Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 345570 times)

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2350 on: February 24, 2017, 12:05:47 PM »
Smart guns aren't necessarily a "failed" technology.  There is more than one angle of attack.  Fingerprint scanners have come a long way.  What about facial recognition, voice recognition or some other method?  I hope that you wouldn't be opposed to any sort of research that might make your gun safer or harder to steal and abuse.

I agree that cops would be a good place to start with some of these smart weapons.  Many cops are pro-gun control and might be willing to test it out.  If the weapons are proven to be effective and safer, then people might adopt them. 

One thing that maybe was not addressed in earlier threads is 3D gun printing and how to combat that? This is one of the reasons why I think gun control is kind of a lost cause at this point.  Even if we DID confiscate all the guns, one could be made with a pattern, some plastic, and a few small parts.
Fingerprint scanners don't work if you are wearing gloves, if your hands are wet or dirty. Facial recognition doesn't work well or at all in no/low light situations. Voice recognition doesn't work if there are loud noises around. Last but certainly not least all those thing even when working properly don't work instantly. I've stated I'm not opposed to research I just don't think there should be laws requiring guns to have said technology.
And that is what gun right advocates have been saying (including the NRA) : the law should not require such technology. As some politicians are pushing for these laws, even making them proactive so as to require this technology as soon as it becomes " readily avaliable", some groups find themselves fighting the terrible, completely unready technology to stop it from being readily available even though it is terrible and thus required on weapons. Complex situation.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4105
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2351 on: February 24, 2017, 01:58:05 PM »
It's also a fact that when you remove guns from the equation, there are no mass shootings at all. 

How do we accomplish this, ask the magical gun fairy to make them all go away?
Japan seems to have done so.  It would not work with our Constitution but it is possible.

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1901
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2352 on: February 24, 2017, 02:28:09 PM »
My biggest concern is that it is not effective in reducing gun deaths- the vast majority of deaths are caused by the rightful owner of the gun. This hypothetical  technology would not stop any of those.
I'm not sure where you're getting that information.  Roughly speaking, there are 40k gun deaths/year in the US.  75% of those are suicide, and of the remaining 10k, the vast majority (I think 85% is the number I heard) are gang-related.  "Smart gun" technology is designed to address a particular situation--an unauthorized person (say, a kid who found a gun, or someone with a stolen firearm) is trying to pull the trigger--and won't actually have any affect on the vast, vast majority of gun deaths.  Granted, some firearms used by criminals are stolen, but it's still not a huge percentage of cases.

Quote
I have a good friend (actually a friend of my husband's) who has a carry permit and carries all the time. He's a very nice guy, but a tiny bit of a nut. Also, he has a palsy and though he used to be quite a good shot, his aim has deteriorated considerably over the years. If this person was a teacher in my child's school and the administrators of this school had actively agreed with this teacher that he was going to be a conceal carry teacher in the service of protecting the children, I would want to know. Because this guy's aim could actively endanger my kid in the event of an active shooter in the school.
If there's an active shooter in the school, and your friend has to shoot at the bad guy in order to prevent the bad guy from killing a bunch of kids, I'm not quite sure how his aim would actually make the situation worse.  I don't mean to sound callous here, but the worst-case scenario is that he kills or injures someone the bad guy was going to kill anyway.

Quote
Japan seems to have done so.  It would not work with our Constitution but it is possible.
True, but it's an anecdote.  The UK has done the same with gun ownership, and yet they have some major crime issues.  I believe it's important to look beyond "guns are used to do bad things, therefore we need to get rid of guns," and address the root cause of crime and violence.  In the US, a large majority of the gun-related crime (setting aside suicide for the moment) is associated with gang activity.  If we can address the gang problem, much of the crime problem goes away.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2353 on: February 24, 2017, 02:30:31 PM »
If we can address the gang problem, much of the crime problem goes away.

Pretty much my point, except I think this is a loaded way to phrase it. By my estimation, drug legalization would drastically reduce gun violence almost instantly.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4105
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2354 on: February 24, 2017, 02:30:38 PM »
My biggest concern is that it is not effective in reducing gun deaths- the vast majority of deaths are caused by the rightful owner of the gun. This hypothetical  technology would not stop any of those.
I'm not sure where you're getting that information.  Roughly speaking, there are 40k gun deaths/year in the US.  75% of those are suicide, and of the remaining 10k, the vast majority (I think 85% is the number I heard) are gang-related.  "Smart gun" technology is designed to address a particular situation--an unauthorized person (say, a kid who found a gun, or someone with a stolen firearm) is trying to pull the trigger--and won't actually have any affect on the vast, vast majority of gun deaths.  Granted, some firearms used by criminals are stolen, but it's still not a huge percentage of cases.

Quote
I have a good friend (actually a friend of my husband's) who has a carry permit and carries all the time. He's a very nice guy, but a tiny bit of a nut. Also, he has a palsy and though he used to be quite a good shot, his aim has deteriorated considerably over the years. If this person was a teacher in my child's school and the administrators of this school had actively agreed with this teacher that he was going to be a conceal carry teacher in the service of protecting the children, I would want to know. Because this guy's aim could actively endanger my kid in the event of an active shooter in the school.
If there's an active shooter in the school, and your friend has to shoot at the bad guy in order to prevent the bad guy from killing a bunch of kids, I'm not quite sure how his aim would actually make the situation worse.  I don't mean to sound callous here, but the worst-case scenario is that he kills or injures someone the bad guy was going to kill anyway.

