but I know its higher than 0.
Quote:
Not everyone even owns dogs. And not everyone only has a gun for home defense. Like I said, I think you miss the point here. You’re equating your own situation and fears (or lack of fears) to everyone. I don’t think many people who own guns for self defense would be less likely to do so even if criminals were less likely to be armed with a gun. If criminals magically were prevented from using guns, they would just use more knives or some other weapon. People will still want to own a gun for protection from criminals whether those criminals have guns or not.
Some, not all. We are not trying to solve the whole problem overnight, just trying to start moving in the right direction.
Quote:
Oh, cops. You’re talking about people who shoot out of fear, despite not being victimized in any way? Like when a noncriminal is just reaching for his wallet and gets shot by a cop who (perhaps unreasonably) feared that the criminal was reaching for a gun? So you’re basically talking about unjustified shootings, where someone shot another person (not even a criminal necessarily, just some other person) out of fear that the person had a firearm? In that case, I think I agree with you. Those situations would likely go way down if criminals were not likely to be armed with guns.
Quote:
Any time someone shoots out of fear of being the second to shoot.
I’ve never seen a mandatory buyback. It’s always random, law abiding citizens turning in guns that were collecting rust in a basement somewhere. Arguably, some of those guns could have ended up stolen and used in a crime. Statistically, the number of guns removed from the street is miniscule. It is such a waste of effort and money to hold a gun buy back. But they seem to make people feel good, like something is actually getting done. I personally just don’t see the point in buy back programs.
But the number on the street is a very elastic commodity. You make it even slightly more difficult, slightly more expensive to get a gun on the black market, and the number on the street drops.

My proposal is that, if you don't want to go through the hassle of registering your guns and storing them safely, you can instead get rid of them, but still get value. If your husband dies and leaves you a bunch of guns, you don't have to figure out how to sell them, you just sell them to the police. If you have a bunch of guns and no secure way to store them, you can sell some of your guns to have the money to safely secure the rest.
Quote:
It has nothing to do with your proposal. I specifically was talking about how they are currently done. I’m talking about current buy backs that occur every so often. I think, more than anything else, they’re just a feel good PR stunt. The police department looks like they’re doing something to prevent gun violence or accidental gun deaths or something.
And maybe they are actually doing something to prevent gun violence or accidental gun deaths.
Quote:
I see. Maybe. Regarding your proposal, I’d rather we force those people to report stolen guns than encourage them through payment. They should get insurance if they want compensation for it.
Fair enough, I'm not tied to it. But they would still have to report the guns as stolen, and get a police report, in order to get remittance from their insurance, so the issue of reporting to the police is taken care of. (And the insurance company is likely to be more thorough on an investigation into negligence than the police are.)
Quote:
My point was that a proposal that includes mandatory gun registration will never get off the ground.
And I don't see how there is any realistic method of keeping guns out of criminal's hands without some sort of registry. If we can't find where the guns are coming from, then we can't stop them. DrDeth has proposed that if you sell more than 12 guns a year, then you are a dealer, but how would we know if someone is selling more than 12 guns a year without tracking who is buying and selling them?

Keeping unregistered guns not being used in a crime as a ticketable offense may mollify some of the more paranoid gun owners out there.
Quote:
Not just secured, but anonymous. The question is how to have an anonymous list that allows the ability of looking up a specific firearm to see who the owner is. There are too many people who are against the government having a list of firearm owners. The NRA is specifically against it. It doesn’t matter how secure the list is. If the government has the ability to instantly know where all of the guns are, then the security of the list is irrelevant. If the point of this thread is to attempt to make proposals that have a chance at actually passing, then a gun registry that is accessible by the government isn’t one of them. But…. To get any use out of the registry, the government would need the ability to look up individual firearms to check for lawful ownership.
So, the NRA has the final say on this, then? I'm not sure if there is any reason for any sort of debate or proposals if we are just going to do what the NRA dictates.

