Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-14-2019, 11:23 PM
Abatis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA.
Posts: 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Are there ways to effect the rate of gun violence without going anywhere near the gun control controversy? Are there underlying issues that can be realistically addressed?
I'm all for controlling the hand that uses the gun . . .

1) Enforce with vigor laws criminalizing the violent misuse of firearms; don't use weapons offenses as bargaining chips to be thrown out for guilty pleas for other charges and never allow the pleading down of felony gun charges to misdemeanors and no accelerated dispensation with expungement for gun offenses.

2) Mandate full time sentenced to be served for any violent misuse of a firearm.

3) Mandatory enhanced sentences for repeat offenders / felon in possession.

4) Absolutely, finally, mandate states and all federal agencies who adjudicate, to flag all 922(g) prohibited persons (including all qualifying mental issues - HIPPA be damned). and this be reported every other week to the FBI NICS and all states – with civil action exposure and criminal liability for dereliction of this duty.

5) Increase funding for parole/probation programs for enforcement of conditions of release and tightening of controls on those under conditional release and oversight of the boards responsible for early release.

6) Increase funding for states / cities for FTA & fugitive recovery with a priority on violent offenders.

.

Last edited by Abatis; 05-14-2019 at 11:27 PM.
  #52  
Old 05-15-2019, 12:15 AM
Gray Ghost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Writers of posts #42 through #46-Please reread the OP.
Czarcasm, nothing I wrote has anything to do with gun control or gun elimination. It has everything to do with controlling violent people. As well as re-incarcerating people who are statutorily unable to possess firearms, yet still continue to. My strategy would operate whether or not targeting prohibited persons was a goal of law enforcement.

I thought that was the point of your OP: to ameliorate violence caused with firearms without controlling or eliminating the firearms themselves?

EDIT: Reading above, post 51 by Abatis goes into more detail about what I meant. I don't read any gun control in his/her list of ideas either.

Last edited by Gray Ghost; 05-15-2019 at 12:17 AM.
  #53  
Old 05-15-2019, 07:12 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,272
If we're staying away from gun control topics like registration, bans, smart guns or universal background checks, I'm thinking Gray Ghost's stepped up enforcement and Ravenman's mental health coverage / social service are the two ways to go.

I'm not thrilled about stepped up enforcement, because I don't think it actually reduces the likelihood that a criminal will choose to arm himself with an illegal firearm. It reduces the amount of time a criminal is free, by keeping him in jail longer. So the benefits, while direct and real, are limited, and the cost, monetary and societal, is large. The plus to this method is that it doesn't necessarily require any new laws or political capital, just the commitment to keep criminals in jail longer.

Mental Health and Social Services could be more effective at reducing suicides and domestic violence attacks, of all types, not just via firearm. The monetary cost is high, but the benefits are broad.
  #54  
Old 05-15-2019, 08:16 AM
l0k1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 171
To prevent gun violence, first we would need data. A government agency, let's say the CDC, should do a study. After they survey all the gun deaths they should be able to draw some broad categories as to the causes. Let's say three of the main causes are: domestic partner violence, suicide, and street crime. From there we either take what we already know about how to address these problems, or gather more data. Let's say stronger laws surrounding people who abuse their spouses, coupled with better counseling and education. For suicide prevention, the UK was able to lower their suicide rate by changing the packaging on ibuprofen, maybe put bullets in blister packs. For street crime, maybe a stronger social safety net, decriminalizing drugs, and increasing welfare.

After steps were taken, the CDC could do a follow-up study to see if any of their preventative measures worked.
  #55  
Old 05-15-2019, 08:58 AM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0k1 View Post
To prevent gun violence, first we would need data. A government agency, let's say the CDC, should do a study. After they survey all the gun deaths they should be able to draw some broad categories as to the causes. Let's say three of the main causes are: domestic partner violence, suicide, and street crime. From there we either take what we already know about how to address these problems, or gather more data. Let's say stronger laws surrounding people who abuse their spouses, coupled with better counseling and education. For suicide prevention, the UK was able to lower their suicide rate by changing the packaging on ibuprofen, maybe put bullets in blister packs. For street crime, maybe a stronger social safety net, decriminalizing drugs, and increasing welfare.

After steps were taken, the CDC could do a follow-up study to see if any of their preventative measures worked.
NIJ has done much of the research you are looking for.

