Those for new gun control laws...

[nate]

I know this topic has probably been done to death, but I have a question/survey for those in favor for new gun control laws. Disclaimer, I’m a liberal, from a conservative family and probably the reddest state in the country, and I live in a mid-sized metro area. Anyway, I can’t figure out this missing step:

1. Place new restrictions on the sale of firearms
2. ???
3. Less gun violence

Can someone please fill in no. 2? I mean, if guns were a new thing, it would make complete sense to outlaw or restrict the sale of them, but there are 300 millions guns in the US and it’s not like they are consumable items. They exist and are in the hands of the citizens. It’s to the point now that it would be a violation of a fundamental right of self-preservation to restrict the transfer of firearms. Face it, it’s the country we live in, a shit ton of guns exist, and it’s going to take another route to curb gun violence, if it is possible at all.

[Inner_Stickler]

Interesting. I’ve got a similar riddle.

1. Place no new restrictions on the sale of firearms
2. ???
3. Less gun violence

Let me know when you figure out step two.

[snfaulkner]

I think 2 would depend on the details of 1 to get to 3.

[Mijin]

I think the OP is based on the fallacy that only a total solution is worth pursuing (what’s that called again?)

The “2” is simply: “It becomes harder to acquire a fully-automatic weapon”. Yes, not impossible, but if you make it that little bit more difficult then you will decrease gun crime, even if just a little.

Also we should point out that there are countries that had high gun ownership rates and gradually managed to collect most of them. I don’t think it’s feasible for the US for a number of cultural reasons, but just saying the logic of the OP that the horse has bolted and there’s nothing we can do doesn’t necessarily follow in the abstract.

[Richard_Pearse]

2. Amnesty on illegal firearms. Firearms that are deemed to be illegal may be handed in with no penalty and presumably some monetary compensation. Once the amnesty is over, people found in possession of illegal firearms will be prosecuted as if they’d acquired them after the ban.

Speaking as an outsider looking in, it seems to me that you can’t just fix this by passing a few laws. There needs to be a culture change and that is no easy task.

[Bullitt]

@Richard_Pearse

2. Amnesty on illegal firearms. Firearms that are deemed to be illegal may be handed in with no penalty and presumably some monetary compensation. Once the amnesty is over, people found in possession of illegal firearms will be prosecuted as if they’d acquired them after the ban.

Speaking as an outsider looking in, it seems to me that you can’t just fix this by passing a few laws. There needs to be a culture change and that is no easy task.

Interesting. Culture change – what do you have in mind?

I think something should change. I’m trying to put my finger on what that is. Fewer or no mass shootings, for sure, but how do we get there.

[Isamu]

You need to realize that, although you may differ politically or religiously, your fellow American is not your enemy. In fact Republicans have more in common with their fellow Democrats than you do with outsiders. You need to look after everyone’s health on a more or less equal basis, you need less wealth disparity, you need to respect the differences of your brothers and sisters and understand and respect their religions. When people feel less put upon, less alienated, and more secure andf when they have the rescources to look after their health and their family’s health, you probably won’t have so many killings.

[jtur88]

@Bullitt

Interesting. Culture change – what do you have in mind?

I think something should change. I’m trying to put my finger on what that is. Fewer or no mass shootings, for sure, but how do we get there.

Dozens of behavioral attributes have been altered by simply leaning on mindset. Smoking, littering, seats belts, wife beating, racism, these things changed because people just grew up and realized that abuse was either stupid or uncivilized.

[thelurkinghorror]

@Mijin

I think the OP is based on the fallacy that only a total solution is worth pursuing (what’s that called again?)

The “2” is simply: “It becomes harder to acquire a fully-automatic weapon”. Yes, not impossible, but if you make it that little bit more difficult then you will decrease gun crime, even if just a little.

Also we should point out that there are countries that had high gun ownership rates and gradually managed to collect most of them. I don’t think it’s feasible for the US for a number of cultural reasons, but just saying the logic of the OP that the horse has bolted and there’s nothing we can do doesn’t necessarily follow in the abstract.

That’s already super-duper difficult. As in 1-2 murders so far since 1934, and very few are sold every year. And this isn’t a movie, FA means less accuracy, and rank and file US soldiers don’t even have this capability anymore as it’s not effective for actually killing people in wartime conditions. Keeping their heads under cover, sure.

And I would like to wait a week to see if “fully-automatic” is really the case. This is the same “serious” news media that uses Onion stories to find news in North Korea and China.

