S/O Gun control

[Murphy101]

Honestly, I think Heigh Ho lives in Lagos.

 

Seriously, the situations she describes are beyond awful. They don't even have calculus in high schools.

 

It's actually worse than Lagos. I think she might live in Jackson, Mississippi or something. I have no idea.

There are places like that in every major city in America and most certainly in every state.

 

The very low income really do live in a different America than the rest us. And as long as they stay in the ghetto, the rest of America doesn't seem to care much or even notice.

[klmama]

Yes, why is it that when these school shootings happen we only hear about gun control, not drug control!    And if our government can manage a "no-fly" list of names, why couldn't there be a "no-buy" list so that anyone who fills a prescription for a psychiatric drug is automatically put on a list of people who can't buy guns...or at the very least let those specific people go through another level of screening.

 

I also like Bill O'Reilly's idea that he's been talking about for a few years...it includes making all gun crimes a federal crime with a 10 year prison sentence.  http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2013/01/17/bill-oreilly-guns-and-federal-government/

 

I would also like to add that  Adam Lanza's mother was taking her troubled son target shooting.   The Oregon shooter's mother was apparently going target shooting with her troubled son as well.   Does anyone else agree with me that THIS IS VERY STUPID AND DANGEROUS?   If you have a friend/family member/neighbor, etc. and you know this is going on, please say something to them, like "Are you trying to train the next school shooter?"   I think we as a society need to utilize some shaming and shunning. 

 

 

The "no buy" list idea ends up penalizing many people who are not likely to become violent, though, since their biochemistry "works" with the type of drug they've been prescribed.  Getting their names off of that list may be a huge headache.  Also, it could lead to other types of discrimination, since their medical information could essentially become public knowledge without their consent.  I think Walsh's idea to require simple medical testing to determine an individual's biochemistry before prescribing anti-depressants makes a lot of sense.    

 

As for purposely teaching people who are already mentally unstable to use guns?  Stupid. 

[Pam in CT]

re: state v. federal level action:

I think the work will have to start at the state level and move to the national level.  And the change will have to come via legislation.  The courts cannot toughen gun control laws (the bigger concern is some facing challenges could be struck down) and executive orders are limited in what they can do.

 

Wins at the state level can help diminish the NRA lobbying power little by little and well written regulations which go into place and show that responsible, law abiding citizens are not adversely affected in the ways the tinfoil hat/black helicopter clowns seem to fear. 

Generally, I agree.  When the CT assault weapon ban passed, I think most people here understood that it's not really likely to make much difference -- it's way too easy to cross lines to get around it.  So the piecemeal approach is frustrating.  But, seeing the process here was very eye-opening, and ultimately hopeful.  Most gun owners care about safe storage and training, and are willing to think about how technologies (like biometrics) can improve safety.  At least here, nobody was arguing against hunting or sports use.  

 

I do think the federal ban on gathering and consolidating data can and should be lifted.  It's quite difficult for me to justify how such a ban could possibly help us get to a better place.

 

 

re: private market being constrained from offering safety solutions:

Why biometric guns will never happen to any useful degree as long as extreme anti-gun control activists keep getting their way.. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/threats-against-maryland-gun-dealer-raise-doubts-about-future-of-smart-guns/2014/05/02/8a4f7482-d227-11e3-9e25-188ebe1fa93b_story.html

 

Gun shops that *support* gun ownership are being pressured not to sell certain guns that can be made safer.  The basic argument is, "If guns are made safer, then the government will want everyone to have them and stop using other guns. So, we can't make guns any safer."  Talk about an example of no logical discussion being possible...

:svengo: That really is a remarkable story.

 

 

 

You are right that the purpose of a gun is to kill. That's exactly why guns play into the definition of a government, and why it's a big deal for people who genuinely believe that the US is a government of the people by the people. Guns give the power of death... force.... to the user. That's why people get disturbed at the idea that only criminals can have them in public. Whoever has the guns, is the government. Those who are forced to obey with guns, are the governed.

One thing I believe you're missing though is that there is no state in the US that does not have the death penalty. Sure, there are some that don't use it as a sentence during a trial, but guess what happens if a guy decides to point a gun at a cop and refuses to drop it? The state executes him on the spot.

So the question comes back to who is the state, who has the monopoly on force, etc.

I don't know that this materially affects what I think you're saying here -- that some Americans firmly believe that access to guns is a necessary counterbalance to the power of government--

 

but, to the bolded, there are 19 states that have either legislatively abolished the death penalty, or whose courts have struck it down.  (A great number of other countries have as well  To your larger point, though, the government still has enforcement capability even so.