  #56  
Old 05-15-2019, 09:08 AM
l0k1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
Maybe we should start enacting policy based on it then.
  #57  
Old 05-15-2019, 10:57 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,464
We need to keep doing what we have been doing the last 25 years that have seen the rates of gun violence plummet. The biggest public policy reason is data driven policing that puts police in the areas they are needed most and targets the most dangerous criminals.
  #58  
Old 05-15-2019, 12:57 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
I don't think your prediction is likely. Are the bullies going to claim they were being bullied by probably smaller weaker students?
I think that's a lot more likely than expecting that bullies are going to confess that they were bullying and accept the consequences.

I have a lot of experience dealing with people breaking rules. And I've found that even in the face of clear evidence, they'll generally offer wildly implausible stories rather than admit their guilt.
  #59  
Old 05-15-2019, 03:00 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 536
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschrodinger View Post
It seems to me that Hollywood made a big shift from showing smoking as ubiquitous and cool to either not showing it, or putting it in a different light. I think it could be possible for Hollywood and other media to portray guns in a way that would change gun culture. One minor step would just be more realistic portrayals.
This reminds me of that post-credits scene in one of the Austin Powers movies where people are mourning all the anonymous henchmen who died during the heroic defeat of Dr. Evil.

Imagine a Bourne or Taken movie where, after an early shootout, we follow not the hero but a wounded bystander through the excruciating pain, heroic medical care and prolonged recovery resulting from a single bullet wound. Of course, that movie would tank at the box office so its influence would be negligible.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #60  
Old 05-16-2019, 09:11 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 17,542
A question I have, and didn't find a really straight-up answer to, is how much gun violence outside of suicide is committed by otherwise law-abiding people who are cleared to buy guns (i.e. not so mentally ill that they fail NICS, or convicted felons), versus people who shouldn't have guns in the first place?

That seems like the most pertinent question here- if it's really a matter of certain demographics using illegal guns, then that's a very different problem to solve than something more societally pervasive.

For example, it seems that targeting policies and education toward the black community, and in particular toward black men might pay dividends versus worrying about rednecks out in the country, according to this fact sheet. Not because there's anything inherently problematic about black men (not trying to be racist here), but because something like 6% of the population accounts for nearly 40% of the murders in the country, while the other 94% accounts for the other 60%. That's absolutely staggering, IMO, and I have a feeling that our collective hesitance to be perceived as racist is something that's preventing this from being addressed effectively.
  #61  
Old 05-16-2019, 09:23 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
A question I have, and didn't find a really straight-up answer to, is how much gun violence outside of suicide is committed by otherwise law-abiding people who are cleared to buy guns (i.e. not so mentally ill that they fail NICS, or convicted felons), versus people who shouldn't have guns in the first place?

That seems like the most pertinent question here- if it's really a matter of certain demographics using illegal guns, then that's a very different problem to solve than something more societally pervasive.

For example, it seems that targeting policies and education toward the black community, and in particular toward black men might pay dividends versus worrying about rednecks out in the country, according to this fact sheet. Not because there's anything inherently problematic about black men (not trying to be racist here), but because something like 6% of the population accounts for nearly 40% of the murders in the country, while the other 94% accounts for the other 60%. That's absolutely staggering, IMO, and I have a feeling that our collective hesitance to be perceived as racist is something that's preventing this from being addressed effectively.
According to a BJS source of the guns prisoners had on them during a crime 10% were obtained via a retail purchase, 25.3% were obtained from a friend or relative, 43% were bought off the underground markets 6.4% were stolen, and 17% were obtained in other ways.

Presumably almost all of the 10% purchased at retail were legal purchases and some portion of the 25% purchased from family and friends were legal purchases.
  #62  
Old 05-16-2019, 10:33 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
A question I have, and didn't find a really straight-up answer to, is how much gun violence outside of suicide is committed by otherwise law-abiding people who are cleared to buy guns (i.e. not so mentally ill that they fail NICS, or convicted felons), versus people who shouldn't have guns in the first place?
I previously read the cite that puddleglum provided, though I'm not sure how much I would extrapolate from that. What is known is that the rate of firearm homicide and homicide in general tends to cluster in areas and is not nearly evenly distributed. This is a good article that describes this with lots of infographics I found compelling.