As for today’s events, it’s very scary. But the majority of gun murders in the US are a result of gang and/or drug related murders in 5% of the zip codes. Neither side is willing to do the #2 in the Underpants Gnomes’ plan of reducing inner-city poverty and desperation conditions.

[jerez]

Reading about opposition to the Brady Bill might provide some insight.

[bucketybuck]

@nate

Anyway, I can’t figure out this missing step:

1. Place new restrictions on the sale of firearms
2. ???
3. Less gun violence

Can someone please fill in no. 2? I mean, if guns were a new thing, it would make complete sense to outlaw or restrict the sale of them, but there are 300 millions guns in the US and it’s not like they are consumable items. They exist and are in the hands of the citizens.

When you put your foot on the brake, you don’t expect to come to an immediate stop. First you expect to slow down. And then you stop.

[BigT]

You have to go at it backwards to come up with ideas. The goal in this case is to prevent those who would like to go on mass shootings from having access to guns. So then, the question becomes: how do they have access to guns? They can acquire them legally or illegally.

If they get them legally, then the issue is on background checks, psychological checks, and licensing. Spree shooters clearly have a lack of empathy for others, so testing for that has to be priority one. Making sure they don’t have past histories of violent outbursts is good, too. We could set up these checks ahead of time by having licensing rather than making any individual gun seller check. They just need to check the license, and know that the checks have been done.

If they get them illegally, then the big issue is tracking down illegal guns. That one is admittedly harder. Ideas such as free amnesty makes some sense, as does stepping up punishment for having guns that don’t have a proper trail that means they went by the legal ideas mentioned above. Gun shows and stuff will need to use the system. Even personal sales need to use it. Make it like cars, where you need a title to show you have a right to the gun.

Of course, this sort of thing will scare the gun’s rights activists, so we need something to assure them that this will never be used to take guns away from law abiding citizens without any psychological or background problems. And that is the hardest problem. My best idea, honestly, is a Constitutional Amendment, with much, much clearer language that no SC Justice can argue around. Maybe have states have agencies that can check into this sort of thing, since these guys tend to love their state’s rights. I’m not sure what else to do, because I just do not understand the mindset that thinks “the government is out to get me.” I don’t know how to reassure them that it’s not.

I am fully aware there are problems with poverty, mental health regulation, culture, and even more that lead to the problem we have now. I am aware that culture needs to change before even any of my ideas could even be suggested. But this thread asks about the laws I want. These are them.

Not to keep anyone who wants to own guns from getting them, but putting barriers that may inconvenience them, but would restrict access to those who would use the guns for mass shootings.

[Mijin]

@thelurkinghorror

That’s already super-duper difficult. As in 1-2 murders so far since 1934, and very few are sold every year. And this isn’t a movie, FA means less accuracy, and rank and file US soldiers don’t even have this capability anymore as it’s not effective for actually killing people in wartime conditions. Keeping their heads under cover, sure.

And I would like to wait a week to see if “fully-automatic” is really the case. This is the same “serious” news media that uses Onion stories to find news in North Korea and China.

Yes; take the word “fully” out of my previous post. I didn’t mean to make a point specifically about fully automatic weapons since we don’t even know if that was the case yet. Or whether it was a semi modified into a fully or whatever.

As for today’s events, it’s very scary. But the majority of gun murders in the US are a result of gang and/or drug related murders in 5% of the zip codes. Neither side is willing to do the #2 in the Underpants Gnomes’ plan of reducing inner-city poverty and desperation conditions.

This “whatabout” doesn’t work as plenty of people are trying to do a lot about inner-city poverty. But yeah personally I’d like to address poverty and remove the kind of weapons that can be used to trivially kill dozens of people.

[Richard_Pearse]

@Bullitt

Interesting. Culture change – what do you have in mind?

I think something should change. I’m trying to put my finger on what that is. Fewer or no mass shootings, for sure, but how do we get there.

@jtur88

Dozens of behavioral attributes have been altered by simply leaning on mindset. Smoking, littering, seats belts, wife beating, racism, these things changed because people just grew up and realized that abuse was either stupid or uncivilized.

Yeah, I don’t pretend to have the answers. This has been done in Australia including the gun amnesty but we didn’t have the gun culture that the USA has and that is where it will be very difficult.

As noted above, culture has changed significantly in other areas but it takes time, it’s a generational thing.

