Another shooting in San Antonio at a church :(

[TechWife]

 

Unfortunately, Congress is going in the opposite direction when it comes to disclosure of mental illness in regard to weapon sales. In February, they repealed a law that had established a database for people who were on disability due to mental illness or who required guardians to manage their affairs. One would think that someone whose mental illness is so disabling that they cannot work or manage their own affairs would not be a good candidate for gun ownership, but the NRA argued that the previous law "deprived the mentally ill of their 2nd Amendment rights."

 

Yes, I lobbied against dropping this requirement. Such a travesty. 

[Halftime Hope]

 

It's more than just a failure to report. Only a dishonorable discharge disqualifies a person from owning weapons — a bad conduct discharge doesn't count. So one level of failure, IMO, is that someone who threatened to kill multiple people and nearly killed a toddler ended up not getting a dishonorable discharge, and only being charged with misdemeanors. And the rule about incarceration is that it's for "more than 1 year" or for a felony; since he was sentenced to 1 year (not more) for misdemeanors, that rule didn't apply to him. The one rule that did, the DV charge, wasn't entered in the database, but if he had been charged with a felony and given a dishonorable discharge — which seems warranted for such egregious offenses — then that would have automatically shown up.

 

The part about the "mental institution" is still unclear. The "behavioral hospital" he was in had a separate program for active duty military, and he may have just been there for observation or evaluation; there's not a lot of detail in the news reports. It may be a gray area whether his presence there would have legally counted as "commitment to a mental institution" since he was under arrest and still in military custody at the time.

 

IMO the criteria for "disqualifying offenses" are too vague, too lenient, and too prone to human error.    [[ Me:  Agreeing with you on this!]]  Clarifying and strengthening, and standardizing laws (tweaking them) would help.

 

 

Unfortunately, Congress is going in the opposite direction when it comes to disclosure of mental illness in regard to weapon sales. In February, they repealed a law that had established a database for people who were on disability due to mental illness or who required guardians to manage their affairs. One would think that someone whose mental illness is so disabling that they cannot work or manage their own affairs would not be a good candidate for gun ownership, but the NRA argued that the previous law "deprived the mentally ill of their 2nd Amendment rights."  

 

When scientists, researchers, the ACLU, and the NRA all find themselves on the same side, using data and research to argue against an Executive Order--not a law--which effectively abridged a constitutional right without due process for a small group of people...    If you want to keep people with mental illness from owning guns, review, clarify, and if necessary strengthen, the law that is on the books.

 

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/16/nra-republicans-gun-control-science

 

 

Edited:  I forgot an item in the post...

Edited November 8, 2017 by Halftime Hope

[ChocolateReignRemix]

When scientists, researchers, the ACLU, and the NRA all find themselves on the same side, using data and research to argue against an Executive Order--not a law--which effectively abridged a constitutional right without due process for a small group of people...    If you want to keep people with mental illness from owning guns, review, clarify, and if necessary strengthen, the law that is on the books.

 

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/16/nra-republicans-gun-control-science

 

 

Edited:  I forgot an item in the post...

 

Huh. I wonder why that hasn't happened.  Oh...yeah...from your link...

"Because Congress refused to pass updated gun control legislation, Obama was left to tinker around the edges of the existing law, and he directed federal agencies to do a better job reporting records of people with disqualifying mental illnesses to the background-check system."

[Murphy101]

So now I'm hearing this guy had run away from a mental institution ... how many times did people have the opportunity - the responsibility - to stop this person before he ever got that gun in his hands in the first place?

 

To me, this is all about people not acting on what they know is right - thinking it's none of their business - until the shit hits the fan.

 

How much of this is going on in this world?

 

 

I think every person who had the responsibility to report this to the gun control registry, and failed to do it, should be criminally liable for these deaths. And that should be the standard. What the hell is the point of laws if people like this turd don't make it on the banned list?

 

It's not about "gun culture." I'll bet a high % of people in that church were hobby gun owners. Hobby gun owners don't want rotten people toting guns.

 

When a guy drives a car or truck into a crowd, we don't say "ban motor vehicles, it's America's sick car culture that causes violence." It's obvious that American car owners don't want murderous people, suicidal people, or crazy people driving on our roads - any more than we want murderous, suicidal, or crazy people toting guns. To some extent we can't predict, but all too often there are red flags that were ignored. Huge ones in this case.

This. I’m for gun law reform and I still think you hit the nail with this post. This guy was a total cluster bleep of repeated ball drops that would have prevented this if people had done their jobs.