Quote
Japan seems to have done so.  It would not work with our Constitution but it is possible.
True, but it's an anecdote.  The UK has done the same with gun ownership, and yet they have some major crime issues.  I believe it's important to look beyond "guns are used to do bad things, therefore we need to get rid of guns," and address the root cause of crime and violence.  In the US, a large majority of the gun-related crime (setting aside suicide for the moment) is associated with gang activity.  If we can address the gang problem, much of the crime problem goes away.
Do you have the statistics on that because I had heard the opposite.

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2355 on: February 24, 2017, 02:46:44 PM »
It's also a fact that when you remove guns from the equation, there are no mass shootings at all. 

How do we accomplish this, ask the magical gun fairy to make them all go away?
Japan seems to have done so.  It would not work with our Constitution but it is possible.
Just need a time machine. Japan has had a near prohibition on private firearm ownership since the 1600's. Even in modern times Japan and the US are very different. There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans that would rather die then give up their guns.

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1901
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2356 on: February 24, 2017, 04:08:47 PM »
My biggest concern is that it is not effective in reducing gun deaths- the vast majority of deaths are caused by the rightful owner of the gun. This hypothetical  technology would not stop any of those.
I'm not sure where you're getting that information.  Roughly speaking, there are 40k gun deaths/year in the US.  75% of those are suicide, and of the remaining 10k, the vast majority (I think 85% is the number I heard) are gang-related.  "Smart gun" technology is designed to address a particular situation--an unauthorized person (say, a kid who found a gun, or someone with a stolen firearm) is trying to pull the trigger--and won't actually have any affect on the vast, vast majority of gun deaths.  Granted, some firearms used by criminals are stolen, but it's still not a huge percentage of cases.
Do you have the statistics on that because I had heard the opposite.
More or less (see the second column on the second page): https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF.  This is based on a survey of prison inmates, who said that somewhere around 10% of the guns inmates had possessed were stolen.  They more often get it from friends/family/others, especially when they are barred from owning a gun due to previous convictions.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2357 on: February 25, 2017, 12:01:52 AM »
Do you have the statistics on that because I had heard the opposite.
More or less (see the second column on the second page): https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF.  This is based on a survey of prison inmates, who said that somewhere around 10% of the guns inmates had possessed were stolen.  They more often get it from friends/family/others, especially when they are barred from owning a gun due to previous convictions.
[/quote]
If only there were laws against giving known felons firearms... or, wait...
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2358 on: February 25, 2017, 03:26:41 PM »
Do you have the statistics on that because I had heard the opposite.
More or less (see the second column on the second page): https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF.  This is based on a survey of prison inmates, who said that somewhere around 10% of the guns inmates had possessed were stolen.  They more often get it from friends/family/others, especially when they are barred from owning a gun due to previous convictions.
If only there were laws against giving known felons firearms... or, wait...
[/quote]

In an awful lot of states ( like Washington ) there is no punishment for selling a gun to someone who is a felon if you don't ask.  There's also no requirement to ask before selling a gun.  That makes laws against selling to felons effectively unenforceable.

This is obviously an area where current laws are deficient.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2359 on: February 25, 2017, 04:23:19 PM »
Quote from: GuitarStv link=topic=51871.msg1447724#msg1447724
In an awful lot of states ( like Washington ) there is no punishment for selling a gun to someone who is a felon if you don't ask.  There's also no requirement to ask before selling a gun.  That makes laws against selling to felons effectively unenforceable.

This is obviously an area where current laws are deficient.
Obviously the current laws are not perfect.  But if any felon got their gun from a relative or friend, I would imagine there is a very strong case for their knowing, thus making them prosecutable. Not only are the laws weak (I'd be all for a law requiring a person to ask before selling a furearm), but the ones on the book are not even enforced. Perhaps if they were there would be a decrease in felons posessing firearms.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2360 on: February 25, 2017, 04:31:16 PM »
NH passes constitutional carry. This makes 12 states, with several others considering it, and a couple very likely to pass this year.

http://gunowners.org/nh-goes-constitutional-carry.htm
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2361 on: February 25, 2017, 05:18:57 PM »
Do you have the statistics on that because I had heard the opposite.
More or less (see the second column on the second page): https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF.  This is based on a survey of prison inmates, who said that somewhere around 10% of the guns inmates had possessed were stolen.  They more often get it from friends/family/others, especially when they are barred from owning a gun due to previous convictions.
In an awful lot of states ( like Washington ) there is no punishment for selling a gun to someone who is a felon if you don't ask.  There's also no requirement to ask before selling a gun.  That makes laws against selling to felons effectively unenforceable.

This is obviously an area where current laws are deficient.
Person: Hey I'm selling this gun would you like to buy it?
Felon: Yes I would
Person: Are you a felon?
Felon: No
The person then unknowingly sells to a felon. 
« Last Edit: February 25, 2017, 05:20:37 PM by jamesvt »

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2362 on: February 25, 2017, 06:36:37 PM »
Person: Hey I'm selling this gun would you like to buy it?
Felon: Yes I would
Person: Are you a felon?
Felon: No
The person then unknowingly sells to a felon.

No, not unknowingly.  Just with plausible deniability . .  . which is all that's important.

Without a requirement that checks criminal history for all firearms sales, it's impossible to enforce the 'no sales to felons' laws and felons will always have an easy source of guns.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2363 on: February 25, 2017, 06:42:16 PM »
Person: Hey I'm selling this gun would you like to buy it?
Felon: Yes I would
Person: Are you a felon?
Felon: No
The person then unknowingly sells to a felon.

No, not unknowingly.  Just with plausible deniability . .  . which is all that's important.

