Is now a good time to talk about gun safety laws?

Great Debates
21

You stated this very clearly and (mostly) fairly, which is rare in gun debates, so thank you for that.

I love to go shooting on weekend mornings the way some people like to golf or bowl or jog. Nothing like shredding paper targets for an hour or two to erase the stresses of the week. And yet…I see nothing wrong with some curb on gun ownership. (Perhaps I am a unicorn.)

That being said, it’s next to impossible to have a rational discussion about it with any of my fellow enthusiasts. They see every tiny incremental motion towards any type of new regulations as the first step towards a wholesale confiscation of every firearm they own as the very next move that will be taken. This is not an exaggeration. If you want a five day waiting period instead of a three day waiting period then you’ll have to pry it from their cold, dead hands.

That makes it incredibly difficult, if not completely impossible, to even have a rational discussion. That’s unfortunate, because I think if most gun owners didn’t have such knee-jerk meltdowns when gun safety is brought up then they’d have some very good ideas about responsible gun ownership.

My opinion is that mental health is at the root of most mass shootings. I also think if they didn’t use a gun then they’d use a bat or a knife or a bomb. But a gun does make it easier and perhaps deadlier, so we blame the gun. That whole “guns don’t kill, people do” is absolutely true, but perhaps we can do more to make sure that people who are likely to kill don’t have a gun to help them.

Red flag laws could be a good thing, as long as some care is taken that they aren’t abused, for example, by an enemy making up stories just to “get back at” someone. Almost every person responsible for a mass shooting event in the last few decades has been revealed to have exhibited multiple “red flag” behaviors in their pasts. Of course, that leads to questions of what is disqualifying behavior and according to whom? How long will it be disqualifying? Tricky questions. That doesn’t mean the whole concept is bad, but implementation might be sticky.

There are no easy answers, and sadly there can’t even be conversation when people can’t talk calmly about their positions.

22

Nickolas Kristof has a good Piece on How to Reduce Shootings column that he sadly updates far too often.

First thing we can do is to fund the CDC to research firearm deaths as the epidemic that they are. There is a shocking lack of research into firearm shootings, and good data and good studies are the first step. The NRA has neutered the CDC from studying this.

Rather than rathole on very thin evidence that the CDC are gun grabbers, I’d be happy to see other non-partisan groups be funded as well.

As MulderMuffin writes above, when the NRA and it’s zombie army decides that not allowing bi-polar schizophrenics to own a firearm will end in gun grabbing concentration camps by 2022, then there is no discourse.

23

I’m with @Muldermuffin here, as a gun owner who enjoys target shooting, and firmly believes that the owner has the responsibility to have sufficient training and the ability to secure his firearms. Which is why I have a CCW (although I rarely carry after I stopped working a night shift at a local pharmacy) and have taken 2 state approved firearms safety courses, and have a full sized vault style gun safe.

Having said that, I feel that other than the kneejerk reactions to any controls that MM already mentioned, there are several other issues that plague the minds of the hardcore gun enthusiasts. One, whether or not its true about gun grabs, they believe it. Just as with the Rightwinger’s absurd demands and outrages, the most extreme gun grabber dialogues are what get the media attention. Which makes it very easy for those already stuck on a factually deprived Fox News diet to assume everyone else on the left believes the same.

Second, is the financial aspect: let’s say we as a nation had a wake up moment, and passed a Constitutional amendment banning private firearm ownership. And we aren’t going to do the current hodgepodge where pre-existing firearms aren’t grandfathered in. So . . . is the government going to buy back all firearms, ammunition, reloading supplies, etc at fair market value (prior to the ban) to destroy them? Because in a 2018 article for WaPo, they estimated just shy of 400 million firearms are owned in the US. That’s . . . a lot, since even a cheapist gun runs $200+ to $5000 or more at the high end. And then everything else I mentioned. Could it be done? Sure, but it’ll be expensive, and that’s not counting a good faith effort to compensate manufacturers, retailers, sporting goods companies and the like.

