cooling off period

[HS Mom in NC]

7 minutes ago, KSera said:

A number of options have been given here so far, and I think above all, having better help than "buy a gun that is more likely to kill your children" is top priority. Women's shelters can be excellent places for an abused woman to start and provide protection during that immediate very dangerous period (during which she could be waiting for her gun if she so chooses). And I still fully agree with the poster above that, cold comfort though it might be to someone in this circumstance, if this very specific scenario being made a little more difficult prevents classrooms full of kids being shot up or cases like yesterdays medical office shooting where the shooter bought his AR-15 just hours before his rampage, how does one say that's not worth it? Let's protect the woman in other ways and keep the kids and people visiting the grocery store and the doctors office from being shot up while they're there

I'm not talking about women owning assault rifles. You know that, right?   I'm talking about small handguns (for suburban/urban situations) or shot guns (for rural situations.)

[Heartstrings]

9 minutes ago, KSera said:

I think this is a good line of thinking. Hopefully, this would go along with initiating support services for the victim so that they have real support and help and aren't just given a gun to tote around in hopes it keeps them safe and doesn't kill themself or their kids. Are these women going to be given immediate free training to learn to use this gun they just purchased?

I would be all for that but I was trying to limit it to the scope of the current topic of waiting periods.   Since classes aren’t required currently and no services are currently given out with restraining orders I didn’t want to rope all that in.

 

I hope the concern for abused women and stalked women that is having a national spotlight moment leads to an increase in funding, or etc. for those women.  I’d hate to think these concerns are going to be front and center for the next couple of weeks and nothing gets done to help them.  
 

edit to add.  I believe all of the statistics that women are less safe owning a gun in these situations.  I’m only responding to the perceived need/desire for her to have one should she choose.   I’m trying not to unduly infringe on peoples rights.  

Edited June 3, 2022 by Heartstrings

[lauraw4321]

12 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

Ok- I think I can fix this whole issue.  A waiting period of 3-14 days WITH a waiver for any person who can show a restraining order or order of protection OR that can show proof of an intimate partner having been arrested in the past 72 hours, it can be sort of a ticket an arresting officer gives at the time of the arrest.  Compromise.  

Beautiful idea. The way politics should work. 

[Pam in CT]

9 minutes ago, bolt. said:

...Feeling safer is not the same thing as *being* safer. She may think she can warn him off (or shoot him dead) and nothing bad will happen. Statistics aren't saying that. Statistics are saying that keeping a gun in her home makes her less safe than being in a gun-free home. No matter what he does.

The bolded seems to me to be a really crucial insight into American exceptionalism on this issue.

More and better research into what other countries do, and how, and internationally comparable data, would help us understand the range of policy options between the binary free-for-all into which we're spiralling vs government effort to seize everyone's last gun. And more and better research into the profiles of suicide / accidental / DV / stalker gun injuries/deaths would also help some voters assess the range of policy options.

But data only goes so far, in a context fraught with fear. COVID has demonstrated that for sure.

[Heartstrings]

2 minutes ago, lauraw4321 said:

Beautiful idea. The way politics should work. 

Thank you.  That’s very nice. Truly.  

[KSera]

11 minutes ago, HS Mom in NC said:

But as pointed out upthread, it can't be studied how often guns deter crimes to begin with. People know they're risking getting shot breaking into a home in the US, so only the most crazily motivated people do it. They don't factor in gun training (I'm all for it) and gun storage (again, I'm all for it.)

Again, I'm going to double down-the people I know who used a gun during an attack were saved by it.  You probably don't live under the immediate threat of violence, but others do.  My husband had a female co-worker at the engineering company who had a condition of employment that  she was allowed to have a firearm on her person or at her desk at all times.  The abuse and threats from her abuser were real and the only chance she had in an altercation was that gun. Guns are an equalizer. 

We're not talking about her not being able to have one, we're talking about there being a waiting period to prevent/reduce the number of madmen buying guns and immediately going and shooting people with them. I like the compromise listed above for this situation, but also it's still almost surely safer for the woman to be in protected housing in the immediate danger period, during which she could be waiting for her gun.

I have to say "guns are an equalizer" is a phrase that doesn't have a positive connotation to me because there seems to be a large element of that underlying why some of these people who feel so marginalized take guns and go shoot a bunch of people.

Also, if the main benefit of the gun is that having a gun deters someone from even trying anything if they know you have one, there's nothing to stop a woman from saying she has a gun if she doesn't. How would the person know otherwise until a crime was already occurring?