The NRA is going to be against anything that decreases the number of gun purchases. This includes DrDeth's proposal, as well as anything that interferes with straw sales. Anything that makes people feel more safe in their home, and therefore, less likely to buy a gun in order to protect themselves is going against the NRA as well. Your proposal of making gun owners liable at all about the misuse of their negligently stored firearms, much less strict liability, will get no traction in Fairfax.

Without *someone* having and maintaining such a list, there is no chance at any sort of reform. As much as you don't trust the government, I trust the NRA even less. At the very least, expect to start seeing ads for "guns and ammo" magazine start showing up.

Maybe set up a completely separate govt agency whose sole task is to maintain the list, give it plenty of civilian oversight, and extremely harsh penalties for misuse.
Quote:

My concern is that the government could just enter entire serial number sequences from all the major manufactures and produce a list.
Make that illegal with extremely harsh penalties.
Quote:
What I was thinking was a system where the government enters both the name of the person AND the firearm serial number and the return value is only TRUE or FALSE. The gun is either registered to that person legally, or it is not. For a stolen gun, it’s easy to know the owner. Run the serial number, and the gun comes back stolen, and the original owner is known because that’s part of the report. But when someone happens to be stopped for whatever reason, and that person has a gun, the police will run the serial number to see if it is properly registered to that person. I think a list that allows the cops to do this, but prevents the government from maintain a list of gun owners would work.
And if you find a gun in connection with a crime, how do you trace it back to the owner? That is the primary reason for such a list. Just matching a person to their gun is not the primary purpose.
Quote:
CCWs are valid for 7 years in Florida, and who knows how long in other states. Plus, many states don’t even offer them. The chance of a person committing a felony in that 7 years is too great to use the CCW as a valid substitution for a background check.
As I said, CCW's are a joke, and I would change the way that they are set up. I would do this before allowing a CCW to be used for background check. And even in this case, we are talking about private transactions not involving an FFL. If we also go with DrDeth's proposal here, then that means that the number of guns that could go to people that have committed a felony since their last CCW background check would be fairly minimal.
Quote:
Agreed. I think it has a much higher likelihood of being passed, though.
Why are we not talking about a registration? That’s exactly what I was talking about? Do I need to limit my conversation to only things that you want to talk about? I am allowed to respond to your ideas and to expound and expand them with ideas of my own.

The federal government has no list of who owns what firearms or even who owns any firearms, except those firearms on the NFA Registry (machineguns and such).
Sorry, I am/was confused as to what that was relating to, as you were referring to the FOID card in what I was responding. I thought you were talking about the list of people who have pre-passed a background check, not the gun registration. Still not sure, actually. You absolutely may, and I highly encourage you, to expound and expand as much as you like, but in this instance, I thought you were talking about background checks, not gun registration.
Quote:
We’re talking about a gun registry as well as a registry identifying people who are buying guns. I don’t think you fully understand the very passionate aversion to having a federal firearms registry, or allowing the government to have a list of firearm owners. I assure you it is real. And it is strong.
I get that. I've seen gun owners rant and rave about hos much they distrust the government, and I agree that their paranoia would cause them to reject such an idea. I just don't think that the paranoid gun owners outweigh the rest of the population, gun owner and not, that doesn't believe in the conspiracy theories suggested by the NRA.

Further paranoia could be found in the realization that computers run really fast, and it would only take a bit more time to run every person in the country against all the serial numbers than it would take to just run all the serial numbers as in your scenario.
Quote:
My idea for the FOID card was to allow private sellers and buyers to be able to ensure that the person they are selling the firearm to is legally able to do it. I am trying to come up with a solution that will acceptably prevents such a thing from being used by the government to identify people who own guns. I’m also trying to make it more convenient than other proposals of just using the NCIC (and paying an extra fee) every single time. I think FOID cards aren’t a bad idea. However, if the FOID cards are issued by the federal government, then the federal government now has a list of every gun owner. That’s why I proposed a work around.
But you have to ask the govt for the results of the background check in the first place. If the govt was as dishonest and oppressive as the gun owners fear, wouldn't they just keep a list of the people that they ran a background check on?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
I brought up block-chain because that would be a method of keeping the list accessible, but ensuring the list was not owned or maintained by the government. This list would not be centralized. It would be everywhere. And possibly, it could allow people to transfer one firearm to another person without the government involved at all. Nobody would have to be involved except the two people executing the transaction. Yet, the list gets updated. I don't know how we'd motivate "miners" to crunch the block chain for each transaction, though. Some kind of incentive that escapes me at the moment. Like I said, it was just a passing thought I had while posting. I haven't put much thought into it.
I'm certainly no block-chain expert, but I don't know if that would work out that way. This also completely defeats the point of the registry, in that the entire point is to be able to find out where a gun that was used in a crime came from.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Altho in general this is a well written and thought out post (it is very true that many who want to ban guns dont know anything about either the gun they wanna ban or the laws already in place, for example even Kamela Harris)- the ATF and other feds know there are a few hundred individuals who buy many, many guns at discounted retail, then turn around and sell them for a much higher price- often to criminals. This is a large source of guns for criminals.