Quote:
Half of America's gun homicides in 2015 were clustered in just 127 cities and towns, according to a new geographic analysis by the Guardian, even though they contain less than a quarter of the nation’s population.

...

Four and a half million Americans live in areas of these cities with the highest numbers of gun homicide, which are marked by intense poverty, low levels of education, and racial segregation. Geographically, these neighborhood areas are small: a total of about 1,200 neighborhood census tracts, which, laid side by side, would fit into an area just 42 miles wide by 42 miles long.

The problem they face is devastating. Though these neighborhood areas contain just 1.5% of the country’s population, they saw 26% of America’s total gun homicides.

...

In Chicago, analysts working with police department data found that, over a six-year period, 70% of nonfatal shootings and 46% of gun homicides happened within a sprawling social network that included just 6% of Chicago’s total population.

Similar analyses in Oakland and New Orleans found even smaller percentages of residents driving the majority of the violence. In Oakland, analysts found that networks of just 1,000 to 1,200 high-risk people, about .3% of Oakland’s population, were involved in about 60% of the city’s murders. In New Orleans, just 600 to 700 people, less than 1% of the city’s population, were involved in more than 50% of fatal incidents.
  #63  
Old 05-16-2019, 10:43 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
A question I have, and didn't find a really straight-up answer to, is how much gun violence outside of suicide is committed by otherwise law-abiding people who are cleared to buy guns (i.e. not so mentally ill that they fail NICS, or convicted felons), versus people who shouldn't have guns in the first place?
Not specific to gun violence, but -
Quote:
* Thirty-six percent of violent felons had an active
criminal justice status at the time of their arrest.
This included 18% on probation, 12% on release
pending disposition of a prior case, and 7% on
parole.

* Seventy percent of violent felons had a prior arrest
record, and 57% had at least one prior arrest for a
felony. Sixty-seven percent of murderers and 73% of
those convicted of robbery or assault had an arrest
record.

* A majority (56%) of violent felons had a prior
conviction record. Thirty-eight percent had a prior
felony conviction and 15% had a previous conviction
for a violent felony.
Cite. If that is what you are asking.

Regards,
Shodan
  #64  
Old 05-16-2019, 10:49 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 60,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Not specific to gun violence...
You're right-it isn't.
  #65  
Old 05-16-2019, 01:41 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,936
Very good that you read the post. Did you have better figures to answer bump's question?

While you're at it, feel free to read the highlighted portion of this
Quote:
...otherwise law-abiding people who are cleared to buy guns (i.e. not so mentally ill that they fail NICS, or convicted felons)...
I'm not sure if I can explain how people who are convicted of felonies are "convicted felons", so for that part, you are on your own.

Regards,
Shodan
  #66  
Old 05-16-2019, 02:34 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 17,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I previously read the cite that puddleglum provided, though I'm not sure how much I would extrapolate from that. What is known is that the rate of firearm homicide and homicide in general tends to cluster in areas and is not nearly evenly distributed. This is a good article that describes this with lots of infographics I found compelling.
That's exactly the sort of thing I'm curious about- it seems like the sort of hardcore gun crime that drives the statistics is extremely concentrated in certain areas and certain people.

That's where the majority of the effort should be placed. What forms those efforts should take, I don't know.

I hesitate to endorse the idea that ready availability of guns is a significant part of the problem- they're no MORE readily available in those areas than anywhere else in the country, yet gun crime rates everywhere else are considerably lower. That sort of points to regulating guns as a band-aid type solution that doesn't treat any of the underlying causes, and that doesn't even really stem the bleeding because a majority of the guns aren't bought through channels amenable to being regulated by the legal system.
  #67  
Old 05-16-2019, 02:41 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Why do you think that private businesses couldn't elect to post "no guns allowed" signs?
They do. Does it do any good?

Was in Kansas for a funeral last year. Apparently the law there is that if a business doesn't have such a sign, you have the legal right to bring your gun inside.

I can tell you that it's very weird to see a sign like that on a mortuary.

So back to my question: there are places where such signs are the norm. Do they do any good?
  #68  
Old 05-16-2019, 02:48 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Well, the rate of firearm deaths has been cut in half from the early 90s.

https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-conte...-crime-1-2.png

Potential causes of the decline include things like easy access to abortion and removal of lead from gasoline.
There is still a lot of lead around from the days when it was in gasoline, paint, pipes, etc. (The lead from gasoline is still abundant in soil near highways. In urban areas in particular (play areas in rural areas don't tend to be next to highways), kids play in the dirt, ingest the lead, etc.)