Without a requirement that checks criminal history for all firearms sales, it's impossible to enforce the 'no sales to felons' laws and felons will always have an easy source of guns.
Which is exactly why I push for the national background check system to be free and open to the public - that way anyone can ensure that the person they are selling a firearm to is not a felon. Easy law to pass that would require no additional funding or restrictions.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2364 on: February 25, 2017, 07:56:37 PM »
Person: Hey I'm selling this gun would you like to buy it?
Felon: Yes I would
Person: Are you a felon?
Felon: No
The person then unknowingly sells to a felon.

No, not unknowingly.  Just with plausible deniability . .  . which is all that's important.

Without a requirement that checks criminal history for all firearms sales, it's impossible to enforce the 'no sales to felons' laws and felons will always have an easy source of guns.
Unknowing-without being aware of something. In that case it would be unknowingly. Plausible deniability would be the person knowingly selling to a felon but there is no way to prove the person actually did know. How do you enforce the requirement for a background check on all firearm purchases? Person A gives person B cash Person B give person A gun. You can't prove Person A hasn't owned the gun the whole time.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2365 on: February 25, 2017, 08:53:55 PM »
Person: Hey I'm selling this gun would you like to buy it?
Felon: Yes I would
Person: Are you a felon?
Felon: No
The person then unknowingly sells to a felon.

No, not unknowingly.  Just with plausible deniability . .  . which is all that's important.

Without a requirement that checks criminal history for all firearms sales, it's impossible to enforce the 'no sales to felons' laws and felons will always have an easy source of guns.
Unknowing-without being aware of something. In that case it would be unknowingly. Plausible deniability would be the person knowingly selling to a felon but there is no way to prove the person actually did know.

Person: Hey I'm selling this gun would you like to buy it?
Felon: Yes I would
Person: Are you a felon?
Felon: Yep

Two years later when the police are questioning the person about his sale of a gun to the felon
Police: Hey, did you know that guy was a felon?
Person: Nope.
Police: OK then.  Have a nice day.

Plausible deniability is the only thing that's important.



How do you enforce the requirement for a background check on all firearm purchases? Person A gives person B cash Person B give person A gun. You can't prove Person A hasn't owned the gun the whole time.

You keep a record of gun owners and serial numbers so that you can prove who owns what gun.  My understanding is that this should already be done by gun shops, although it's incredibly hard for law enforcement to actually find the information since it is a legal requirement that gun information be non-searchable among other obstacles (as described here: https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/the-atfs-nonsensical-non-searchable-gun-databases-explained-392).

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2366 on: February 25, 2017, 09:02:05 PM »
I wouldn't call it hard. If the police have a gun, they call the manufacturer.  Manufacturer tells them where gun was shipped from factory. Police call that place - they say who bought the gun. After that, it's up to the owner of the gun. If the owner is brother to the felon who used it to shoot up a liquor store... I can't see how hard it is to prosecute.

Did you know your brother was a felon when you gave him the gun?
No.
Really? He's your brother.
I swear.
Perjury, and transferring a gun to a known felon. Next case.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1901
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2367 on: February 25, 2017, 09:09:00 PM »
In an awful lot of states ( like Washington ) there is no punishment for selling a gun to someone who is a felon if you don't ask.  There's also no requirement to ask before selling a gun.  That makes laws against selling to felons effectively unenforceable.

This is obviously an area where current laws are deficient.
Even if the state law is more permissive, it's very much against federal law to sell a gun to a felon.

Quote
You keep a record of gun owners and serial numbers so that you can prove who owns what gun.  My understanding is that this should already be done by gun shops, although it's incredibly hard for law enforcement to actually find the information since it is a legal requirement that gun information be non-searchable among other obstacles (as described here: https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/the-atfs-nonsensical-non-searchable-gun-databases-explained-392).
I'd like to point out two things:
1) you're correct that gun dealers are required to keep a record of all sales, as well as call in  for a background check on every sale
2) the records are there to establish a chain of custody in the case when a gun is recovered from a crime scene.  Law enforcement can then, in theory, go back to the manufacturer and trace the path of that gun to the point where it got into the hands of a criminal.  It's a pointless exercise, however, because as far as I can tell from the research I've done, this information has never ever actually been used to track down a criminal and prosecute them.
3) That information is searchable by a specific serial number.  There's a good reason (as viewed by the pro-gun side) why the whole database isn't allowed to be trawled.  If it were, it would amount to a registry, and registries lead to confiscation.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2368 on: February 25, 2017, 09:18:47 PM »
In an awful lot of states ( like Washington ) there is no punishment for selling a gun to someone who is a felon if you don't ask.  There's also no requirement to ask before selling a gun.  That makes laws against selling to felons effectively unenforceable.

This is obviously an area where current laws are deficient.
Even if the state law is more permissive, it's very much against federal law to sell a gun to a felon.

I didn't say that the state law is more permissive.

A law preventing sales to felons is effectively unenforceable without a system set up to allow gun owners to check if the person they're selling to is a felon or not.  You're relying on the felon's word of honor for this law to work.


2) the records are there to establish a chain of custody in the case when a gun is recovered from a crime scene.  Law enforcement can then, in theory, go back to the manufacturer and trace the path of that gun to the point where it got into the hands of a criminal.  It's a pointless exercise, however, because as far as I can tell from the research I've done, this information has never ever actually been used to track down a criminal and prosecute them.