[mathnerd]

Right now I would be happy with an ammunition tax, where money went to those who are victims.  Like insurance, but not. Make it high, too.  $50/box would be about right.  And I want a system where every gun sale has to be registered. No more unlicensed dealers.  If you want to sell a weapon, you need to take it down to the police station and have them run the background check on the buyer.  If you buy 30 guns, you should be flagged and put on a watchlist.  If you have a history of DV, you should be banned and have to reapply after a certain number of years with evidence of change.

I like what you are saying.

 

I think that just like my personal property tax information and property records are public domain knowledge if someone knows where to look (even if I float an LLC or trust to own the property) I would like to see all the "high firepower" gun owner's data and name and addresses publicly accessible (specifically, the kind of guns that could massacre 100s of people in a minute). 

 

I would like the information that so-and-so owns a gun that can pump 75 bullets/minute or that he/she has purchased 45 such guns and has 70,000 rounds of ammo in their possession become publicly searchable in a database. The gun enthusiasts say that they have a right to own super-heavy-duty guns (the kind that are used in mass shootings) and that they are using them for recreation, hunting and protecting their family from hooligans who might one day try to hunt them down. So, if they believe that those reasons give them their right to own military style guns (again, I am talking about the ones used in sandy hook, vegas, florida etc), I also think that it is OK for others to know who the owners of those guns are, including their neighbors, their police department, their babysitters, their pastors, their bosses, their potential employers, their local newspaper reporter, their potential in-laws etc. If the reasons for owning guns that were designed for military warfare are so casual (as in hobby, recreation) or so noble (as in protecting their little kids from a would-be assailant), then there is no problem in the world knowing who those persons are, in my opinion.

I am not worried about lack of privacy where guns that can cause mass murders are concerned.  

 

PS: I am the polar opposite of a gun enthusiast. I do not know the technical differences between a semi-automatic or an automatic or other such things. All I know is that guns that pump too many bullets per minute were designed for the military and not for civilian use.

Edited November 8, 2017 by mathnerd

[Ausmumof3]

I like what you are saying.

 

I think that just like my personal property tax information and property records are public domain knowledge if someone knows where to look (even if I float an LLC or trust to own the property) I would like to see all the "high firepower" gun owner's data and name and addresses publicly accessible (specifically, the kind of guns that could massacre 100s of people in a minute).

 

I would like the information that so-and-so owns a gun that can pump 75 bullets/minute or that he/she has purchased 45 such guns and has 70,000 rounds of ammo in their possession become publicly searchable in a database. The gun enthusiasts say that they have a right to own super-heavy-duty guns (the kind that are used in mass shootings) and that they are using them for recreation, hunting and protecting their family from hooligans who might one day try to hunt them down. So, if they believe that those reasons give them their right to own military style guns (again, I am talking about the ones used in sandy hook, vegas, florida etc), I also think that it is OK for others to know who the owners of those guns are, including their neighbors, their police department, their babysitters, their pastors, their bosses, their potential employers, their local newspaper reporter, their potential in-laws etc. If the reasons for owning guns that were designed for military warfare are so casual (as in hobby, recreation) or so noble (as in protecting their little kids from a would-be assailant), then there is no problem in the world knowing who those persons are, in my opinion.

I am not worried about lack of privacy where guns that can cause mass murders are concerned.

 

PS: I am the polar opposite of a gun enthusiast. I do not know the technical differences between a semi-automatic or an automatic or other such things. All I know is that guns that pump too many bullets per minute were designed for the military and not for civilian use.

The issue with this is it provides a ready shopping list for thieves who may have far worse intentions with the guns.

[Halftime Hope]

But, hey, if we used the tax to compensate victims of drunk driving accidents, to provide addiction recovery programs, ongoing counseling for addict and their family member who have been affected by the excessive behavior, that tax begins to look like a bargain, doesn't it? It would also go a long way to curb alcohol abuse because there would be many people who would be unwilling or unable to purchase large amounts of alcohol. Having grown up in a home with an alcoholic and having lost my brother to liver cirrhosis, I'm okay with that. Whatever works. 

 

TechWife, that experiment called Prohibition?  As a nation, we have, effectively, BTDT and repealed it. 

[Bluegoat]

Way upthread, I said that many gun owners and LEOs were convinced that a place to start addressing the problem of gun lawlessness is by enforcing the laws *already* on the books. 

 

Someone asked me what that would look like, and I've been trying to find a short, clear explanation of some of the problems that are thwarting the effective enforcement of current laws. (I hear anecdotes, but I didn't want to bore you.) 