[Bluegoat]

I haven't read any replies yet, so this is a fresh answer.

 

I live in Canada, so our laws are different.  That being said, we actually do have quite a few guns and a long tradition of using them as tools.

 

I do find some of the American regulations on guns inadequate, or sometimes even strange. 

 

But I'd emphasize strange in a way - I don't think that all places need the same laws to work well.  What I find odd though is that it seems like in the US, even when there seems to be a law that could be improved or isn't working well, it is impossible to have a useful public discussion about it.

 

To me, this strongly suggests that the real problem isn't fundamentally the laws, it is a problem with people's attitudes to violence and to each other.  There is on the one had among some a sentiment that their right to have a gun is significantly more important than the right of people to be protected from problems they can cause.  And there is also a lot of fear that without guns, people are vulnerable to criminals or their own government.

 

I think if those things changed, that would change the type of gun violence you see, and it would also probably change the laws where it would make sense.

 

When I look at other countries where citizens have and use guns regularly, and it is not a problem, those are the things i see.  They are not afraid that people are out to get them, they feel that most people are good and that the government is their own tool.  And they want people to be safe and so are willing to talk about how to balance safety against their right to have a gun.  The third thing might be that while they may have a sort of cultural vision of themselves that includes firearms, they don't seem to see any restriction on that, no matter how minor, as an attempt to strip away their citizenship.  But - maybe that comes down to social trust.

 

One thing I consider very interesting is that this attitude seems to be something that changed in American culture - I've spoken to people who remember when the NRA was a body whose political involvement was mostly about encouraging gun safety and advising about what good legislation would be appropriate, and who say that the change to what we see now was really rather sudden.  And those same people have commented that most of the rhetoric that is popular now about needing guns for personal protection was unheard of.

 

So - to me it is really a symptom of a deeper social problem.  If that is addressed, the legal aspect will take care of itself.

[Joanne]

 

I haven't read any replies yet, so this is a fresh answer.

 

I live in Canada, so our laws are different.  That being said, we actually do have quite a few guns and a long tradition of using them as tools.

 

I do find some of the American regulations on guns inadequate, or sometimes even strange. 

 

But I'd emphasize strange in a way - I don't think that all places need the same laws to work well.  What I find odd though is that it seems like in the US, even when there seems to be a law that could be improved or isn't working well, it is impossible to have a useful public discussion about it.

 

To me, this strongly suggests that the real problem isn't fundamentally the laws, it is a problem with people's attitudes to violence and to each other.  There is on the one had among some a sentiment that their right to have a gun is significantly more important than the right of people to be protected from problems they can cause.  And there is also a lot of fear that without guns, people are vulnerable to criminals or their own government.

 

I think if those things changed, that would change the type of gun violence you see, and it would also probably change the laws where it would make sense.

 

When I look at other countries where citizens have and use guns regularly, and it is not a problem, those are the things i see.  They are not afraid that people are out to get them, they feel that most people are good and that the government is their own tool.  And they want people to be safe and so are willing to talk about how to balance safety against their right to have a gun.  The third thing might be that while they may have a sort of cultural vision of themselves that includes firearms, they don't seem to see any restriction on that, no matter how minor, as an attempt to strip away their citizenship.  But - maybe that comes down to social trust.

 

One thing I consider very interesting is that this attitude seems to be something that changed in American culture - I've spoken to people who remember when the NRA was a body whose political involvement was mostly about encouraging gun safety and advising about what good legislation would be appropriate, and who say that the change to what we see now was really rather sudden.  And those same people have commented that most of the rhetoric that is popular now about needing guns for personal protection was unheard of.

 

So - to me it is really a symptom of a deeper social problem.  If that is addressed, the legal aspect will take care of itself.

 

 

I agree with Bluegoat?!?!!?!?!?

 

:)

[Ms.Ivy]

but, to the bolded, there are 19 states that have either legislatively abolished the death penalty, or whose courts have struck it down. (A great number of other countries have as well To your larger point, thougis i the government still has enforcement capability even so.

I know that some states don't have the death penalty as a sentencing option at trial, but I was responding to an earlier post that said some states don't have the power of life and death over people, and pointed to the death penalty as evidence. I think a lot of people forget that people are killed by police during law enforcement in every state. Conceptually it's like an immediate execution. So in my mind, if the use of deadly force is allowed in a state, it's as if they have a form of the death penalty.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I know that some states don't have the death penalty as a sentencing option at trial, but I was responding to an earlier post that said some states don't have the power of life and death over people, and pointed to the death penalty as evidence. I think a lot of people forget that people are killed by police during law enforcement in every state. Conceptually it's like an immediate execution. So in my mind, if the use of deadly force is allowed in a state, it's as if they have a form of the death penalty.