The guy who is being tracked down and prosecuted from these checks should be the person selling weapons to criminals.  As I mentioned though . . . it's extremely difficult to prove that someone knew the person he was selling to is a felon if there's no way to check if a guy is a felon other than ask him.  As it stands now, yeah, it's pointless.  Even the law that says selling a weapon to a felon illegal is pointless at the moment.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2369 on: February 25, 2017, 09:46:27 PM »
Again. The perfect solution to this problem is to require background checks on all transfers, and allow anyone to perform the ncis check. Super simple. Then you either go to jail for transferring a firearm to a fellon or you go for not performing the background check.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2370 on: February 25, 2017, 09:51:50 PM »
Again. The perfect solution to this problem is to require background checks on all transfers, and allow anyone to perform the ncis check. Super simple. Then you either go to jail for transferring a firearm to a fellon or you go for not performing the background check.

Yes.  I agree with you that the solution to this problem is to introduce more laws that will prevent people from giving felons firearms.  As you originally said:



If only there were laws against giving known felons firearms... or, wait...

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2371 on: February 25, 2017, 09:54:42 PM »
This would not prevent anyone from giving a felon a firearm. It would allow them to enforce existing laws for when they choose to.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2372 on: February 25, 2017, 10:01:52 PM »
This would not prevent anyone from giving a felon a firearm. It would allow them to enforce existing laws for when they choose to.

You don't believe that there is any chance of a deterrent effect when enforcement of the law starts to actually happen?  I'd be surprised if this deterrent didn't prevent many instances of someone giving a felon a firearm.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2373 on: February 26, 2017, 03:38:54 AM »
This would not prevent anyone from giving a felon a firearm. It would allow them to enforce existing laws for when they choose to.

You don't believe that there is any chance of a deterrent effect when enforcement of the law starts to actually happen?  I'd be surprised if this deterrent didn't prevent many instances of someone giving a felon a firearm.
Meh. It's illegal now, doesnt deter many people. Any deterrent would be a bonus.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2374 on: February 26, 2017, 07:18:51 AM »
Registration leads to confiscation. No thanks.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2375 on: February 26, 2017, 09:27:55 AM »
This would not prevent anyone from giving a felon a firearm. It would allow them to enforce existing laws for when they choose to.

You don't believe that there is any chance of a deterrent effect when enforcement of the law starts to actually happen?  I'd be surprised if this deterrent didn't prevent many instances of someone giving a felon a firearm.
Meh. It's illegal now, doesnt deter many people. Any deterrent would be a bonus.

Murder is illegal.  The laws regarding murder to nothing to physically prevent the act of murder . . . but the threat of punitive action and the fact that we enforce murder laws pretty well acts as a reasonable deterrent to murder in our society.  I suspect that if murder were illegal, but unenforceable we would see higher instances of it.

I agree, being illegal alone isn't a deterrent.  A law needs to be both illegal and enforceable to work to prevent people from perpetrating a particular action.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2376 on: February 26, 2017, 09:36:31 AM »
Research suggests there is a very slight deterrent effect of such laws, if any, no matter what one may suspect.

And yes, registration is a complex and expensive way of adressing the problem. There are much simpler and equally effective ways that burden the general population much less. Even Canada has backed away from their registration program; to few ill effects.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2377 on: February 26, 2017, 09:43:51 AM »
Research suggests there is a very slight deterrent effect of such laws, if any, no matter what one may suspect.

- Murder laws only address the problem after the fact (too late to help the victim).

- You assert that there is negligible deterrent effect by having such laws.

- Having any law limits individual freedom, the number and scope of laws should always be minimized to keep a free society free.

It would follow that you therefore believe that murder laws should be abolished.  Is this the case?  If not, please indicate which point supporting the conclusion is incorrect.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2378 on: February 26, 2017, 09:50:58 AM »
This is not the case.

None of the points are incorrect.  Your conclusion, however, is wildly off base. You are clealry missing important points supporting laws. Perhaps see if laws do anything beyond deterrent effect ( which is only loosely supported by research) and see if you come to another conclusion.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Drifterrider

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2379 on: February 26, 2017, 08:50:47 PM »
Do you have the statistics on that because I had heard the opposite.
More or less (see the second column on the second page): https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF.  This is based on a survey of prison inmates, who said that somewhere around 10% of the guns inmates had possessed were stolen.  They more often get it from friends/family/others, especially when they are barred from owning a gun due to previous convictions.
In an awful lot of states ( like Washington ) there is no punishment for selling a gun to someone who is a felon if you don't ask.  There's also no requirement to ask before selling a gun.  That makes laws against selling to felons effectively unenforceable.

This is obviously an area where current laws are deficient.
Person: Hey I'm selling this gun would you like to buy it?
Felon: Yes I would
Person: Are you a felon?
Felon: No
The person then unknowingly sells to a felon.

BUT, still a crime in some states.  There is federal law and state law and both parties are required to know.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4105
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2380 on: February 27, 2017, 06:20:03 AM »
Do you have the statistics on that because I had heard the opposite.
More or less (see the second column on the second page): https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF.  This is based on a survey of prison inmates, who said that somewhere around 10% of the guns inmates had possessed were stolen.  They more often get it from friends/family/others, especially when they are barred from owning a gun due to previous convictions.
In an awful lot of states ( like Washington ) there is no punishment for selling a gun to someone who is a felon if you don't ask.  There's also no requirement to ask before selling a gun.  That makes laws against selling to felons effectively unenforceable.

This is obviously an area where current laws are deficient.
Person: Hey I'm selling this gun would you like to buy it?
Felon: Yes I would
Person: Are you a felon?
Felon: No
The person then unknowingly sells to a felon.

BUT, still a crime in some states.  There is federal law and state law and both parties are required to know.
But there are no consequences for a private citizen because all they can do is ask, they cannot know.  Which means as long as they have plausible deniability in many states, they can sell to anyone.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1272
  • Location: MA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2381 on: February 27, 2017, 08:12:50 AM »
Quote
Registration leads to confiscation. No thanks.