[Joey_P]

Gun buy backs would be part of it. The other part would be accepting that reducing the amount of legal guns (is that how you’d word that) would, in fact, reduce the amount of these types of crimes.
Look, I’m not sure where I stand on this issue, but I do know that I think people sound kind of silly when someone says anything regarding gun control and their automatic response is “that’s not going to stop anything” or “they’ll still find a way to get a gun” or “there’s other ways to kill people”.
Some of those may be somewhat true, but if the number of guns that exist in the country is cut, lets say, in half. Not as many people will be able to get a gun, legal or otherwise. Yes there are still ways to kill people, but not everyone will go that far. You have to snap a lot harder to plant bombs around a crowded area than to use the gun that’s been sitting in your closet for 10 years.
However, I suspect that most people know this, it’s just the reasons they give for A)not wanting to give back their guns and B)not wanting to lose their 2nd amendment right. I much prefer when they actually say that (and many do) than when they hide behind some BS. At least that way we can discuss what’s actually bothering them and come up with an actual solution instead of going around in circles.

One last thing, it would also take time. If we were to make all guns illegal for all civilians to own as of right now and even did a buy back, and another mass shooting happened next week. You can’t run around complaining that it didn’t work (and you need your guns back to protect yourself). I have a feeling that something like this would take many buy backs and many years to start showing any real results. Americans, in general, aren’t going to hand over their guns if they don’t have to. They’d be collecting dust in houses for many years to come.

[Dewey_Finn]

How about conducting research into the causes of gun violence (particularly into why these mass shootings occur)? What about research into mental illness and mass shootings? (The people responsible for several of these incidents were already known to be mentally ill.)

In another thread, someone mentioned the Oklahoma City bombing and the ammonium nitrate/diesel fuel bomb. A few years after that bombing, restrictions were put in place on the sale of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. After the Unabomber case, those blue streetside mailboxes have a notice that packages over thirteen ounces can’t be left in them but instead need to be taken to a post office for mailing. After one terrorist attempt, we can’t take fluids over a certain size on airline flights

So in cases when the weapon wasn’t a gun, something was done to make a similar incident more difficult. But after mass shooting after mass shooting, nothing has been done to make a similar incident more difficult.

[somepumpkin]

2. Media/social campaign to make those who cherish guns (and violence, in general) appear inferior.

[Joey_P]

@Dewey_Finn

How about conducting research into the causes of gun violence (particularly into why these mass shootings occur)? What about research into mental illness and mass shootings? (The people responsible for several of these incidents were already known to be mentally ill.)

I’m not sure what that would change. I know it’s contrary to what I said earlier, but if a mentally ill person wants a gun, they may still find a way to get one. If you want less shootings, reducing guns, in general, is probably going to be the best way to do it.
I’ve said in other threads that I think most people, or at least most gun owners, just don’t want ‘bad guys’, to have guns, but there’s not a good way to have that happen.

In another thread, someone mentioned the Oklahoma City bombing and the ammonium nitrate/diesel fuel bomb. A few years after that bombing, restrictions were put in place on the sale of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. After the Unabomber case, those blue streetside mailboxes have a notice that packages over thirteen ounces can’t be left in them but instead need to be taken to a post office for mailing. After one terrorist attempt, we can’t take fluids over a certain size on airline flights

So in cases when the weapon wasn’t a gun, something was done to make a similar incident more difficult. But after mass shooting after mass shooting, nothing has been done to make a similar incident more difficult.

Trevor Noah did a pretty good job with that here.

[phreesh]

2. Make [certain kinds of guns] illegal and allow folks to hand them in over a set time period.

Those kinds of guns would then be illegal. You couldn’t buy or sell them. And if found in your possession, they would be taken away and you would be charged with a crime.

Sure, people (maybe LOTS of people) will continue to have those illegal guns, but this makes them criminals and only a tiny number of people WANT to be criminals. Those types of guns will slowly go away.

And if gun crime continues to be a problem, move onto to 3. Make [certain other kinds of guns] illegal. Rinse, repeat.

Now, this won’t fix things in a month, but over the years, it will. What is certain is that doing nothing accomplishes nothing.

As a Canadian, I find it truly shocking that Americans continue to hold the delusion that there’s nothing wrong with the second amendment. Why are you prepared to pay such a high human costs for such a silly obsession?

[scr4]

2. Some would-be criminals will be deterred, because they cannot buy guns legally and don’t know how to buy guns illegally. And they don’t already have a gun for “protection.”