 

In the 24 hours since that questions, we've found out that the Murderer (I refuse to mention him by name) 1) was not reported by the military when he should have been on two or three counts, for being a) discharged in less than honorable circumstances, and for b) DV charges, and c) for incarceration.  Both or all three of those are no brainers, and if not already quite clearly spelled out in reporting to the federal DB, they would be very minor legislative tweaks that a majority of Americans could easily agree to. 

 

We've also found out that 2) he was in a mental institution, and that should have flagged him in the National Database so that when he attempted to purchase a firearm and underwent a background check, his application would have been denied. 

 

Both of these are examples of failures of enforcement or compliance on an institutional level, not law-breaking at an individual level.  These areas should be cleaned up and are something absolutely worth lobbying our legislators about, at all levels of government (local, state, federal).

 

There are a boatload of additional examples of failure to properly implement and enforce laws listed in the article linked below.  If lawmakers started with the things mentioned in this article, it would go a long way.  I may be wrong, but it seems like most of the shootings in the news in the recent months have been ones that people had a clue about, and in which, upon closer examination, a ball was dropped that allowed the perps to obtain weapons when they should not have been able to.  The notable exception to that is the Las Vegas massacre.

 

https://www.trace.org/2015/07/background-checks-nic-guns-dylann-roof-charleston-shurch-shooting

 

There may have been good reasons to reduce the charges, for example if it simplified things for the family. Or perhaps they felt it was really a mental health issue and should be addressed that way.   It's hard to know why those decisions were made from the outside.

 

They probably didn't think at all about how that would affect his ability to purchase firearms - it's really not why you make a decision like that.  

[Bluegoat]

Yeah, super high taxes on things like booze tends to create a black market.  

[Barb_]

Not at $50/bottle for the purpose of making it unaffordable, as a means of alcohol control (ahem) compensating victims.

 

Cigarettes are. I used to work at a grocery in high school. I remember selling cigarettes for just under $10 a box with tax--roughly equivalent to 3 minimum wage hours. Now they cost roughly $90 a box--ten times minimum wage. Fewer people can afford cigarettes and rates of smoking during that period have fallen from 30 to 16 and are still dropping.

[Halftime Hope]

Yeah, super high taxes on things like booze tends to create a black market.  

 

Yep, I think that's what I've already been saying upthread, just in different words: criminals who want a gun will find a way to get one, including ones supplied by our loving government.

 

[Barb_]

What makes the US exceptional when it comes to mass shootings? According to the evidence it isn't video games, our abysmal mental health system, multicultural strife--the body of research on the subject repeatedly points to a single factor:

 

The stupendously large number of weapons in our country.

 

The first step should be outlawing military grade weapons. Buyback programs would help destroy some of them. Weapons used in crimes and seized in by police used to be destroyed, now in many states the law forces police to sell them back to the public (the NRA called weapons destruction "a great waste"). There could be a voluntary buyback period of say 3-5 years and then after that, possession of certain weapons is punishable with jail time.

 

 

Laws force guns back on the street:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/21/news/police-selling-seized-guns/index.html

 

What explains mass shootings?:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/

[Barb_]

Yeah, super high taxes on things like booze tends to create a black market.

What about the cigarettes example?

[Barb_]

Yep, I think that's what I've already been saying upthread, just in different words: criminals who want a gun will find a way to get one, including ones supplied by our loving government.

 

A thriving black market needs a healthy supply of goods. We have too many guns in this country. A criminal can easily get his hands on a gun because they are everywhere. The only way to reduce gun violence is to knock the gun industry in the kneecaps.

 

(Ironic imagry unintended but I left it in)

Edited November 8, 2017 by Barb_

[Halftime Hope]

Cigarettes are. I used to work at a grocery in high school. I remember selling cigarettes for just under $10 a box with tax--roughly equivalent to 3 minimum wage hours. Now they cost roughly $90 a box--ten times minimum wage. Fewer people can afford cigarettes and rates of smoking during that period have fallen from 30 to 16 and are still dropping.

 

Your analogy really doesn't work:

 

1) Everyone who smokes is hurting themselves (and potentially others), and society at large foots the bill, if not now through illness and lost productivity, when Medicare kicks in and society is actually footing the bill.  (If anyone wants to debate this, they can go look up statistics on how much people are paying into the system from their wages, vs. how much is being paid out in benefits. So far, it's a $21 trillion difference.)  I'd be in favor of the taxes if they went directly into funding healthcare for smokers, not if they were simply confiscatory without a related end use of the funds.

 

Law-abiding gun owners are not hurting themselves or others, and they should not be taxed because a criminal misuses a gun.