That can be fixed by defining who is and who is not a "gun dealer" . Say- anyone who sells more than 12 guns a year is a "dealer".
I agree entirely, but how do you track this without some sort of registry?

Last edited by k9bfriender; 10-20-2019 at 03:21 PM.
  #87  
Old 10-20-2019, 05:24 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Can you show me where you are seeing this? All I am seeing is the list of 11 states that have any laws at all about storage, and only a couple of them require it for kids.

Well, a safe, anyway. You can put your gun in my little safe that I use for storing my important documents. If you want something made for guns, then you would need a gun safe, but I only see that as an issue if you have a bunch of them, or have big ones. In any case, guns are expensive, a safe for them would be a small part of the ownership cost.

I do not see how they make you a target for thieves. A thief wouldn't know that you have one, and if they did, then they would avoid your house, as they would have a hard time getting them.

Gun locks just keep the trigger from being pulled, they do not prevent the gun from being removed from the home, and there is no gun lock that I couldn't defeat with unlimited time and a few tools from the hardware store.


I see that you have decided that you do not think that there is a link, but I think that it is very motivated cherry picking that leads you to that. It is impossible to "prove" a correlation, hell, smoking hasn't been "proven" to cause cancer, unlike gun suicides, where you can certainly see that the gun was used for the suicide. Yes, some may have chosen to use a different method if a gun were not available, but you can clearly see that they chose the gun.

Do you believe that all suicides are well planned and thought out, and that none are ever on impulse?
https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-l...ss-prevention/
Twenty-seven states and DC have enacted child access prevention laws.

(This is, of course, a quite biased source, but since it's bias is towards gun control, I think it's safe here.)


Yes, thieves do know you have them. They can get that info from the people who sell them, the people who install them, your housekeeper or babysitter, etc..

If what you saying is that it's Ok to have a couple guns out (unless you have kids) for home defense, but the rest should be secured, then I am Ok with that.

Oh certainly, it could be a factor. Just that studies have not shown definitely that it is a significant factor. I concede a few less suicides a year would occur, of course. But it wouldnt reduce the 47000 suicides a year a lot. It might move the 20000 gun suicides quite a bit lower, but I doubt if it would reduce overall suicides by more that 10%, if that. It's a reason for good red flag laws, not gun control laws.
  #88  
Old 10-20-2019, 05:33 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
...



I agree entirely, but how do you track this without some sort of registry?
Oh you dont track it. You make it a regulation. Then let us say Bob the strawman dealer buys 100 guns at discounted retail and sells them to criminals. The police find 40 of them, reports this to ATF. They go back to Bob, show him the forms he filled out when he bought the guns, and ask where those guns went to, since none are in his house (search warrant). Bob sez he sold them. ATF arrests him.

I know the ATF has lists of "strawman" sellers who sell hundreds of guns a year.