7 minutes ago, HS Mom in NC said:

I'm not talking about women owning assault rifles. You know that, right?   I'm talking about small handguns (for suburban/urban situations) or shot guns (for rural situations.)

Yep. But we were talking about waiting periods in general. If the waiting period was going to apply to everyone, her waiting period for a handgun would also prevent the 18 year old from getting his AR-15 and heading straight to the elementary school. A waiting period only for AR-15 weapons would be a great thing to enact. Won't do much to stop our insane suicide and handgun murder rates but will help with the mass shootings in public places.

[KSera]

From the Harvard gun self defense research page cited above, this part seems relevant to the current conversation as well:

Quote

11. Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions

Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases).  Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action.  Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.

This article helps provide accurate information concerning self-defense gun use.   It shows that many of the claims about the benefits of gun ownership are largely myths.

Hemenway D, Solnick SJ.  The epidemiology of self-defense gun use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 2007-2011.  Preventive Medicine.  2015; 79: 22-27.

 

[Heartstrings]

7 minutes ago, KSera said:

A waiting period only for AR-15 weapons would be a great thing to enact. Won't do much to stop our insane suicide and handgun murder rates but will help with the mass shootings in public places.

I would take a waiting period that was only for ARs if that was offered, 100%.  But while looking at all of this for the past week I have been struck with how many events that meet the criteria for a mass murder are actually done with handguns of some sort.  I thought it was mostly ARs, but the majority are handguns.  Still wrapping my mind around that honestly. 

Edited June 3, 2022 by Heartstrings

[KSera]

Just now, Heartstrings said:

I would take a waiting period on ARs only if that was offered, 100%.  But while looking at all of this for the past week I have been struck with how many events that meet the criteria for a mass murder are actually done with handguns of some sort.  I thought it was mostly ARs, but the majority are handguns.  Still wrapping my mind around that honestly. 

I agree with that. It seems the AR-15s are the most common for school shootings and some of the other similar attacks, but they certainly aren't responsible for the greatest number of deaths overall. But when we're talking prevention/reduction of school shootings, banning them would likely be very helpful. That's the kind of weapon this kind of individual wants to use and it causes far more destruction than if they used a handgun.

[itsheresomewhere]

Here it can take months to be approved to be a gun owner.  Then to even buy one is longer.  DH had to take a very strict safety course.

I don’t mind a small waiting period like we have but I do want an exception for a very small set of cases.  There was a case that went national here when a woman applied for one and had to wait the waiting period.  Her ex killed her during that waiting period.  

[AnotherNewName]

11 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

I would take a waiting period that was only for ARs if that was offered, 100%.  But while looking at all of this for the past week I have been struck with how many events that meet the criteria for a mass murder are actually done with handguns of some sort.  I thought it was mostly ARs, but the majority are handguns.  Still wrapping my mind around that honestly. 

It isn't that surprising.  On average ARs are more expensive and cannot be concealed.  Handguns are also more easily disposed of afterwards. The average criminal doesn't want to draw attention.

[Heartstrings]

2 minutes ago, AnotherNewName said:

It isn't that surprising.  On average ARs are more expensive and cannot be concealed.  Handguns are also more easily disposed of afterwards. The average criminal doesn't want to draw attention.

I tend to think of mass shooters as different from average criminals.  I've always heard that many of them are looking for quick fame and a suicide by cop end scenario, so using a flashy AR 15 to draw more attention is the whole goal.  I'm obviously not sure how true that is but its repeated often.  That would make them unique compared to a guy robbing a convivence store with the plan to be around to spend the money he has stolen.  

[KSera]

1 minute ago, Heartstrings said:

tend to think of mass shooters as different from average criminals.  I've always heard that many of them are looking for quick fame and a suicide by cop end scenario, so using a flashy AR 15 to draw more attention is the whole goal. 

Right. That's one of many, many, many reasons that the whole idea of arming teachers as a solution makes no sense. Most of these people go into this planning to die at the end of it. They sometimes even know there's an armed officer on campus. That may be a feature and not a bug for some of them.

[ktgrok]

55 minutes ago, HS Mom in NC said:

Stalked women are much more common than mass shooters. Armed stalked women are better equipped to defend themselves than school children.  I don't think making women as vulnerable as school children by denying them the right to defend themselves has more moral merit. Yes, school shootings are a real problem, but making women more vulnerable as a response to it isn't a real solution.