 

2) There is no legitimate, healthful use for cigarettes.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Halftime Hope

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Your analogy really doesn't work:

 

1) Everyone who smokes is hurting themselves (and potentially others), and society at large foots the bill, if not now through illness and lost productivity, when Medicare kicks in and society is actually footing the bill.  (If anyone wants to debate this, they can go look up statistics on how much people are paying into the system from their wages, vs. how much is being paid out in benefits. So far, it's a $21 trillion difference.)  I'd be in favor of the taxes if they went directly into funding healthcare for smokers, not if they were simply confiscatory without a related end use of the funds.

 

Law-abiding gun owners are not hurting themselves or others, and they should not be taxed because a criminal misuses a gun.

 

2) There is no legitimate, healthful use for cigarettes.

 

There is no legitimate, healthful use for high capacity magazines either.  (Some guy getting a boner because he gets to play Rambo doesn't count.)

 

[8circles]

 

Law-abiding gun owners are not hurting themselves or others, and they should not be taxed because a criminal misuses a gun.

 

 

This is highly debatable.

 

If the number of guns in this country were limited to ones that served a necessary, positive purpose then I would agree with you.

 

When we have people fighting to keep their right to owns large numbers of guns, sometimes military-type guns, and stockpiles of ammunition because of irrational fears & the number of guns is astronomical - you can no longer say that law-abiding gun owners are not hurting themselves or others. Not to mention the actual fact that the presence of a gun makes people less safe, not moreso, not neutral.

[poppy]

Bump stocks are back on sale.

Remind me of the legitimate, healthful use please.  Anyone?

 

[Barb_]

Hope, my post was addressing the point that taxing ammo would just lead to a black market. Others have addressed your side trail.

 

Can we discuss whether you accept the sheer number of weapons is the reason criminals find them so easy to obtain? The number of smokers have been reduced, partly through taxes and partly through public service campaigns that have sought to reduce the coolness factor of smoking. The coolness factor of guns is a huge reason laws aren't enforced and young adults are able to get by posting their weapons on social media. Who is going to call them out?

[SKL]

The cigarette tax is actually a regressive tax that only harms the most vulnerable people - and those people continue to smoke.

 

I don't believe dealing with the gun issue via taxes is appropriate.  For one thing, the vast majority of people buying guns and ammo are not criminals and use weapons for non-problematic purposes.  There is no reason to punish them.  That would be like placing a hefty out-of-pocket tax on medicines because a minority of people abuse them.  For another thing, putting a tax on something that is constitutionally protected is essentially infringing on a constitutional right.  And as noted with cigarettes, it won't stop the bad guys.  People intent on shooting to kill will find a way.  Do you really think a bullet tax would have been a deterrent to any of the suicidal mass shooters?  As for everyday thugs with guns, they don't need a lot of bullets and they can either find or make them under the radar if it comes to that.

 

I really think the biggest motivating factor in mass killings is the rush of mass notoriety, "going out with a bang," a one-and-done firework display, "I'll show them."  We could address that issue.  We could also address the issue of legal avenues to gun purchase and possession by enforcing and updating existing laws and registries.  With modern technology, I no longer believe that background checks impair gun traders' ability to pursue their trade / hobby.  I don't think there's anything sacred about being able to buy a gun at a flea market without any paperwork.  Especially not a gun that can fire a large number of bullets without reloading.  I don't think there's anything sacred about being able to own that kind of gun in the first place.  I don't believe the second amendment trumps reasonable limits re mental health.  I believe in liability for being irresponsible and letting your guns get into the wrong hands.  I believe in locks and safes.

 

I don't buy the "number of guns in the USA" argument.  I did some research in the past and there are other countries with similar or higher gun ownership per capita, but less gun murder per capita.  I believe Switzerland was an example.  And there are many countries with stricter gun control but similar or higher murder rates.  In the US, gun murders (broken down regionally) correlate to other things but not to legal gun ownership.  We have pockets of serious crime - some with and some without strict gun control laws.  The murder rates are high in both.  The murder rates are low in many places with high gun ownership rates in the US.

[poppy]

 

 

I don't buy the "number of guns in the USA" argument.  I did some research in the past and there are other countries with similar or higher gun ownership per capita, but less gun murder per capita.  I believe Switzerland was an example.  And there are many countries with stricter gun control but similar or higher murder rates.  In the US, gun murders (broken down regionally) correlate to other things but not to legal gun ownership.  We have pockets of serious crime - some with and some without strict gun control laws.  The murder rates are high in both.  The murder rates are low in many places with high gun ownership rates in the US.

 

Switzerland has required military service.  If the USA required a similar level of training and took other measures the Swiss take (like banning high powered weapons from civilian use) we'd be in  much, much, much better shape.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The cigarette tax is actually a regressive tax that only harms the most vulnerable people - and those people continue to smoke.