Thanks for being open minded and flexible.....

Do you have any other solutions that might bring comfort to gun control advocates besides "Let's give guns to everyone and see how that works out?".  What about my right to NOT own a gun? 

I see a lot of people on the gun control side trying to provide solutions while the anti-gun side doesn't budge an inch.  Not really a great way to solve problems. 

Let's try an experiment.  Say you were sitting right across from someone who had a relative die to gun violence.  What would you say to them, IN PERSON, regarding gun control?  Don't just throw out an internet answer, but think about looking at their face as they describe the pain of losing a friend, husband, child to gun violence.  What would you actually say to that living breathing person in front of you? 

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1901
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2382 on: February 27, 2017, 08:56:46 AM »
Quote
Registration leads to confiscation. No thanks.

Thanks for being open minded and flexible.....

Do you have any other solutions that might bring comfort to gun control advocates besides "Let's give guns to everyone and see how that works out?".  What about my right to NOT own a gun? 

I see a lot of people on the gun control side trying to provide solutions while the anti-gun side doesn't budge an inch.  Not really a great way to solve problems.
You'll have to forgive the anti-gun-control folks for being a bit absolutist, but there are a number of well-established reasons for it:
1) Historically speaking, no compromise has ever satisfied pro-gun-control folks.  Proponents of gun control are loath to admit it when their favored laws don't actually produce a positive result.  For example, gun-control advocates continue to push for (and in some cases, pass) legislation banning "assault weapons," despite the fact that when it was tried from 1994-2004, the federal ban resulted in zero measurable impact.
2) "Registration leads to confiscation" is trite, but also true.  As they say, it isn't paranoia if they're actually out to get you.

I think you're engaging in reducto ad absurdum with the "give guns to everyone" line, so I won't bother addressing that.

The whole "doesn't budge an inch" comes from point #1 above.  Budging an inch (again, viewing historically) only encourages gun control proponents to push further, while the original problem remains unsolved.

"trying to provide solutions" doesn't actually hold water, either, given that all of the proposed "solutions"....don't really solve the problems gun-control proponents claim to be trying to address, i.e. crime.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 566
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2383 on: February 27, 2017, 10:14:06 AM »
I'll step in this turd.
Quote
Registration leads to confiscation. No thanks.

Thanks for being open minded and flexible.....

Do you have any other solutions that might bring comfort to gun control advocates besides "Let's give guns to everyone and see how that works out?".  What about my right to NOT own a gun? 

I see a lot of people on the gun control side trying to provide solutions while the anti-gun side doesn't budge an inch.  Not really a great way to solve problems. 

Let's try an experiment.  Say you were sitting right across from someone who had a relative die to gun violence.  What would you say to them, IN PERSON, regarding gun control?  Don't just throw out an internet answer, but think about looking at their face as they describe the pain of losing a friend, husband, child to gun violence.  What would you actually say to that living breathing person in front of you? 

I'll step in this mess. Zolo address the absolutist nature of some pro 2nd amendment viewpoints. I'll leave it at that.

Here are my solutions:
-Decriminalize marijuana nationally. Have someone smarter than me figure out a way to take some of the money out of the remaining drug trade, since that money drives the violence to secure it.

-A national concealed handgun license program. Require range testing, some scenario testing. They can carry anywhere except airports, or other federal areas where security is provided already. This means schools. This means trained teachers might be carrying. will it make some people uncomfortable? Maybe. But only an idiot teacher would advertise they're carrying and that would be grounds take that person's CHL away.

-Create a system for private sales, where the seller can verify the buyer. I envision something like this renter screening system I used... it just says yay or nay based on the criteria you can legally use to select renters. Done. No information about what disqualified the prospective buyer. I'm not sure how to gather enough information to enforce compliance to this law without creating a tacit registry, but it can be done. Maybe the seller is responsible for maintaining some documentation.

That's a few examples of things I believe would have a real effect, yet not curtail anyone's right to keep and bear arms.

I don't recall saying you have to own guns. You can certainly choose not to. As long as you aren't pretentious about it or trying to take away my right to, I won't judge.

As for your attempt to shame me into supporting gun rights with an  I'd express my condolences that their loved one's life was cut short by violence (there is no effective difference between homicidal 'gun violence' and any other type of homicidal violence, imho.). I'd discuss ways to address the real root cause of said violence, if they wanted to.



golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1272
  • Location: MA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2384 on: February 27, 2017, 11:40:38 AM »
I can't make anyone feel shame.  If you approached someone in person who lost a loved one to a preventable gun related crime and you feel shame, perhaps you should think about why that would be. 

My point is that many of these theoretical arguments fall away when you confront people or are involved in someone who has faced a loss resulting from gun violence.  It's really hard to say, "Sorry, nothing we can do."  I felt that keenly when I saw Obama cry talking about Newtown. 

I like the idea of decriminalization of marijuana.  I don't know if any states that currently have high levels of gun violence have done this yet, but it would be interesting to see an effect.

I hate, hate, hate the slippery slope absolutist mentality of the NRA.  Even if certain gun laws aren't working, why does that mean you have to stop trying?  Why would you give up on attempting to implement policy that might save people's lives?  Don't ever give up.  If you have a right like gun ownership, make sure you are doing the other part of what makes individual rights work, personal and social responsibility. 

Has there been a large study proving that having concealed carry laws prevents or reduces gun violence?  I would be interested in seeing that.  My intuition tells me that it would make volatile situations more volatile, but I could be wrong and I am open to changing my mind on that one. 