So that gets us back to the OPs point of control - not banning, but making sure of the safety of not only the gun owner, but those who the gun owner could put at risk, both by active malice, and passive negligence. And here I think we have a lot of range to work with, but again, we get the horrible squishy people factor. Many gun laws that do pass are based on looking good rather than good arguments. To chose one example, I live in CO (yes, I know people in Boulder, and no, they weren’t hurt thank the FSM), and after the Dark Knight shooting, they passed . . . a magazine limit size. Didn’t deal with pre-existing larger magazines, and they picked 15 rounds. Why 15 . . . well, there was no reason provided. From what I can gather from LEO and security, they weren’t even consulted.
For me, it was a minor issue, since I only had one firearm (a pistol that was 17 rnd standard) in that range, but I still ended up selling it to buy a different one I could replace the mags in. But why 15? Why not 12, or 10, or 20? There isn’t science involved. A similar issue is when people argue about Assault Rifle bans. I don’t own an AR platform, but I do have a lovely blue steel and wood Ruger Ranch 14. It’s a semi-auto in .223/5.56 with a box mag, so functionally the same as an AR, but no one finds it threatening (ok, so it’s not tactikool as some would say, but the point remains).

We need more substance, and more science involved in the mess, and that’s where like MM people like I get hammered. If we talk with our liberal friends about the possibilities of responsible gun ownership, we tend to get yelled at as ‘just as bad as the rest of the gun nuts’. If we talk to fellow shooters, we get (more?) grief that we want a common sense compromise. Thus we often keep our heads down.

Now one thing that is going to be interesting over the next few years is the massive surge in first time gun owners after the protests of the past year and COVID means that for the first time, there is a large number of concerned gun owners that otherwise skew liberal. Is it going to change the overall attitudes? I don’t know.

Lastly, what would I do if I had political influence? Well, I am all for mandatory federal gun registration - I have a detailed list w/serial numbers already on record for my Homeowner’s insurance, because theft’s a more realistic worry to me than a national gun grab. I wouldn’t mind a mandatory 2 hour safety class as a requirement to purchase a new firearm unless you can provide proof of one, or military/LEO background BUT I would require that it be provided frequently and at government expense, as to not provide undue burden on the purchaser - in person would be ideal, but online or pre-recorded instruction with tests would be an easier option. I am also of the opinion that using a firearm during a crime should be a multiplier to sentence - the ease of use and preplanning involved should at least automatically demand the higher levels of any sentencing range at a minimum.
And I strongly feel that it is in no way a burden on a gun owner to own a trigger lock or safe for their firearms for when they are not physically on the body. And that there should be serious legal penalties for an owner whose firearms is used in an shooting without their knowledge - whether it be by their child, friend etc. If you aren’t responsible for pulling the trigger, then you better be ready for a charge of criminal negligence.

Lastly (I know this is a book), I do not have the medical training to pass judgement on where the mental health evaluation threshold should be. I do feel there should be one, and I share MM’s concern that it is ripe for abuse as well, so there should be language in any law where the accusing party in a red-flag situation should be liable for a small/token fine paid to the owner if an evaluation does not bear out. Personally, when I read that the Boulder shooter had a previous conviction for violent assault that was pled down to a misdemeanor, I felt that was a huge miss for the system. But that’s another book.

24

What sort of gun control do you propose?

25

This is why I think it’s a mistake for them to try to push an “assault weapons” ban at the same time as the enhanced background checks. If a category of weapons - a very popular category - is outright banned, suddenly the background checks no longer apply to it. It’ll just go underground on the black market. People will still hoard illegal AR-15s and every so often, someone will use one to kill a bunch of people - a weapon that they might very well have been flagged for trying to buy, if it had been legal, and had they had a record of violence.

26

Rarely do those arrest end up as big cases, and Knife companies dont have deep pockets.

Usually the just take away the knife and let the guy go, maybe with a citation.

Unless he is a wanted felon or on probation or a gang member, etc.

Not to mention things like a switchblade certainly arent “militia”.

So, no cases have gone forward AFAIK.

27

I’m quoting this part because that’s what I’m responding to directly, but it also has relevance to the rest of your post (the mention of Heller, etc.).

First of all, Heller was a controversial 5-4 judgment in which a conservative majority prevailed against the vociferous and well-articulated dissent of the minority – that minority, not so incidentally, articulating views that are the foundation of gun laws in virtually the whole of the civilized world. It would be futile to dispute that Heller is now a matter of settled law in the US, at least for the foreseeable future, but there is ample room for dispute about whether it was rational or well-considered or good jurisprudence.

Among its many problems was its frivolous dismissal of the "militia’ clause which most constitutional scholars believe to be central to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, but that’s not the argument I want to raise here. The “flintlock musket” argument is far from frivolous. Unlike most fundamental rights, the 2nd Amendment is at its core an assertion of a right to a certain technology. If the US Constitution had been written before the invention of gunpowder, it would not have existed, or it would have been framed in terms of spears or a bow and arrow. And if it had been written in modern times, when warfare and and national defense are completely different from that of the 18th century, and when weapons available to individuals are far more deadly than the founders could ever have imagined, then one might equally imagine that the 2nd Amendment would never have been written.

Much the same applies to your example of free speech and television and the internet, which doesn’t support your argument – it undermines it. Free speech is a great thing and all modern constitutions guarantee it. But few if any outside the US take an absolutist view of it. Again, looking back to the times when this Amendment was written, the ability to communicate to a mass audience was extremely limited, and such means as there were to do that were print enterprises with high barriers to entry. Even as recently as a handful of decades ago, the barriers to mass media like newspapers and radio and television broadcasting were high, and broadcasters were regulated and expected to adhere to set standards.

Today the internet allows anyone to become a self-proclaimed font of political guidance, spreading lies and misinformation with complete impunity. Dark money and astroturfing pervades the internet to warp public opinion to a degree that is absolutely toxic and dangerous to democracy.

So to combine these two points, you now have a country in which gun violence is rampant and absolutely out of control, and a country which purports to be a democracy but in which voters are so grossly ignorant and misinformed about major issues that they’re incapable of self-governance. The result of which is that federal and state governments have largely become dysfunctional, dominated by corruption and special interests, and voters constantly casting ballots against their own interests. So I have absolutely no patience with those who try to philosophically wonder how this state of affairs came about.

28

I propose that we examine the possibility of lessening the ability of iffy individuals to obtain firearms, instead of proposing that every other fucking problem on Earth be solved permanently before even considering bringing up the phrase “gun control” in a conversation.

29

That is a big focus. So is banning “assault weapons”.

Do note there is no such thing as a “gun show loophole” If you are a dealer at a gun show your sales must follow all applicable laws. If you are NOT a dealer, in most states you can make a private sale without any paperwork. It is really a ban on private sales. But “gun show loophole” sounds better, even tho it is complete bullshit. I am open to making private sale go thru background checks on two conditions- they make a fixed and reasonable cost, say $25- and they exclude transfers to close relatives or thru death.

The most important thing to do and Biden can do this with a order, is define “dealer” to get rid of “strawman” illegal ‘dealers’. They are the second biggest source for criminal’s guns, after theft.

I’d say define “dealer” as anyone who sells more than a dozen guns a year. That number is not hard and fast, I’d be willing to discuss it.

30

  1. No the CDC is absolutely the wrong people. It is a criminal matter, you need criminologists & sociologists- not doctors. And the last study by the CDC was totally and completely biased with the result a foregone conclusion.

  2. The CDC can indeed make such studies even now. What they cant do is advocate or promote gun control which they did previously.

"…17 year ban which stipulates, quite appropriately, that none of CDC’s federal financing can be used to advocate or promote gun control…exactly what CDC was originally doing."

31

How, precisely, would you do that? What laws would you propose?

32

Get back to me when you start questioning posts like this:

with the same “enthusiasm”.
:roll_eyes:

33

I should point out that when I responded to that in my post #7, when I said:

Health care is an extremely imperfect science and the idea that individuals that pose a risk to society can reliably be identified is pure fantasy. The idea that they can be reliably treated is, if anything, even more fantastical.

… I hope it was obvious that I was talking about “mental health care” being an extremely imperfect science. As I trust was amply clear from the other two points I made.

The idea that mental health treatment is going to solve gun violence problems is one of the most laughably ridiculous propositions ever advanced in this debate, and of course belied by all the data in the rest of the world. It’s just so ridiculously at odds with any realistic interpretation of what mental illness really is, and even more importantly, what’s really at the root of the proliferation of gun violence.

34

I proposed that we have an open discussion about the possibility. Do I really need to propose a law to have that discussion??

35

How about this?
You can only purchase a gun one time every two years. It can only be a Tuesday in November. You must go and wait in line. There is only one place in your county. You must have multiple forms of ID. No one can give you water while you wait.

36

It is always a good time to talk. It is always a good time to talk about most everything.

37

Fucking Bravo.

38

You must be quite upset about the state of the Fourth Amendment these days.

39

I understand from the supporters of an expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment that an armed society is a polite society.

We keep on having more and more guns in this country. When does the politeness kick in?

40

Rather than one liners or just asking questions, I dont think it is unreasonable to ask a poster, here in GD what their stance is, what their ideas are.