 

It isn't unless you are arguing that a policeman can lawfully kill someone as a punishment. 

Spoiler alert: they can't.

 

ETA: lawful use of deadly force is in defense of oneself or in defense of another.  Conceptually that is not the same as the death penalty which is used as a punishment.

[Joker]

I know that some states don't have the death penalty as a sentencing option at trial, but I was responding to an earlier post that said some states don't have the power of life and death over people, and pointed to the death penalty as evidence. I think a lot of people forget that people are killed by police during law enforcement in every state. Conceptually it's like an immediate execution. So in my mind, if the use of deadly force is allowed in a state, it's as if they have a form of the death penalty.

 

I'm not following you here. I do not think self defense is a form of the death penalty.  I do not think of police, or anyone else, defending themselves as a form of execution. I own no guns and have zero desire to do so, FWIW, but I support others' right to use deadly force to protect themselves and others. I would fight with all I had to protect myself and my family. That could result in death but it isn't the same as an execution or the death penalty at all in my mind.

[Ms.Ivy]

It isn't unless you are arguing that a policeman can lawfully kill someone as a punishment. 

Spoiler alert: they can't.

 

ETA: lawful use of deadly force is in defense of oneself or in defense of another.  Conceptually that is not the same as the death penalty which is used as a punishment.

 

Yes, I understand that.  I was pointing it out because of this previous poster's comment: "If so, a person holding a gun holds a life or death machine in their hands. That's a huge responsibility. Huge. And most individuals in our society can legally get one or more. As I mentioned before, even some states don't get to exercise that option (life or death)." 

 

She thought that the only way the state legally kills people is through the death penalty handed down by the court after a trial, when that is not the case.  Whether they are killed through the use of deadly force or through the death penalty, or through both, people are lawfully killed by the state, in every state.  So the statement I was responding to is just not true.  She thought that since certain states don't have the death penalty, they don't have the option to kill.  Obviously that's not true.  That's the only point I was trying to make.  I am fully aware of how the comparison between the two types of killing breaks down after that point.  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Yes, I understand that. I was pointing it out because of this previous poster's comment: "If so, a person holding a gun holds a life or death machine in their hands. That's a huge responsibility. Huge. And most individuals in our society can legally get one or more. As I mentioned before, even some states don't get to exercise that option (life or death)."

 

She thought that the only way the state legally kills people is through the death penalty handed down by the court after a trial, when that is not the case. Whether they are killed through the use of deadly force or through the death penalty, or through both, people are lawfully killed by the state, in every state. So the statement I was responding to is just not true. She thought that since certain states don't have the death penalty, they don't have the option to kill. Obviously that's not true. That's the only point I was trying to make. I am fully aware of how the comparison between the two types of killing breaks down after that point.

An officer acting in defense of himself is not acting as the state at that moment.

[Bluegoat]

Yes, that's why I was asking earlier what, other than killing, is the purpose of a gun? Is there any other purpose? The only reason I can think of is to shoot/to kill.

 

If so, a person holding a gun holds a life or death machine in their hands. That's a huge responsibility. Huge. And most individuals in our society can legally get one or more. As I mentioned before, even some states don't get to exercise that option (life or death).

 

Such serious responsibility should also come with some serious restrictions and serious rules regarding access to & use of such machinery. Imo.

 

Well, a lot of people like to shoot competitively, or for fun.  So, target shooting of various kinds.  The same way some people like archery but have no desire to either shoot people or hunt with a bow.  They want to go to the Olympics, maybe.

 

The the most widespread reason I suppose is hunting or protection from wild animals, which is killing but I would say the most direct desire is eating or not losing livestock or being mauled to death by a bear or something. 

 

Though there seem to be some people who hunt mostly because they want to kill things.  I think those people are creepy.

[SKL]

I've been away all weekend and don't have time to read all the posts.

 

I was just musing:  when I was young, I lived for 10 years in a small town where the ratio of guns to people was/is far higher than 1:1, and gun sports were the most popular of all sports.  There was one murder in town during those 10 years.  It was a domestic violence incident in which the wife was murdered ... with a knife.  (Her throat was slit.)

 

That is the gun culture I grew up in.  That gun culture does not cause mass murders.

[Murphy101]

I find it amusing that when I had not signed in yet, and thus saw ads, the ads for the thread were pictures of tanks and military copters in an ad for Alpha Wars.