I have a real, real hard time with the idea of teachers carrying. Maybe it's because I have an autistic son, but I can envision situations where a few errors could result in his injury or death.  Maybe you are not aware of the fact that a lot of special needs kids are integrated into the general school environment these days, but that put a lot of unpredictable behavior at play.  I could totally see an inexperienced teacher reacting in a totally understandable way that gets kids killed. 

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2385 on: February 27, 2017, 11:56:11 AM »
Quote
Registration leads to confiscation. No thanks.

Thanks for being open minded and flexible.....

Do you have any other solutions that might bring comfort to gun control advocates besides "Let's give guns to everyone and see how that works out?".  What about my right to NOT own a gun? 
Give guns to everybody? No one is forcing you to own a gun so your right to not own a gun isn't being violated.
Quote
I see a lot of people on the gun control side trying to provide solutions while the anti-gun side doesn't budge an inch.  Not really a great way to solve problems. 
Doesn't budge an inch you must be joking? http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Illustrated-Guide-To-Gun-Control.png

Quote
Let's try an experiment.  Say you were sitting right across from someone who had a relative die to gun violence.  What would you say to them, IN PERSON, regarding gun control?  Don't just throw out an internet answer, but think about looking at their face as they describe the pain of losing a friend, husband, child to gun violence.  What would you actually say to that living breathing person in front of you?

I wouldn't say anything to them about gun control if they had just lost someone.

My best friend's cousin was murdered by someone with a gun. He now own's more guns than me. The person that murdered his cousin had no criminal or mental health record, legally owned the gun, so stricter laws wouldn't have stopped him.

My best friend was never really anti-gun but didn't want to own a shoot any for a long time. Over time talking to him about guns and gun laws I finally warmed him up to going to the range with me and the rest is history.

I don't blame the actions of people on inanimate objects.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2017, 12:52:31 PM by jamesvt »

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 566
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2386 on: February 27, 2017, 12:03:29 PM »
I can't make anyone feel shame.  If you approached someone in person who lost a loved one to a preventable gun related crime and you feel shame, perhaps you should think about why that would be. 

My point is that many of these theoretical arguments fall away when you confront people or are involved in someone who has faced a loss resulting from gun violence.  It's really hard to say, "Sorry, nothing we can do."  I felt that keenly when I saw Obama cry talking about Newtown. 

I like the idea of decriminalization of marijuana.  I don't know if any states that currently have high levels of gun violence have done this yet, but it would be interesting to see an effect.

I hate, hate, hate the slippery slope absolutist mentality of the NRA.  Even if certain gun laws aren't working, why does that mean you have to stop trying?  Why would you give up on attempting to implement policy that might save people's lives?  Don't ever give up.  If you have a right like gun ownership, make sure you are doing the other part of what makes individual rights work, personal and social responsibility. 

Has there been a large study proving that having concealed carry laws prevents or reduces gun violence?  I would be interested in seeing that.  My intuition tells me that it would make volatile situations more volatile, but I could be wrong and I am open to changing my mind on that one. 

I have a real, real hard time with the idea of teachers carrying. Maybe it's because I have an autistic son, but I can envision situations where a few errors could result in his injury or death.  Maybe you are not aware of the fact that a lot of special needs kids are integrated into the general school environment these days, but that put a lot of unpredictable behavior at play.  I could totally see an inexperienced teacher reacting in a totally understandable way that gets kids killed.

I don't feel shame, but that seemed to be what you were trying to accomplish. Non the less, I wouldn't say "sorry, nothing we can do." There are things we can do, that don't involve curtailing the rights of law abiding citizens from being armed.

Again, the absolutist mentality is in response to demonstrated incrementalism on the part of gun control advocates. This is documented and discussed earlier in the thread. The NRA is trying to stay off the slippery slope, if anything.

Perhaps teachers need another level of training before carrying on the job. I'm OK with that. I certainly wouldn't put one in the hand of a teacher who wasn't willing to get that extra level of training. Ideally, no kid would even know who was carrying.

Anyway, there have been numerous comparison of the numbers. Each side picks apart methodology but the results vary from "no effect" to "10% lower crime rate in CCW heavy states."

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1901
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2387 on: February 27, 2017, 12:36:29 PM »
I hate, hate, hate the slippery slope absolutist mentality of the NRA.   why does that mean you have to stop trying?  Why would you give up on attempting to implement policy that might save people's lives?  Don't ever give up.  If you have a right like gun ownership, make sure you are doing the other part of what makes individual rights work, personal and social responsibility.
Let me address this point by point:
I hate, hate, hate the slippery slope absolutist mentality of the NRA.  Usually "slippery slope" arguments are invalid.  But in this case, it has a very solid foundation in both history and in the publicly stated intent of gun control advocates.  Regardless of your own feelings about what types of changes would help the situation, you must recognize that this stance has been taken not out of preference, but out of necessity.  When your opponents are publicly stating their intent to completely strip you of a particular right, and that any measure they take will be a step in that direction, absolutism is no longer irrational.

Even if certain gun laws aren't working, why does that mean you have to stop trying?There's an inherent problem with this question, because it assumes that guns are the root cause of the problem, and that there is some sort of gun-control law that will help, when in reality guns are simply a tool being used in the context of a larger problem.  I think a better question would be "what is driving people to join gangs and commit violent crime?" since that represents the vast majority of gun crime;

Why would you give up on attempting to implement policy that might save people's lives?  There are two problems with this: 1) there's an assumption that "gun-control laws = lives saved", and 2) passing laws because they might solve a problem is a poor approach to government.

make sure you are doing the other part of what makes individual rights work, personal and social responsibility  I'm not sure what the specific concern is here.  Gun owners are already legally responsible for how they use their guns.  Can you provide a bit more detail on what you're getting at here?
Quote
Has there been a large study proving that having concealed carry laws prevents or reduces gun violence?  I would be interested in seeing that.  My intuition tells me that it would make volatile situations more volatile, but I could be wrong and I am open to changing my mind on that one.