One possibility is a committed national program of lead removal from dirt, paint, etc.
  #69  
Old 05-16-2019, 07:58 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
For an off-the-wall idea, instead of trying to crack down on student bullying, why not encourage student fighting, i.e. the teacher says "if someone is bullying you, you have the right to defend yourself with physical but not deadly force." You may get more fistfights but fewer shootings.
I agree. The problem with anti-bullying initiatives is that children grow up without learning how to deal with bullies and instead rely on the teachers to do it for them. Bullies are wimps. Pop them once in the nose and they will find someone else to screw with. We all learned that in the 80s/90s, but today that is frowned upon.
  #70  
Old 05-16-2019, 08:26 PM
Lubricious Integument is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southern Indiana
Posts: 276
Sex education classes in school seem to help reduce rates of teenage pregnancy and STDs.

Maybe firearms education in school could help reduce firearm related violence.
  #71  
Old 05-16-2019, 09:47 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,173
Something more or less free- define "gun dealer" by law. Make it say, 12 guns a year. if you sell or transfer more than 12 guns a year, you are a dealer and must register as one, and must do background checks on all sales. Totally legal and constitutional. The non-NRA gun owners wouldn't oppose it either.

Harris was talking about doing something like this, but either she misspoke or she didn't understand the way the current federal laws work.


This would put a stop to many "straw man sales", where guys go in, buy legally hundreds of guns a year, then sell them out of their trunks (and no not so much at gun shows, but I am sure that has happened) .

This would close 90% of the so-called "gun show loophole". It would leave as legal things like a widow being allowed to own her husbands guns, or a father giving one to his son on his 18th birthday, or a couple of collectors trading a gun or two.
  #72  
Old 05-16-2019, 09:48 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lubricious Integument View Post
Sex education classes in school seem to help reduce rates of teenage pregnancy and STDs.

Maybe firearms education in school could help reduce firearm related violence.
That wouldn't be a bad idea, and would certainly reduce gun accidents.
  #73  
Old 05-16-2019, 10:14 PM
Sitnam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,012
Mental health has always been an issue, our culture and gun availability mean mental outrages can be more destructive.

Diagnosing and caring for people with mental issues is cost effective. Whatever a seeming increase in cost now will be rewarded in a productive citizen in the future or at least less cost in care for a net advantage. Same reason we educate people with Down's Syndrome. It is practical, it is also humane. Also, less school shootings. So, bonus.
  #74  
Old 05-16-2019, 10:15 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 43,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lubricious Integument View Post
Sex education classes in school seem to help reduce rates of teenage pregnancy and STDs.

Maybe firearms education in school could help reduce firearm related violence.
So, remember that recent synagogue shooting, where the guy only killed one person because his gun jammed?

I'm not sure teaching that guy how to clear a jam faster would have improved things.
  #75  
Old 05-17-2019, 07:12 AM
Lubricious Integument is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southern Indiana
Posts: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
So, remember that recent synagogue shooting, where the guy only killed one person because his gun jammed?

I'm not sure teaching that guy how to clear a jam faster would have improved things.
I'm not sure firearms education includes topics like "Chapter 3: How to clear a jam faster"
  #76  
Old 05-17-2019, 07:21 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Something more or less free- define "gun dealer" by law. Make it say, 12 guns a year. if you sell or transfer more than 12 guns a year, you are a dealer and must register as one, and must do background checks on all sales. Totally legal and constitutional. The non-NRA gun owners wouldn't oppose it either.
I think this meets the OP's definition of gun control, but I question our ability to let a private person sell a fixed number of guns without a background check or other documentation, and still ensure that they don't sell more than 12 in a year.

There's a trick to this, and I know this because I recently served on a Grand Jury. In order for the police to charge you with selling drugs, they have to observe you in the act of selling drugs, and can only charge you with the exact amount of drugs they observed you selling. Instead, they usually charge someone with "possession with the intent to distribute" which does not require direct observation of a deal, just confirmation that you possess illegal drugs.