 

I don't believe dealing with the gun issue via taxes is appropriate.  For one thing, the vast majority of people buying guns and ammo are not criminals and use weapons for non-problematic purposes.  There is no reason to punish them.  That would be like placing a hefty out-of-pocket tax on medicines because a minority of people abuse them.  For another thing, putting a tax on something that is constitutionally protected is essentially infringing on a constitutional right.  And as noted with cigarettes, it won't stop the bad guys.  People intent on shooting to kill will find a way.  Do you really think a bullet tax would have been a deterrent to any of the suicidal mass shooters?  As for everyday thugs with guns, they don't need a lot of bullets and they can either find or make them under the radar if it comes to that.

 

I really think the biggest motivating factor in mass killings is the rush of mass notoriety, "going out with a bang," a one-and-done firework display, "I'll show them."  We could address that issue.  We could also address the issue of legal avenues to gun purchase and possession by enforcing and updating existing laws and registries.  With modern technology, I no longer believe that background checks impair gun traders' ability to pursue their trade / hobby.  I don't think there's anything sacred about being able to buy a gun at a flea market without any paperwork.  Especially not a gun that can fire a large number of bullets without reloading.  I don't think there's anything sacred about being able to own that kind of gun in the first place.  I don't believe the second amendment trumps reasonable limits re mental health.  I believe in liability for being irresponsible and letting your guns get into the wrong hands.  I believe in locks and safes.

 

I don't buy the "number of guns in the USA" argument.  I did some research in the past and there are other countries with similar or higher gun ownership per capita, but less gun murder per capita.  I believe Switzerland was an example.  And there are many countries with stricter gun control but similar or higher murder rates.  In the US, gun murders (broken down regionally) correlate to other things but not to legal gun ownership.  We have pockets of serious crime - some with and some without strict gun control laws.  The murder rates are high in both.  The murder rates are low in many places with high gun ownership rates in the US.

 

https://www.thetrace.org/2015/06/new-study-is-latest-to-find-that-higher-rates-of-gun-ownership-lead-to-higher-rates-of-violent-crime/

 

"According to the “More Guns, Less Crime†hypothesis, states with higher levels of gun ownership would expect to see lower crime rates in those categories. By contrast, the study found that states with the lowest rates of firearm ownership (Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, California, Florida, Illinois, and Maryland) had significantly lower rates of firearm-related assault and robbery, firearm homicide, and overall homicide.

States with the highest gun-ownership levels (Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, Arkansas, Arizona, West Virginia, North Dakota, Idaho, Mississippi, and Alabama), meanwhile, had 6.8 times the rate of firearm assaults, 2.8 times the rate of firearm homicides, and twice the rate of overall homicides than states with the lowest gun-ownership levels."

[TechWife]

TechWife, that experiment called Prohibition? As a nation, we have, effectively, BTDT and repealed it.

I didn’t say anything about prohibition . Have you ever been the subject of a parent’s alcohol induced rage? Have you ever seen someone who is dying as a result of alcoholism? I don’t think so, otherwise you would not be so flippant. This is real life.

Edited November 8, 2017 by TechWife

[Cindy in FL.]

I grew up in a home with an alcoholic mother and stepfather. I was woken in the middle of the night by my mother banging on my bedroom window because he had broken her collarbone and locked her out of the house, and I could go on and on with the stories related to their alcoholism. I endured 40 years of it before my mother died from alcohol related liver disease. BTDT, I don’t support this tax.

 

But, hey, if we used the tax to compensate victims of drunk driving accidents, to provide addiction recovery programs, ongoing counseling for addict and their family member who have been affected by the excessive behavior, that tax begins to look like a bargain, doesn't it? It would also go a long way to curb alcohol abuse because there would be many people who would be unwilling or unable to purchase large amounts of alcohol. Having grown up in a home with an alcoholic and having lost my brother to liver cirrhosis, I'm okay with that. Whatever works.

[TechWife]

I grew up in a home with an alcoholic mother and stepfather. I was woken in the middle of the night by my mother banging on my bedroom window because he had broken her collarbone and locked her out of the house, and I could go on and on with the stories related to their alcoholism. I endured 40 years of it before my mother died from alcohol related liver disease. BTDT, I don’t support this tax.

 

 

That’s your prerogative and I respect your informed opinion.

[Butter]

Well yeah, he also broke the law by murdering people...

 

We definitely cannot rely on self reporting for this kind of thing. A person planning murder is unlikely to care over much about filling out a form honestly.

 

Clearly, self-reporting is not going to always end up with honest responses.  My question is, if someone checks no in all the places that would preclude them from getting a gun, is a background check then not run?  I thought a background check was *always* supposed to be run no matter what the person says.  People lie.