[Pam in CT]

I find it amusing that when I had not signed in yet, and thus saw ads, the ads for the thread were pictures of tanks and military copters in an ad for Alpha Wars.

 

Telling, indeed -- about both our cultural aversion to government privacy intrusions vs. the commercial privacy intrusions we've learned to think of as normal... and also, about how much of the gun control discussion can/should be analyzed in Follow the Money terms...

[Valley Girl]

Telling, indeed -- about both our cultural aversion to government privacy intrusions vs. the commercial privacy intrusions we've learned to think of as normal... and also, about how much of the gun control discussion can/should be analyzed in Follow the Money terms...

 

I dunno...I'm pretty unhappy about commercial intrusion, too. I do what I can to avoid that.

[Murphy101]

I dunno...I'm pretty unhappy about commercial intrusion, too. I do what I can to avoid that.

Me too.

[Pam in CT]

Me three. But it's mighty hard, isn't it?  Not the way our economy is increasingly set up.   To avoid credit card transactions AND email AND google searches would be... beyond onerous.  THAT is undue burden.

[Bluegoat]

Telling, indeed -- about both our cultural aversion to government privacy intrusions vs. the commercial privacy intrusions we've learned to think of as normal... and also, about how much of the gun control discussion can/should be analyzed in Follow the Money terms...

 

I was thinking about this last night after I went to bed.  I mentioned in my post up thread about the change in the rhetoric of the gun lobby in the late 60s, early 70s, and someone else mentioned that it corresponded to large influxes of money from corporate sources wich benefit from selling a lot of guns.

 

That is fairly straightforward and to I think points to the necessity of controlling lobbying by special interest groups generally - something long pointed out as the likely downfall of democracies.

 

The other things though that I think is part and parcel is to look at the gun issue as a symptom of the social trust issue.  Who is benefiting from the lack of social trust, between people, groups, and towards government?  What kind of people or groups would like to push that particular agenda?

 

I would argue that it is something that has been very cleverly managed.  On the one hand, the ability of government to oversee or control corporate interests has been and continues to be degraded until it is almost non-existent.  Distrust of government keeps people fighting against the ability of government to stand against these large entities in any meaningful way.  And people are too afraid to empower the government to do it.

 

On the other hand, that fear is harnessed to create all kinds of ways to allow government to act against individual citizens.  Fear of criminals and terrorists make people willing to give up even basic rights.

 

People are even so distrustful of each other that there can't be effective public discourse, they think people with other political designations are evil or liars or just beyond the pale in some way.  So its not like they can get together and accomplish anything.

 

It strikes me very much as a divide and conquer sort of strategy.  Divide people from each other and their power as an institution.  Put in place structures to control the population, particular related to information collection.

 

What would we find if we followed all that money back?  Or, maybe, who?

[mom2scouts]

Everyone around me is talking about gun control and my son showed up this weekend and said, "Look at the new gun I'm planning to buy!" :001_rolleyes:

If it makes anyone feel any better, the military seems to think he's mentally fit enough to use big weapons.

[Pam in CT]

Bluegoat, I agree that lobbyists' influence is part of our national consensus-building problem.   And while that issue is considerably larger than just the NRA,  this thread is about gun control, and they are the relevant lobbyists for that discussion.  

 

The NRA clearly does good work, including running some very good safety and training programs.  In this state, in the aftermath of Newtown/Sandy Hook, they were a politically polarizing force, coming out strong against any measure on slippery-slope grounds and even, I think it is fair to say, against any discussion of the issue.  It took a lot of courage for responsible gun owners here to take a different line.  

 

 

 

 

Today four clergy leaders -- Rev. David K. Brawley, the Rev. Otis Moss III, the Rev. David Benke and Rabbi Joel Mosbacher, co-wrote an editorial in the New York Times.  They make an interesting call -- for the Federal government to use its purchasing power (weapons purchases for the military and FBI) to require the development of some of the "smart gun" technologies discussed upthread that manufacturers have thus far resisted, and to strengthen distribution networks' utilization of required background checks.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Bluegoat, I agree that lobbyists' influence is part of our national consensus-building problem.   And while that issue is considerably larger than just the NRA,  this thread is about gun control, and they are the relevant lobbyists for that discussion.  

 

The NRA clearly does good work, including running some very good safety and training programs.  In this state, in the aftermath of Newtown/Sandy Hook, they were a politically polarizing force, coming out strong against any measure on slippery-slope grounds and even, I think it is fair to say, against any discussion of the issue.  It took a lot of courage for responsible gun owners here to take a different line.  