For guns, without documentation of every sale, the police would have to directly observe you selling more than 12 guns, in order to charge you with selling more than 12 guns in a year. Given that guns aren't sold in bunches, that's unlikely, and there is no such thing as possession with intent to sell for guns.

If background checks are a valid way to ensure that criminals don't get guns, make them required for all sales.

Last edited by Cheesesteak; 05-17-2019 at 07:21 AM.
  #77  
Old 05-17-2019, 01:44 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
I think this meets the OP's definition of gun control, but I question our ability to let a private person sell a fixed number of guns without a background check or other documentation, and still ensure that they don't sell more than 12 in a year.

There's a trick to this, and I know this because I recently served on a Grand Jury. In order for the police to charge you with selling drugs, they have to observe you in the act of selling drugs, and can only charge you with the exact amount of drugs they observed you selling. Instead, they usually charge someone with "possession with the intent to distribute" which does not require direct observation of a deal, just confirmation that you possess illegal drugs.

For guns, without documentation of every sale, the police would have to directly observe you selling more than 12 guns, in order to charge you with selling more than 12 guns in a year. Given that guns aren't sold in bunches, that's unlikely, and there is no such thing as possession with intent to sell for guns.

If background checks are a valid way to ensure that criminals don't get guns, make them required for all sales.
The ATF already knows most of these miscreants. But no, here's all you have to do- finds some 20 guns used by criminals in crimes, track them to Mr Strawman. Now, he can say he sold them- in which case he has violated my new proposed law. Or he becomes a suspect in those murders.

In any case, a ATF undercover agent or three would simply buy over a dozen guns in a short period, and viola!


The reason why we shouldn't make them required for all sales is that private persons cant do background checks, thus all gun sales have to go thru a dealer, who often charges large sums.

Last edited by DrDeth; 05-17-2019 at 01:45 PM.
  #78  
Old 05-17-2019, 02:26 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
The ATF already knows most of these miscreants. But no, here's all you have to do- finds some 20 guns used by criminals in crimes, track them to Mr Strawman. Now, he can say he sold them- in which case he has violated my new proposed law. Or he becomes a suspect in those murders.

In any case, a ATF undercover agent or three would simply buy over a dozen guns in a short period, and viola!
This can work, though it's a lot of law enforcement time and effort. I'd be in favor of doing it regardless of any other efforts.
Quote:
The reason why we shouldn't make them required for all sales is that private persons cant do background checks, thus all gun sales have to go thru a dealer, who often charges large sums.
While they often charge large sums, there's no reason they can't be prevented from charging large sums as part of their license agreement. Conceptually, a dealer should be able to run a profitable side business of providing background checks without charging an outrageous fee.

It should also be possible, at least conceivable, for a person to get a background check that lasts longer than a single transaction. I get a background check, it's good for the next 90 days. That way, at least, one wouldn't need a new check for every purchase. Just enter the details of the approval in the transfer form.
  #79  
Old 05-17-2019, 02:35 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
The ATF already knows most of these miscreants. But no, here's all you have to do- finds some 20 guns used by criminals in crimes, track them to Mr Strawman. Now, he can say he sold them- in which case he has violated my new proposed law. Or he becomes a suspect in those murders.

In any case, a ATF undercover agent or three would simply buy over a dozen guns in a short period, and viola!


The reason why we shouldn't make them required for all sales is that private persons cant do background checks, thus all gun sales have to go thru a dealer, who often charges large sums.
Strawman purchases are already illegal, no need to change the law to go after them, only need to change level of proprietorial zeal.
  #80  
Old 05-17-2019, 02:48 PM
Brayne Ded is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Are there ways to effect the rate of gun violence without going anywhere near the gun control controversy?
Judging by the replies, no. And looking at the question, it's an inherent problem when discussing the issue.

Any talk about "underlying issues" risks becoming a load of feel-good mush in no time at all. Or tptally off the wall. How about listing some of these issues? My brain is stuck and I can't think of any.

As for the OP, gun control provokes controversy in the USA. Mainly because the pro-gun crowd quickly - and perhaps deliberately - confuse gun control with gun prohibition. Thanks to the loosely worded Second Amendment that pro-gun lawyers can interpret as they please, this obscures the fact that gun controil is in fact a good idea. I am surprised to read that a gun shop can sell a gun by default if the background check is not completed within 3 days, etc., and that the checks seem to be very perfunctory in some cases.