 

In this guy's case, if he lied, I doubt he was planning murder when he bought that gun.  He bought it over 18 months ago.  Even a 30-day long "cooling off period" wouldn't have made a difference in time since he bought the gun to when he killed people.

 

What is the point of background checks if states and military don't always report things that would show up on a background check to stop someone from buying a gun?  Right there, that's something that needs to be changed.

[Butter]

dp 

 

Edited November 8, 2017 by Butter

[Word Nerd]

It makes as much sense for me to be punished for someone else's alcoholism if I want a bottle of wine with dinner as it does for my dad to be punished for someone else's murders if he wants to put deer meat in the freezer.

[SKL]

https://www.thetrace.org/2015/06/new-study-is-latest-to-find-that-higher-rates-of-gun-ownership-lead-to-higher-rates-of-violent-crime/

 

"According to the “More Guns, Less Crime†hypothesis, states with higher levels of gun ownership would expect to see lower crime rates in those categories. By contrast, the study found that states with the lowest rates of firearm ownership (Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, California, Florida, Illinois, and Maryland) had significantly lower rates of firearm-related assault and robbery, firearm homicide, and overall homicide.

States with the highest gun-ownership levels (Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, Arkansas, Arizona, West Virginia, North Dakota, Idaho, Mississippi, and Alabama), meanwhile, had 6.8 times the rate of firearm assaults, 2.8 times the rate of firearm homicides, and twice the rate of overall homicides than states with the lowest gun-ownership levels."

 

I never said more guns less crime.  I said there is not the cause-effect relationship that people seem to believe.

 

You would need to break it down much more than "highest ownership states as a group" vs. "lowest ownership states as a group."  More than even state-by-state, as urban areas of a given state are going to give a much different result than rural areas of the same state.  Are you really gonna tell me that the gun murder rate in rural South Dakota is higher than that in Chicago?  In fact quite a few of the recent mass shootings occurred in the states you list as "lowest rates of firearm ownership."  And some of the states you list in that category have among the highest gun murder rates even statewide.

 

When you break it down, you will see there are much bigger correlations that have nothing to do with gun ownership levels.

[Barb_]

Gun reduction and control efforts have to be at the federal level. Comparing states is meaningless because it's easy to cross the border into another state.

 

SKL, in the article I linked, Switzerland was addressed:

 

Skeptics of gun control sometimes point to a 2016 study. From 2000 and 2014, it found, the United States death rate by mass shooting was 1.5 per one million people. The rate was 1.7 in Switzerland and 3.4 in Finland, suggesting American mass shootings were not actually so common.

Which seems fairly meaningless given how many people are killed in mass shootings vs how many are in the population. Mass shootings, thankfully, remain relatively rare in the grand scheme. The article goes on to address this...

 

But the same study found that the United States had 133 mass shootings. Finland had only two, which killed 18 people, and Switzerland had one, which killed 14. In short, isolated incidents. So while mass shootings can happen anywhere, they are only a matter of routine in the United States.

How can you "not buy" an explanation when you haven't bothered to read the evidence for the explanation?

[Guest]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure this thread isn't going to stay civil.  But I'll give you guys a little more rope.

 

May I please appeal to you all to express yourself with conviction but respect?

 

Talk about the issue, not about each other.

 

SWB

[Barb_]

I never said more guns less crime. I said there is not the cause-effect relationship that people seem to believe.

 

You would need to break it down much more than "highest ownership states as a group" vs. "lowest ownership states as a group." More than even state-by-state, as urban areas of a given state are going to give a much different result than rural areas of the same state. Are you really gonna tell me that the gun murder rate in rural South Dakota is higher than that in Chicago? In fact quite a few of the recent mass shootings occurred in the states you list as "lowest rates of firearm ownership." And some of the states you list in that category have among the highest gun murder rates even statewide.

 

When you break it down, you will see there are much bigger correlations that have nothing to do with gun ownership levels.

It's not a belief. It's statistical evidence. The US as a country (because again, confounding factors render state by state comparisons meaningless) has a massive number of guns compared to our population. We also kill each other with those guns in record numbers. Yes, even former law abiding citizens. Even children.

[Halftime Hope]

Ya'll, I'm checking out to go be a wage-earner.  : - )

[Bootsie]

What about the cigarettes example?

There is a huge black market for cigarettes--estimated to be over 11% of the world's supply

 

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/06/25/why-the-massive-black-market-trade-in-cigarettes-affects-you-even-if-you-dont-smoke/?utm_term=.178a23d5886a)

[SKL]

Gun reduction and control efforts have to be at the federal level. Comparing states is meaningless because it's easy to cross the border into another state.