This new reg (doesnt even have to be a law, since the law is already there), puts Bob out of business. He will know about it, and now the risk is too high to deal more than a dozen, maybe two dozen a year.
  #89  
Old 10-21-2019, 05:02 AM
Bear_Nenno's Avatar
Bear_Nenno is offline
Endowment Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 9,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9befriender
Many gun rights activists do come into these conversations with the idea that the proposals are meant to hurt them, and so react with extreme hostility towards them, rather than working with them to find a good solution that works for all parties.
Agreed. I normally stay out of gun debates because people on both sides just talk past each other with no attempt at a real discussion. I think this thread has the potential to be different.
Quote:
This also completely defeats the point of the registry, in that the entire point is to be able to find out where a gun that was used in a crime came from.
I wouldn't have thought that was the whole point of a registry, just one of the possible benefits. I'd have thought that most guns left at a crime scene would be stolen, but a quick check suggests that is not the case. I think, though, that for those scenarios, the current eTrace system would be augmented by the proposed change. The current system has the ATF going to the manufacturer with the serial number to find out what dealer it went to. Then the subpoena the dealer for the 4473 to find the initial buyer.
The proposed change calls for owners to follow certain procedures to sell the firearm, so that the ATF should have little difficulty in following the trail from owner to owner.
Maybe not. Maybe a fully accessible and searchable registry would be better. Would criminals, then, just be more likely to remove serial numbers, thereby negating the whole thing and making the entire exercise a pointless effort and waste of money maintaining a database that only adds steps and fees for lawful owners while doing nothing to curb crime or deter criminals?
  #90  
Old 10-21-2019, 05:07 AM
Bear_Nenno's Avatar
Bear_Nenno is offline
Endowment Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 9,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9befriender
You CAP laws would fail, as it would be impossible to prove that the kid got the gun from the house, rather than finding it on the street.
Not if the gun is registered to an adult in that home. Would be hard to argue the child found the gun on the street.
  #91  
Old 10-21-2019, 05:42 AM
Bear_Nenno's Avatar
Bear_Nenno is offline
Endowment Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 9,073
Another consideration is the number of guns currently owned by criminals and those who would otherwise refuse to register their firearms. These guns will only be removed from circulation as they are dropped at crime scenes or found in possession of unregistered owners. It might be decades before the benefits of a registry are realized, due to the millions that will be available to the unscrupulous.
  #92  
Old 10-21-2019, 10:28 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
Another consideration is the number of guns currently owned by criminals and those who would otherwise refuse to register their firearms. These guns will only be removed from circulation as they are dropped at crime scenes or found in possession of unregistered owners. It might be decades before the benefits of a registry are realized, due to the millions that will be available to the unscrupulous.
Heck, before you could reduce the number through any measure less than a Draconian confiscation program, home 3D printing will render the issue moot.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #93  
Old 10-21-2019, 11:55 AM
Bear_Nenno's Avatar
Bear_Nenno is offline
Endowment Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 9,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Heck, before you could reduce the number through any measure less than a Draconian confiscation program, home 3D printing will render the issue moot.
Good point, but easy fix. Redefine "firearm" to include any barrel. Nobody toying with 3D printed receivers or milling out 80% lowers can get anywhere without a barrel. Of course, barrel would have to be strictly designed to exclude random metal tubes, but that shouldn't be too hard.
(1)Any metal tube, rifled or nonrifled, designed to be used as a barrel for any firearm; or (2)is capable of being readily converted to achieve such purpose; or (3)is otherwise designed or intended function as a tube through which the projectile of any firearm is expelled through; provided that such tube, barrel, or object is not already classified as a silencer, muzzle brake, or flash suppressor.
This definition would include fake silencers, and I'm okay with that. Those things are stupid.

The point is that these people printing 3D guns or building "Ghost Guns" by milling or drilling out an 80% completed lower receivers are still buying the barrels. Limit the purchase of the barrel, and it limits their ability to make untraceable guns, while still allowing them the freedom to "make their own". And most barrels are already serial numbered. It wouldn't be hard to force all manufacturers to put serial numbers on their barrels.

Last edited by Bear_Nenno; 10-21-2019 at 11:59 AM.
  #94  
Old 10-21-2019, 12:47 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Heck, before you could reduce the number through any measure less than a Draconian confiscation program, home 3D printing will render the issue moot.
I don't think that 3D printing is going to be a serious issue wrt guns. More probably, besides just the sheer numbers we are talking about, would be similar to the drug issue...i.e., you can illegally ship in a lot of banned things, as the drug cartels could tell you. Including guns. If there is a market, there is a will.