Gun control does not affect criminals, of course, since they use <gasp> illegal channels. But it seems like a good idea to me to keep guns out of the hands of weirdos by carrying out proper background checks.

Having said that, I'll prepare for sacks of hate e-mail written in virtual purple ink.
  #81  
Old 05-17-2019, 05:11 PM
Lubricious Integument is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southern Indiana
Posts: 276
I have another thought but I'm not sure how it will stand against gun control arguments.

Every gun in the United States should be uniquely identifiable and registered to an owner. Given that gun ownership is a right, not a privilege, this may run afoul of 2nd amendment arguments. Let's proceed anyway.

You are personally responsible for any damages caused by the use of guns registered to you. Medical bills can hit the $100K+ range in a hurry. Be careful with those things.

If your gun was stolen, you had better report the theft and unregister that gun before your stolen stolen is used in a crime. That's the responsibility of gun ownership. Do you remember the old ads "It is 10pm. Do you know where your kids are?" We could just as well run ads that ask "It is 10pm. Do you know where your guns are?"

If you commit a crime in possession of an unregistered gun you go to jail forever.

There will be plenty of room once we let non-violent drug abusers out en masse. Fill the jails with people who actually pose a threat to society.

Last edited by Lubricious Integument; 05-17-2019 at 05:14 PM.
  #82  
Old 05-17-2019, 05:17 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lubricious Integument View Post
... If you commit a crime in possession of an unregistered gun you go to jail forever. ....
This would almost certainly have a very disparate impact on different racial groups. Are you comfortable with that?
  #83  
Old 05-17-2019, 05:25 PM
Lubricious Integument is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southern Indiana
Posts: 276
The problem is that universal gun registration doesn't currently exist, so the transformation will certainly take time. I don't know when the deadline for the no tolerance policy should begin, nor how different groups will be affected.

Last edited by Lubricious Integument; 05-17-2019 at 05:26 PM.
  #84  
Old 05-17-2019, 06:28 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 58,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This would almost certainly have a very disparate impact on different racial groups. Are you comfortable with that?
Surely. Would you give a "get out of jail" ticket to a group of people because of their race?
  #85  
Old 05-17-2019, 07:00 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I agree. The problem with anti-bullying initiatives is that children grow up without learning how to deal with bullies and instead rely on the teachers to do it for them. Bullies are wimps. Pop them once in the nose and they will find someone else to screw with. We all learned that in the 80s/90s, but today that is frowned upon.
The fact that bullies are wimps means they're not interested in a fair fight. Bullies pick on people who are smaller and weaker than them. If bullies want to pick on somebody who isn't small or weak, they'll make sure that they bring along two or three fellow bullies so they've got a numerical advantage. So punching back at somebody in those circumstances is just going to get you beat up. And it will mark you as somebody they'll want to keep targeting in the future.
  #86  
Old 05-17-2019, 07:15 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abatis View Post
I'm all for controlling the hand that uses the gun . . .

1) Enforce with vigor laws criminalizing the violent misuse of firearms; don't use weapons offenses as bargaining chips to be thrown out for guilty pleas for other charges and never allow the pleading down of felony gun charges to misdemeanors and no accelerated dispensation with expungement for gun offenses.

2) Mandate full time sentenced to be served for any violent misuse of a firearm.

3) Mandatory enhanced sentences for repeat offenders / felon in possession.

4) Absolutely, finally, mandate states and all federal agencies who adjudicate, to flag all 922(g) prohibited persons (including all qualifying mental issues - HIPPA be damned). and this be reported every other week to the FBI NICS and all states – with civil action exposure and criminal liability for dereliction of this duty.

5) Increase funding for parole/probation programs for enforcement of conditions of release and tightening of controls on those under conditional release and oversight of the boards responsible for early release.

6) Increase funding for states / cities for FTA & fugitive recovery with a priority on violent offenders.

.
I don't really think this would have much of an effect. People like to believe that prisons are a revolving door but that's not true for serious crimes. The people who go in and out of prison are the ones getting arrested for crimes like dealing drugs or theft or maybe minor assault. If you get convicted of murdering somebody, you're generally going to be put away for a long time.

What percentage of people who are arrested for murder have been previously arrested for murder? I looked online and I couldn't find it but I have a feeling it's a very low number - maybe around one or two percent of murders are committed by people who have a history of murder convictions.