 

 

 

 

Today four clergy leaders -- Rev. David K. Brawley, the Rev. Otis Moss III, the Rev. David Benke and Rabbi Joel Mosbacher, co-wrote an editorial in the New York Times.  They make an interesting call -- for the Federal government to use its purchasing power (weapons purchases for the military and FBI) to require the development of some of the "smart gun" technologies discussed upthread that manufacturers have thus far resisted, and to strengthen distribution networks' utilization of required background checks.

 

I agree with the suggestions and a lot of those make sense.  I do have a small issue with the last one (using guns found at crime scenes/used in crimes as metric) but that is only a suggestion and with some thought there are likely better metrics that would make sense.

[Katy]

I think 3D printers render gun control moot.  If you can afford a gun, you can afford a 3D printer, or at least you will be able to soon.  They sell them at my local Sam's club already.  Not one big enough to print a hand gun, but in less than 10 years?

[Laura Corin]

I think 3D printers render gun control moot.  If you can afford a gun, you can afford a 3D printer, or at least you will be able to soon.  They sell them at my local Sam's club already.  Not one big enough to print a hand gun, but in less than 10 years?

 

Well, it depends whether manufacturing your own gun is deemed an illegal way of avoiding licensing.  I suspect that that would be the case here.

[Bluegoat]

Well, it depends whether manufacturing your own gun is deemed an illegal way of avoiding licensing.  I suspect that that would be the case here.

 

But it would still be possible to do it secretly, and as long as you weren't out showing it around, no one would know.

 

It's an interesting idea.  It wouldn't be just a matter of size though - there's some significant material strength and precision involved, if it is going to work and be safe to use.  So it would I think have to be a fairly expensive printer, and the person putting it together would have to be able to make small adjustments and such.

[Murphy101]

Well, it depends whether manufacturing your own gun is deemed an illegal way of avoiding licensing. I suspect that that would be the case here.

I think it would fall under gunsmithing laws. There's actually a gun smithing school in my state. One of my son's friends attends it.

[Katy]

But it would still be possible to do it secretly, and as long as you weren't out showing it around, no one would know.

 

It's an interesting idea.  It wouldn't be just a matter of size though - there's some significant material strength and precision involved, if it is going to work and be safe to use.  So it would I think have to be a fairly expensive printer, and the person putting it together would have to be able to make small adjustments and such.

 

A few years ago there was a news story that there was some website with instructions and plans posted for free.  With the correct size of 3D printer it easily produced a plastic handgun that fired bullets.  It was meant to be a warning as it would then be easy to melt the plastic and destroy the evidence.   A few months back DH mentioned there is now a 3D printer that prints in metal, and they are getting cheaper and his factory might order one eventually for one-off parts for repair. This led into a spin-off on how technology renders regulations moot.

[Murphy101]

I don't know about the quality of this site:

 

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/homemade-guns-are-they-legal-must-they-be-registered.

 

But I do know there have already been a few 3D printer gun homicides so I went looking out of curiosity. Interesting.

[Katy]

I don't know about the quality of this site:

 

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/homemade-guns-are-they-legal-must-they-be-registered.

 

But I do know there have already been a few 3D printer gun homicides so I went looking out of curiosity. Interesting.

 

Interesting.  The bit about plastic guns being undetectable raises entirely new questions about sneaking firearms through airport security.   God help us all.

[MyThreeSons]

I have been in an ongoing discussion about gun control issues with a friend who is over-the-top with his 2nd Amendment rights activism. He is just so sure that he is right, and those who have a different opinion are wrong, that it is infuriating. 

 

For example, he believes that I am wrong -- like, in sin -- because I do not protect my home, property and family by having a CWP.

 

He also believes that "gun banners" are truly evil people. He thinks that they actually have an agenda that includes wanting to see more people killed by guns, for some perverse reason that he hasn't explained. 

 

And he believes that there really were more people killed by baseball bats than rifles in the U.S. in 2012, because there is that meme that says so. I pointed out that although the meme claims to have gotten its data from the FBI site, the truth is the FBI doesn't compile separate data for baseball bat deaths. (They do have a category for "blunt objects", but their examples do not include bats.) When I pointed out that the meme also claims that Chicago had over 1800 homicides by firearms that year, while the FBI stats show that the total was actually something like 532, he says that he has verified the 1800 number via several sources. When I asked him to "show me", he refused. 

 

 

 

[Pam in CT]

One of the issues discussed upthread is liability for "straw man" weapons purchases: A jury in Milwaukee today found Badger Gun weapons shop negligent for such a purchase that resulted in the shooting of two police officers, and ordered damages of $6 million.

 

NBC

NPR

Washington Times