I have a real, real hard time with the idea of teachers carrying. Maybe it's because I have an autistic son, but I can envision situations where a few errors could result in his injury or death.  Maybe you are not aware of the fact that a lot of special needs kids are integrated into the general school environment these days, but that put a lot of unpredictable behavior at play.  I could totally see an inexperienced teacher reacting in a totally understandable way that gets kids killed.
To be honest, the effect of concealed carry laws on crime rates is this:  it's murky.  It *has* been studied extensively, and the results range from "it reduces murder significantly" to "there's little causal link between concealed carry and reduced murder rates."  There's essentially zero research that claims to show that concealed carry is linked to increased gun violence.  As you consider this, keep in mind again that 1) most murders are gang-related, and such people generally don't bother with whether concealed carry is allowed in their location, and 2) most studies look at the link between gun laws and murder, and not at other violent crime, especially robbery, so it's not exactly apples-to-apples.

I understand the instinctive reaction against teachers carrying.  I, too, have an autistic son, and we're intimately aware of the challenges that arise in a school setting with special needs students.  It's easy to imagine scenarios where things could go wrong.  But those scenarios are not insurmountable.

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1901
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2388 on: February 27, 2017, 12:37:58 PM »
Quote
Doesn't budge an inch you must be joking? https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=78&v=wHf2ejIZ44g
I'm not sure you linked what you wanted to link.

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2389 on: February 27, 2017, 12:53:14 PM »
Quote
Doesn't budge an inch you must be joking? https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=78&v=wHf2ejIZ44g
I'm not sure you linked what you wanted to link.
Thanks for the catch lol. My post is updated with the correct link.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1272
  • Location: MA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2390 on: February 27, 2017, 01:28:19 PM »
Quote
Regardless of your own feelings about what types of changes would help the situation, you must recognize that this stance has been taken not out of preference, but out of necessity.  When your opponents are publicly stating their intent to completely strip you of a particular right, and that any measure they take will be a step in that direction, absolutism is no longer irrational.

I don't recognize that.  Sure, there are a few extremists that want to repeal the second amendment, but that doesn't cover the vast majority of gun control advocates.    You are all upset that I have mentioned that " people want everyone to carry a gun", but I have heard that line of thinking on the extreme margins of the pro gun people.  Perhaps you would do the gun control people the courtesy of not judging the majority by the most extreme position, and I will do the same for pro gun people. 

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2391 on: February 27, 2017, 01:45:23 PM »
Quote
Regardless of your own feelings about what types of changes would help the situation, you must recognize that this stance has been taken not out of preference, but out of necessity.  When your opponents are publicly stating their intent to completely strip you of a particular right, and that any measure they take will be a step in that direction, absolutism is no longer irrational.

I don't recognize that.  Sure, there are a few extremists that want to repeal the second amendment, but that doesn't cover the vast majority of gun control advocates.    You are all upset that I have mentioned that " people want everyone to carry a gun", but I have heard that line of thinking on the extreme margins of the pro gun people.  Perhaps you would do the gun control people the courtesy of not judging the majority by the most extreme position, and I will do the same for pro gun people.
What what do you want to be done? Also what are some good gun laws and bad ones already in existence? Please be specific, many people that advocate for more gun laws don't even know existing ones. Without having to look it up do you know the process of buying or owning a gun in Massachusetts?
« Last Edit: February 27, 2017, 01:46:55 PM by jamesvt »

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1272
  • Location: MA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2392 on: February 27, 2017, 01:59:47 PM »
Without looking it up, not exactly.  But I have a friend who recently got a gun licence and I believe he had to take some classes and a test.  He didn't consider it onerous. 

I don't know exactly what I want to be done, but I do know that I hope (and I stress that word) that everyone here wants what is best to protect everyone as best as we can.  We aren't doing good enough as a society to address this problem.  I am not pretending I know the answers to a complex situation, but I do know that some societies seem to have figured out things that work for them to reduce gun violence, and I believe we can get there too.  Our solutions might be different than theirs, but we do know that it is possible to get that number much lower.  I refuse to believe that the current amount of gun deaths are acceptable. 

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2393 on: February 27, 2017, 02:04:16 PM »
Just need a time machine. Japan has had a near prohibition on private firearm ownership since the 1600's. Even in modern times Japan and the US are very different. There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans that would rather die then give up their guns.
  Well, there are hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans who say that on the internet.  Whether they would really rather die than give up their guns I highly doubt.  Look what happened in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina when the authorities illegally started seizing firearms.  Not one single person even attempted to resist, much less was willing to die.

They meekly handed them over.

So much for the "from my cold, dead hands" rhetoric.  It sounds great, but it means nothing without the spine to back it up.

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2394 on: February 27, 2017, 02:13:29 PM »
Without looking it up, not exactly.  But I have a friend who recently got a gun licence and I believe he had to take some classes and a test.  He didn't consider it onerous. 