That means if you took everyone who was convicted of murder and locked them up for the rest of their life (or executed them) you'd only reduce the overall murder rate by that one or two percent.
  #87  
Old 05-17-2019, 07:18 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 60,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I agree. The problem with anti-bullying initiatives is that children grow up without learning how to deal with bullies and instead rely on the teachers to do it for them. Bullies are wimps. Pop them once in the nose and they will find someone else to screw with. We all learned that in the 80s/90s, but today that is frowned upon.
This is absolute crap that got a lot of kids hurt. Bullies are bullies because they have no trouble whatsoever beating the crap out of others at the slightest provocation.
  #88  
Old 05-17-2019, 07:32 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,769

Moderating


Enough with the discussion of "gun control" laws. The OP asked for other options to reduce gun violence.

[ /Moderating ]
  #89  
Old 05-17-2019, 07:39 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I agree. The problem with anti-bullying initiatives is that children grow up without learning how to deal with bullies and instead rely on the teachers to do it for them. Bullies are wimps. Pop them once in the nose and they will find someone else to screw with. We all learned that in the 80s/90s, but today that is frowned upon.
I am not sure what "we" you are addressing, but I have not found that to be universally true. I will agree that very many bullies are cowards, but I have known enough with other issues who would take a "pop in the nose" as a reason to simply go underground with their bullying. And approving a "pop in the nose" to someone who has not yet gone physical in their bullying simply gives the bully an excuse to retaliate and then accuse their victim of being the bully.
  #90  
Old 05-17-2019, 08:04 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
You mean he's STILL here?
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 25,715
Here's the average 2nd Amendment rights point of view:

Just enforce the laws already on the books!
  #91  
Old 05-17-2019, 11:18 PM
Sitnam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
Here's the average 2nd Amendment rights point of view:

Just enforce the laws already on the books!
Why aren’t they enforced? I wonder who would object to enforcing them?
  #92  
Old 05-17-2019, 11:44 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
Here's the average 2nd Amendment rights point of view:

Just enforce the laws already on the books!
What laws supposedly aren't being enforced?
  #93  
Old 05-18-2019, 10:57 AM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Strawman purchases are already illegal, no need to change the law to go after them, only need to change level of proprietorial zeal.
But it's hard to prove a strawman. Some guy buys 20 AR15s, then sells then off. Did he buy them for a person who couldnt buy a gun themselves? or did he buy them looking to make some bucks? The reason is critical. That's why my law would make these underground dealers either register or go out of business.
  #94  
Old 05-18-2019, 11:00 AM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brayne Ded View Post
Judging by the replies, no. And looking at the question, it's an inherent problem when discussing the issue.
...I am surprised to read that a gun shop can sell a gun by default if the background check is not completed within 3 days, etc., and that the checks seem to be very perfunctory in some cases.

Gun control does not affect criminals, of course, since they use <gasp> illegal channels. ....
My method would work, even the ATF sez so.

The background check goes to the FBI and it's all automated, it shoudl take minutes, not days. There isnt some guy checking records.

Yes, and strawman sales are illegal and my method would make it easier for the ATF to stop them.
  #95  
Old 05-18-2019, 11:03 AM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,173
nm

Last edited by DrDeth; 05-18-2019 at 11:04 AM.
  #96  
Old 05-19-2019, 09:05 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
For an off-the-wall idea, instead of trying to crack down on student bullying, why not encourage student fighting, i.e. the teacher says "if someone is bullying you, you have the right to defend yourself with physical but not deadly force." You may get more fistfights but fewer shootings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I agree. The problem with anti-bullying initiatives is that children grow up without learning how to deal with bullies and instead rely on the teachers to do it for them. Bullies are wimps. Pop them once in the nose and they will find someone else to screw with. We all learned that in the 80s/90s, but today that is frowned upon.
My elementary and middle school days were >50 years ago, back in the days when you were on your own against bullies, so I certainly had the right to defend myself against bullies with physical force if they attacked me, and had as much option to pop them in the nose as they had to do the same thing to me.

The problem was, it was futile. There were no rules keeping me from defending myself; the problem was, they were bigger and stronger, and my efforts to fight back didn't present a meaningful obstacle to them. I'd have loved to pop them on the nose, but I wasn't able to.
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 12:05 AM.

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 © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017