Though, honestly, I think that no matter how draconian you got wrt gun bans, we are talking hundreds of millions of the things. It's an incredible problem, especially if the population doesn't go along, and I have serious doubts they would. We have had cops who, say, don't enforce some of the stupider marijuana laws, and look the other way. I think that would go a lot more about guns, unless you already have the population with the majority opinion that we should ban them and the government is right to go all draconian on them.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #95  
Old 10-21-2019, 12:48 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
Good point, but easy fix. Redefine "firearm" to include any barrel. Nobody toying with 3D printed receivers or milling out 80% lowers can get anywhere without a barrel. Of course, barrel would have to be strictly designed to exclude random metal tubes, but that shouldn't be too hard. ...
It's less common than making your own receiver, but people make their own barrels too, at least for some definitions of "make".
  #96  
Old 10-21-2019, 12:59 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It's less common than making your own receiver, but people make their own barrels too, at least for some definitions of "make".
Please elaborate-what definitions of "make" are you referring to?
  #97  
Old 10-21-2019, 01:11 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Please elaborate-what definitions of "make" are you referring to?
I imagine there's a pretty wide spectrum, but for one example, this guy here "made" his own AR-15 barrel by machining a barrel blank. He's got step-by-step instructions and lots of pictures, a parts list, etc.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 10-21-2019 at 01:13 PM.
  #98  
Old 10-21-2019, 02:04 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Well, I'm certainly glad you haven't decided to go that route. That said, France, which is listed as your location, actually has a higher suicide rate than the US. France is in the top 20 countries (17), while the US, with all our guns, is actually at 27. This is suicides per 100k.

I think it's as Bear_Nenno said earlier...(to paraphrase) suicide isn't a gun control issue, it's a mental health issue. Unless you think that (magically) taking away all our guns would actually put us further from France, say, than we currently are?
I never said it was the *only* factor in suicide rates, that'd be silly of me which I do try to avoid believe it or not. I'm simply stating the hardly arguable fact that it's a lot easier to go "ah, shit" *boom* dead than the vast majority of suicide methods, not to mention less scary, more efficient, possibly less traumatic to third parties.

And yes, I do think that magically vanishing US guns would put you even further away in the suicide death toll by simple virtue of tweaking the death toll of impulsive gun suicides. Why wouldn't it not ?
  #99  
Old 10-21-2019, 02:17 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
I never said it was the *only* factor in suicide rates, that'd be silly of me which I do try to avoid believe it or not. I'm simply stating the hardly arguable fact that it's a lot easier to go "ah, shit" *boom* dead than the vast majority of suicide methods, not to mention less scary, more efficient, possibly less traumatic to third parties.

And yes, I do think that magically vanishing US guns would put you even further away in the suicide death toll by simple virtue of tweaking the death toll of impulsive gun suicides. Why wouldn't it not ?
Because it does nothing to address the reasons WHY people commit suicide, only addresses a method used. Hard to believe that anyone, you included could think such a thing was possible, as it seems a fairly unbelievable idea to me. Turning it around, why would it? Just taking a method away, but not doing anything at all to address the causation, why WOULD it have such a dramatic effect, taking us from the middle of the pack wrt industrialized nations and suicides to the bottom of the list? Americans really strike you as stress free and well adjusted without underlying issues affecting, say, the French people? And it's only, or even mostly guns and gun access that is keeping us from being at the very bottom of the list??
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #100  
Old 10-21-2019, 04:33 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
I don't think that 3D printing is going to be a serious issue wrt guns. More probably, besides just the sheer numbers we are talking about, would be similar to the drug issue...i.e., you can illegally ship in a lot of banned things, as the drug cartels could tell you. Including guns. If there is a market, there is a will.
In that case, forget guns and just legalize drugs. The inventive to acquire/import guns in quantity just to use them in a crime once and discard them immediately should fall accordingly.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017