I don't know exactly what I want to be done, but I do know that I hope (and I stress that word) that everyone here wants what is best to protect everyone as best as we can.  We aren't doing good enough as a society to address this problem.  I am not pretending I know the answers to a complex situation, but I do know that some societies seem to have figured out things that work for them to reduce gun violence, and I believe we can get there too.  Our solutions might be different than theirs, but we do know that it is possible to get that number much lower.  I refuse to believe that the current amount of gun deaths are acceptable.
  And yet the laws are not tied to gun deaths at all.  Gun deaths are tied to demographics and subculture.  Even among different subcultures in the US, suicide rates with firearms vary drastically.  So do murders with guns.  Worldwide the differences are even larger, and they are not tied to the laws internationally.

The Brady Campaign people put out a grading system that grades states on the "safety" of their gun laws.  An A is a safe state, and an F is an unsafe state.  One year recently a state with an F on their rating system (based on state laws) had NO GUN MURDERS.

They did not see the irony in their statement on the report that "the states with the strongest gun laws also have the lowest gun death rates."

Eugene Volokh used their numbers to set forth a chart in which you can see that there is no real correlation between state laws and homicide rates (Volokh concludes that stronger gun laws actually equal more homicides, but admits that the correlation is very small).  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/06/zero-correlation-between-state-homicide-rate-and-state-gun-laws/?utm_term=.cabeee27db02
You can read the article if you want, but click on it to quickly view the charts even if you do not want to read the entire thing.

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2395 on: February 27, 2017, 02:22:00 PM »
Without looking it up, not exactly.  But I have a friend who recently got a gun licence and I believe he had to take some classes and a test.  He didn't consider it onerous. 

I don't know exactly what I want to be done, but I do know that I hope (and I stress that word) that everyone here wants what is best to protect everyone as best as we can.  We aren't doing good enough as a society to address this problem.  I am not pretending I know the answers to a complex situation, but I do know that some societies seem to have figured out things that work for them to reduce gun violence, and I believe we can get there too.  Our solutions might be different than theirs, but we do know that it is possible to get that number much lower.  I refuse to believe that the current amount of gun deaths are acceptable.
Like I said in a previous post gun laws aren't the issue. You have states with strict guns laws that have low violent crime rates and ones with high violent crime rates. You also have states with lax gun laws with low violent crime rates and ones with high violent crime rates. Poverty and drug laws are the issues.

Just need a time machine. Japan has had a near prohibition on private firearm ownership since the 1600's. Even in modern times Japan and the US are very different. There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans that would rather die then give up their guns.
  Well, there are hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans who say that on the internet.  Whether they would really rather die than give up their guns I highly doubt.  Look what happened in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina when the authorities illegally started seizing firearms.  Not one single person even attempted to resist, much less was willing to die.

They meekly handed them over.

So much for the "from my cold, dead hands" rhetoric.  It sounds great, but it means nothing without the spine to back it up.
I know what people say online vs what they do in real life can be different, but there are people out there that rather die than give up there guns. There were people that resisted in NO. Only about 1000 firearms where confiscated so it seems like a lot of people lied saying they didn't own and firearms. Another reason against firearm registration. 
« Last Edit: February 27, 2017, 02:24:14 PM by jamesvt »

cheapass

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2396 on: February 27, 2017, 05:48:43 PM »
Without looking it up, not exactly.  But I have a friend who recently got a gun licence and I believe he had to take some classes and a test.  He didn't consider it onerous. 

I don't know exactly what I want to be done, but I do know that I hope (and I stress that word) that everyone here wants what is best to protect everyone as best as we can.  We aren't doing good enough as a society to address this problem.  I am not pretending I know the answers to a complex situation, but I do know that some societies seem to have figured out things that work for them to reduce gun violence, and I believe we can get there too.  Our solutions might be different than theirs, but we do know that it is possible to get that number much lower.  I refuse to believe that the current amount of gun deaths are acceptable.
The problem with this approach is that whenever a proposed gun control law comes up, all of the people who know nothing about firearms jump on it and say WE'VE GOTTA DO SOMETHING, even if that "something" was just pulled out of somebody's ass at random and has no logic behind why it would reduce gun violence.

Can you tell me what makes an "assault weapon" deadlier than any other rifle?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


cheapass

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2397 on: February 27, 2017, 05:54:40 PM »
Without looking it up, not exactly.  But I have a friend who recently got a gun licence and I believe he had to take some classes and a test.  He didn't consider it onerous. 

I don't know exactly what I want to be done, but I do know that I hope (and I stress that word) that everyone here wants what is best to protect everyone as best as we can.  We aren't doing good enough as a society to address this problem.  I am not pretending I know the answers to a complex situation, but I do know that some societies seem to have figured out things that work for them to reduce gun violence, and I believe we can get there too.  Our solutions might be different than theirs, but we do know that it is possible to get that number much lower.  I refuse to believe that the current amount of gun deaths are acceptable.
Also, for the sake of argument, let's say an assault weapon ban gets passed. A few months later there's a sensationalized mass shooting with a non-assault weapon. What happens then? 

Slippery slope

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2398 on: February 27, 2017, 06:29:18 PM »
Also, for the sake of argument, let's say an assault weapon ban gets passed. A few months later there's a sensationalized mass shooting with a non-assault weapon. What happens then? 

Gun advocates keep pretending that there's nothing that can be done to prevent mass shootings?

cheapass

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2399 on: February 27, 2017, 06:31:32 PM »
Also, for the sake of argument, let's say an assault weapon ban gets passed. A few months later there's a sensationalized mass shooting with a non-assault weapon. What happens then? 

Gun advocates keep pretending that there's nothing that can be done to prevent mass shootings?
I don't believe there is, other than rounding up every gun in the country and destroying them, along with every machine shop capable of producing a firearm.

I guess alternatively we could just make mass shootings illegal?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk