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

Great Debates
61

Oh, I wasn’t offended, please pardon me if it sounded that way, just wanted to point out that other forces concentrated gun ownership, and didn’t want others to automatically equate owns a ton of guns = gun nut. :slight_smile:

Again, if all sides are to have an understanding, it’s important to think beyond a single metric regarding gun ownership, quantity, type, etc. And yeah, just like I mentioned with Magic, or any hobby, collectors are often happy people.

Oh, and since I didn’t make it clear, the gun owners = gun worshippers was directed towards RTF, because I’m wordy enough and didn’t want even more posts.

So your misunderstanding was the result of my lack of clarity, no harm, and no foul.

62

Thank you, great post, I concur.

63

When I was in grad school, my Operations Management professor asked what the “right” number of murders in NYC is. At the time, NYC was ticking off well over a thousand a year. Of course someone mentioned zero. He then asked us what kind of laws would we need to get to zero. Draconian is an understatement. The point being that the “right” number may simply be a number that won’t destroy society.

16,000 murders a year is awful not because even one is too many, but because it’s so much higher than it needs to be. So much higher than other countries, where people live healthy happy lives. It is actually possible to not have 10,000 gun related murders a year and still have freedom.

64

Oh, this is gonna be fun.

And what does that have to do with it? The people are still dead, and the pro-gun people have fought tooth and nail, for most of my lifetime, against anything that might reduce the carnage their hobby enables.

The blood is on their hands. They are the ones refusing to even chip away at the edges of the numbers of people they sacrifice to their evil god.

Now, on to your whatabout:

So, how does this work in the U.S. of A.? Who is forced to endure someone else’s second-hand smoke? Who is tied to a chair and forced to inhale all that tar and nicotine?

Forty years or so ago, it was like that: smoking was permitted everywhere from offices to airplanes. You couldn’t get away from second-hand smoke. But you know what happened in the meantime? We attacked the problem. Now unless you live with a smoker, nobody’s forcing you to breathe their second-hand smoke. You can walk away from it, in exactly the way you can’t from a bullet.

Now get back to me when you gun folks attack the problem of involuntary deaths due to guns.

65

Consider a world where civilian possession of guns was no longer a thing. Obviously every now and then a law enforcement officer, having professional access to guns, would kill someone outside the line of duty. But other than that, it would get us awfully close to zero. And it would only be draconian if living in a world without guns was something you found agonizing. If so, I pity you.

Seriously, what’s draconian about people no longer having guns?

66

Okay, please pause @RTFirefly, you’re doing @Cheesesteak a disservice in the way you categorize his quote. He specified getting Murders as a whole down to zero, not gun murders down to zero. He was absolutely talking about finding a a way to reduce gun related murders without draconian measures. So to directly quote his final line to you:

67

Senior citizens living with their kids, young children living at home, people who live over a smokers apartment.

But indeed, I have made very real and totally constitutional suggestions on how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Right here in this thread.

What are your solutions?

68

The United States Constitution. Not to mention the high cost of buying all those guns back. Not to mention the impossibility of confiscating all those guns.

I have suggested real workable solutions.

69

I like learning new jargon. Thanks!

70

If our Constitution says you can’t do X, it doesn’t make doing X draconian; it just makes it unconstitutional. (Mind you, I’m not conceding anything about the meaning of the Second Amendment here.) You’re confusing two very different things.

Sure, it’s high. Say each of those 400 million guns out there is worth a grand. That would be a $400B buyback. Steep, maybe, but not draconian.

Not to mention the impossibility of confiscating all those guns.

“X is impossible, so if it were possible, it would be draconian because it’s impossible.” OK then.

71

No, actually, you haven’t. The closest you came was

That was THE ONLY suggestion you had. All of your replies to other suggested changes have been “Nope, can’t do that.” or “Won’t work.” Why can’t we have registrations on existing weapons? Your car is registered; why not your gun? ParallelLines, a fellow collector with how many guns, is more than willing to register all of them. Has a list already for insurance and other purposes. I’d say his actions are above and beyond what I would call “responsible ownership”. I’m not saying that all gun owners need to go to that level,

You are correct that classes can’t be “$500 and held once a year in a undisclosed location”. Strawman argument - no one suggested that, and it was even part of the proposal that it be free or very low cost, possibly online. I will grant you that family gifts wouldn’t need the exchange to be registered; this is exactly the calm discussion of ideas that is often missing from these types of conversations.

72

He did also suggest the following:

However, without registration, proving that any private sale violated these rules is quite difficult. It’s still worth doing, as actual law abiding folks would be less likely to sell their guns directly to unsuitable people.

Without registration, proving that someone sold more than 12 guns a year is also very difficult. As is proving that someone didn’t get their gun from their dead grandpa, or living-and-willing-to-lie-to-keep-his-kid-out-of-jail father.

Without registration, guns are portable, concealable, untrackable, and unmanageable.

73

I don’t know that I agree with this. People kill with guns gotten from family all the time.

I’d be more than willing to say that you can loan a gun, while it is under your supervision, to a friend or family member, while hunting or target practice or something.

But if they want to claim it as their own and take it home, then there should be a record of that transfer. There should be a background check to ensure that the recipient is not prohibited from possessing it.

As far as that goes, I think it should be free, not even the $25 that is proposed. Simply go on the ATF or FBI or other TLA website, put in the credentials of the new owner, and as long as no flags come up, they can take possession.

Gun safety classes should also be free (along with most education, but that’s fodder for another thread), and readily available. The number of those killed or injured due to poor safety is on par with those injured and killed through malicious use. Even if you have no interest in possessing a gun, it could still be of use to take a class.

Gun safety devices, trigger locks, gun safes, stuff like that, should likewise be subsidised and affordable, if not outright free. There should be no excuse for not being able to properly protect your gun from casual theft or misuse. A gun should either be in your possession, under your supervision, or safely stored. Tucking it in between the couch cushions should not be considered to be an acceptable manner of storage.

Guns lost or stolen should be reported immediately. I don’t think that a gun owner who has had their gun lost or stolen should be culpable in for the crimes committed with said gun, but they should be fined if they were negligent in securing their gun, or for not reporting the loss in a timely fashion. Maybe if they demonstrate that they are unable or unwilling to properly secure their arms, they may be limited in what and how many guns they may own.

OTOH, I think that, if reported, and the owner did their due diligence to prevent the theft or loss, they should get an insurance payout to compensate them for their loss.

Speaking of insurance, there should be some level of tax to new gun purchases, and that of ammunition that is to leave the store(duty free as long as it is used there), that goes to help pay for the damages done by guns. To help pay the medical costs of those harmed, and compensation loss to the next of kin to those killed. It is argued by gun rights advocates that there is no way that gun owners can afford to pay for the damages that guns do to society, and while I find that argument to be against their own interests, I have no problem subsidizing that insurance to an affordable level, with the hope that these measures will reduce the damage that their guns do to society to more affordable levels.

As far as healthcare and mental health goes, those are not exactly in line with this thread, but I’m all for shoring those up as well. Mental health has a double whammy against it. There is a stigma to it, that someone’s mental health problems are their own fault, which makes it hard for someone to admit to them, and then there’s the problem that, even if someone does disclose their mental health problems, there’s not really any available care for them anyway. Poverty as well, many crimes are not crimes of passion or illness, but of necessity.

Alleviating mental health and poverty factors should make this a better place in and of itself, and would certainly reduce all crime, that does not mean that that can take the place of taking some pretty common sense measures. Maybe when everyone is a peaceful and well adjusted citizen, we will not need gun laws, or laws at all, but that’s a long time coming, especially since most of those who say that we should concentrate on mental health and poverty rather than gun control are talking out of both sides of their mouth, as they have no interest in addressing mental health problems or poverty either.

74

So we’ve reduced the second-hand smoke problem to one that people were subjected to essentially everywhere, and narrowed it down to one of people who are involuntarily living with smokers. If we could do the same with guns, that would be major progress, and we could stop scaring the shit out of our kids with all those ‘active shooter’ drills.

So when Person P smokes at home, and his child or elderly parent is forced to breathe that smoke, do you think this rises to the level of child or elder abuse? Since you are of the opinion that this is still an even worse problem than people getting perforated by bullets, I’m curious about whether you think Child Protective Services and so forth should be involved. You must have thought about this a great deal.

75

Speaking of someone who grew up with chain smoking parents, I’d say yeah. Not only did it do damage to my young growing lungs, it also addicted me to nicotine at a young age. An addiction I still struggle with.

Many municipalities have banned smoking in shared buildings like apartments and condos, to protect the neighbors of smokers.

Anyway, having addressed this, I will also point out that it is entirely a distraction, intended to prevent the discussion of the thread at hand, as though we cannot care about both smoking related illness and gun related injury.

The only way that this relates to the thread at all is exactly in DrDeth and others using this tactic’s disfavor, in that we can point out that we are actually taking active measures to decrease the harm that tobacco products cause to society, and that those measures are having a significant positive effect. The same kind of measures that are refused by pro-gun advocates.

76

Do you have evidence for this claim? Rather a great many guns used in murders were purchased legitimately.

77

Among these, more than
half (56%) had either stolen it (6%), found it at the
scene of the crime (7%), or obtained it off the street
or from the underground market (43%)…Seven percent had
purchased it under their own name from a licensed
firearm dealer.

The Underground market is mostly the "straw man sellers’.

Take a look at table 5,

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on “Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California,” many straw purchases are conducted in an openly “suggestive” manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities…Another large source of guns used in crimes are unlicensed street dealers who either get their guns through illegal transactions with licensed dealers, straw purchases, or from gun thefts. These illegal dealers turn around and sell these illegally on the street.

This contradicts me, on that I thought most guns are stolen, based upon earlier cites I had read. I was wrong here on that, but not on the straw man sales.

So, most criminal guns are bought from straw man dealers. Closing that loophole, which is quite easy and totally constitutional, would greatly slow the flow of guns into criminals hands. And it would not impede the legitimate gun buyer.

78

So you dont think amending the Constitution, spending $400B, and carrying out a door to door confiscation of every single civilian firearm is “draconian”? :astonished: :scream:

I think that pretty much defines draconian.

What gun control would you then think is draconian? :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

And in most of our previous gun control threads, most gun control posters have said “no one is proposing banning and confiscation of all guns”. Well, now we have one.

79

What loophole? It’s already illegal, and without registering the guns or the purchases, almost impossible to enforce.

80

I also suggested that all guns in homes with kids have to be locked. I also suggested that all private sales have to have a background check, with a few minor exclusions. I also suggested mandatory gun safety classes for first purchase of a firearm, as long as those classes are reasonable in cost and availability.

You car only has to be registered if you drive it on the public highway. Not if you keep it at home. Just like in general, a gun owner has to have a permit and have those guns listed (ie registered) if he is going to carry a concealed weapon in public.