 

SKL, in the article I linked, Switzerland was addressed:

 

 

Which seems fairly meaningless given how many people are killed in mass shootings vs how many are in the population. Mass shootings, thankfully, remain relatively rare in the grand scheme. The article goes on to address this...

 

 

 

"Mass shootings" include many gang-related and domestic violence incidents that don't hit the news.  We've already discussed that most if not all Americans would be on board with bans on gun ownership for those with a history of violence/crime and certain kinds of mental illness.

 

Again, I'm not saying the numbers prove anything - I'm saying they don't prove that the # of legally-owned guns in a country has a cause-effect relationship with murderous violence.  There are other reasons for it.  People are barking up the wrong tree.

[Barb_]

There is a huge black market for cigarettes--estimated to be over 11% of the world's supply

 

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/06/25/why-the-massive-black-market-trade-in-cigarettes-affects-you-even-if-you-dont-smoke/?utm_term=.178a23d5886a)

Fair enough, but. In the US, that black market generally consists of people crossing the border and buying cigarettes on cheaper places like North Carolina and then reselling them in more expensive places like New York. Again, enforcing different laws from state to state is difficult and any laws would have to be at the federal level.

 

Also I'd like to repeat the statistic that smoking rates have been halved since I was in my teens.

[Barb_]

"Mass shootings" include many gang-related and domestic violence incidents that don't hit the news. We've already discussed that most if not all Americans would be on board with bans on gun ownership for those with a history of violence/crime and certain kinds of mental illness.

 

Again, I'm not saying the numbers prove anything - I'm saying they don't prove that the # of legally-owned guns in a country has a cause-effect relationship with murderous violence. There are other reasons for it. People are barking up the wrong tree.

People around the world who have been trained in data analysis and statistics and sociology disagree with you. Overwhelmingly.

[Barb_]

"Mass shootings" include many gang-related and domestic violence incidents that don't hit the news.

Also, we have them here. They don't have them there. We have to ask ourselves why? Because guns are so readily available

[SKL]

re below:  it seems to me that the rate is more relevant than the number.  The US population is about 55x that of Finland, so one would expect both bad and good things in Finland to happen far fewer times than in the USA. 

 

But I wasn't bringing up Switzerland to say it has a high mass shooting death rate.  I was saying they have a lot of guns and don't have nearly the murder rate the US has.
 

Skeptics of gun control sometimes point to a 2016 study. From 2000 and 2014, it found, the United States death rate by mass shooting was 1.5 per one million people. The rate was 1.7 in Switzerland and 3.4 in Finland, suggesting American mass shootings were not actually so common.

Which seems fairly meaningless given how many people are killed in mass shootings vs how many are in the population. Mass shootings, thankfully, remain relatively rare in the grand scheme. The article goes on to address this...
 

But the same study found that the United States had 133 mass shootings. Finland had only two, which killed 18 people, and Switzerland had one, which killed 14. In short, isolated incidents. So while mass shootings can happen anywhere, they are only a matter of routine in the United States.

[Bootsie]

I like what you are saying.

 

I think that just like my personal property tax information and property records are public domain knowledge if someone knows where to look (even if I float an LLC or trust to own the property) I would like to see all the "high firepower" gun owner's data and name and addresses publicly accessible (specifically, the kind of guns that could massacre 100s of people in a minute). 

 

I would like the information that so-and-so owns a gun that can pump 75 bullets/minute or that he/she has purchased 45 such guns and has 70,000 rounds of ammo in their possession become publicly searchable in a database. The gun enthusiasts say that they have a right to own super-heavy-duty guns (the kind that are used in mass shootings) and that they are using them for recreation, hunting and protecting their family from hooligans who might one day try to hunt them down. So, if they believe that those reasons give them their right to own military style guns (again, I am talking about the ones used in sandy hook, vegas, florida etc), I also think that it is OK for others to know who the owners of those guns are, including their neighbors, their police department, their babysitters, their pastors, their bosses, their potential employers, their local newspaper reporter, their potential in-laws etc. If the reasons for owning guns that were designed for military warfare are so casual (as in hobby, recreation) or so noble (as in protecting their little kids from a would-be assailant), then there is no problem in the world knowing who those persons are, in my opinion.

I am not worried about lack of privacy where guns that can cause mass murders are concerned.  

 

PS: I am the polar opposite of a gun enthusiast. I do not know the technical differences between a semi-automatic or an automatic or other such things. All I know is that guns that pump too many bullets per minute were designed for the military and not for civilian use.

I, too, am the polar opposite of a gun enthusiast, but I have concerns about having the listing of guns like this so readily available. Would it make it easier for someone who is intent on using them no exactly where they might turn to get these weapons?  

[SKL]

Here is a study of the correlation (or lack thereof) of gun ownership vs. murder and how the US is actually an outlier.  There is something else going on.

 

https://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/

Edited November 8, 2017 by SKL

[TechWife]

I, too, am the polar opposite of a gun enthusiast, but I have concerns about having the listing of guns like this so readily available. Would it make it easier for someone who is intent on using them no exactly where they might turn to get these weapons?  

 

People can look at the county property tax records, see the value of the house I live in and what type of car I drive and draw conclusions about what might be in that house that is worth stealing. They could then sell what they bought to get a gun to use for nefarious purposes. After all, I've heard time and time again from people who don't want additional gun control that criminals don't follow the law anyway. 

 

It does bring to mind some questions, though. How many people are shot with stolen weapons? Have any mass shooters used stolen weapons? How many people who, according to existing laws, should not have guns actually use a gun to kill someone? 

[TechWife]

n/m 

 

Edited November 8, 2017 by TechWife

[Word Nerd]

It's not a punishment, it's a recognition of the reality that the item in question is actually hurting people and causing real physical harm. If someone wants to engage in high risk behavior, then they need to be willing to foot the bill for the damage that behavior might cause.

Should we assess a “recognition of reality†tax on vehicles then?

[TechWife]

nm 

 

Edited November 8, 2017 by TechWife

[Bootsie]

People can look at the county property tax records, see the value of the house I live in and what type of car I drive and draw conclusions about what might be in that house that is worth stealing. They could then sell what they bought to get a gun to use for nefarious purposes. After all, I've heard time and time again from people who don't want additional gun control that criminals don't follow the law anyway. 

 

It does bring to mind some questions, though. How many people are shot with stolen weapons? Have any mass shooters used stolen weapons? How many people who, according to existing laws, should not have guns actually use a gun to kill someone? 

I don't think people need to look at county property tax records to guess the value of the house I live in. Nor do they need to look at any records to estimate the value of the car I drive.  Those are usually fairly obvious by simple observation (and in some areas the property tax records are not even a close approximation of value).  I also think the correlation between property value and what is worth stealing in a home for resale is lower than the correlation between reporting the amount of guns and the number of guns that could be stolen from that situation.  

 

I am just not convinced I want everyone to know exactly where all of the guns are (and where they are not).  Not so much because I want to protect my own right to privacy, but because I am not sure I want those who may use weapons (or may target those who do not have weapons) to know where they are.  If we all know--everyone knows-the good guys and the bad guys you want to keep the guns away from.

[Bootsie]

Fair enough, but. In the US, that black market generally consists of people crossing the border and buying cigarettes on cheaper places like North Carolina and then reselling them in more expensive places like New York. Again, enforcing different laws from state to state is difficult and any laws would have to be at the federal level.

 

Also I'd like to repeat the statistic that smoking rates have been halved since I was in my teens.

Yes, smoking rates have declined, but there is not strong evidence to suggest that this is due to higher tax rates 

http://www.nber.org/papers/w18326.pdf

 

Historically, taxing to try to control behavior has not been very effective.  

[Cindy in FL.]

This is simply not universally true. I, personally, know a number of people whose home values would not be an accurate indication of the electronics, jewelry, clothing, and other personal property contained inside their homes.

 

People can look at the county property tax records, see the value of the house I live in and what type of car I drive and draw conclusions about what might be in that house that is worth stealing. They could then sell what they bought to get a gun to use for nefarious purposes. After all, I've heard time and time again from people who don't want additional gun control that criminals don't follow the law anyway.

 

It does bring to mind some questions, though. How many people are shot with stolen weapons? Have any mass shooters used stolen weapons? How many people who, according to existing laws, should not have guns actually use a gun to kill someone?

[TCB]

Bump stocks are back on sale.

Remind me of the legitimate, healthful use please.  Anyone?

 

Why would someone rush out and buy one of these? Does it have any useful purpose other than killing large numbers of human beings quickly? I'm absolutely flabbergasted that people would rush out to buy one of these right after such a tragedy as the Las Vegas shooting. What a slap in the face to those whose family and friends had been killed in such a dreadful way! I just can't get my head around that!

[TCB]

It makes as much sense for me to be punished for someone else's alcoholism if I want a bottle of wine with dinner as it does for my dad to be punished for someone else's murders if he wants to put deer meat in the freezer.

 

My question is does he put deer meat on the table with a semi-automatic rifle or whatever the gun is that was used. If not then why can't we at least get rid of those?