The women I know who used a firearm to protect themselves had no other options that worked.  Men ignore restraining orders. Police can't intervene until a stalker breaks the law, and then someone has to call law enforcement after the law has been broken. That's too late.

A cooling off period doesn’t mean no gun. How many of the women you know who protected themselves from a stalker using a gun did so within 72 hours of realizing they had a stalker? 

46 minutes ago, HS Mom in NC said:

But as pointed out upthread, it can't be studied how often guns deter crimes to begin with. People know they're risking getting shot breaking into a home in the US, so only the most crazily motivated people do it. They don't factor in gun training (I'm all for it) and gun storage (again, I'm all for it.)

Again, I'm going to double down-the people I know who used a gun during an attack were saved by it.  You probably don't live under the immediate threat of violence, but others do.  My husband had a female co-worker at the engineering company who had a condition of employment that  she was allowed to have a firearm on her person or at her desk at all times.  The abuse and threats from her abuser were real and the only chance she had in an altercation was that gun. Guns are an equalizer. 

Again, did these people who used a gun to save their lives, this was within a few days of first knowing the abuser was dangerous? 

[ktgrok]

22 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

I would take a waiting period that was only for ARs if that was offered, 100%.  But while looking at all of this for the past week I have been struck with how many events that meet the criteria for a mass murder are actually done with handguns of some sort.  I thought it was mostly ARs, but the majority are handguns.  Still wrapping my mind around that honestly. 

Why not a waiting period for hand guns? 

[whitestavern]

I replied other. I’m curious to know the stats on how far in advance most mass shooters purchase their guns. I’m not sure if a cooling off period would stop them. The people commiting these crimes are sick and evil. Or is the waiting period intended to be a time for background checks and references etc.? I don’t think a safety class will help in these particular circumstances either. I don’t know what the answer is but I agree that instead of trying to overhaul the whole system/process we can implement some small but effective steps to start. Maybe we should have hotlines where people can anonymously report those they feel are at risk of carrying out a shooting. Like a pre red flag law. Seems we hear about all the warning signs after the fact. Educate people on what signs they should watch for. And hold owners responsible for murders (or accidents) committed with their weapons. 

Edited June 3, 2022 by whitestavern

[Arcadia]

Coming from a country where guns, drugs and vapes are illegal, I don’t see how a cooling period would deter mass shooters when guns are available from the black market. There are illegal guns where I am from and gangs do know how to get their hands on them, though the gangs are much more interested in peddling drugs than in guns because the “revenue” is much better.

[ktgrok]

1 minute ago, whitestavern said:

I replied other. I’m curious to know the stats on how far in advance most mass shooters purchase their guns. I’m not sure if a cooling off period would stop them. The people commiting these crimes are sick and evil. Or is the waiting period intended to be a time for background checks and references etc.? I don’t think a safety class will help in these particular circumstances either. I don’t know what the answer is but I agree that instead of trying to overhaul the whole system/process we can implement some small but effective steps to start. Maybe we should have hotlines where people can anonymously report those they feel are at risk of carrying out a shooting. Seems we hear about all the warning signs after the fact. Educate people on what signs they should watch for. And hold owners responsible for murders (or accidents) committed with their weapons. 

It is believed it would help with suicides tremendously, as well as heat of the moment type shootings. Even if it only reduced a fraction of those deaths it would be a lot of lives saved with a very simple policy. 
I agree it isn’t all we should do, but I’d rather do one thing and go from there vs argue about which thing for another few years. 

[ktgrok]

2 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

Coming from a country where guns, drugs and vapes are illegal, I don’t see how a cooling period would deter mass shooters when guns are available from the black market. There are illegal guns where I am from and gangs do know how to get their hands on them, though the gangs are much more interested in peddling drugs than in guns because the “revenue” is much better.

A lot of deaths here have nothing to do with gangs, and if you don’t have a criminal connection already, finding a black market gun would take some effort and time. It won’t stop all problems but it would help, and without really a downside. 

[Heartstrings]

3 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Why not a waiting period for hand guns? 

Sloppy typing on my part.  I would prefer a waiting period for ALL gun purchases, however if the only thing I was offered was a waiting period for ARs I would take that as opposed to nothing. I would take a waiting period on only handguns if that was the only thing offered.  I'm at the point where ideal is out the window and I'd really like any sort of movement towards sensibility on gun rights.  

[whitestavern]

Sorry double post 

Edited June 3, 2022 by whitestavern

[Heartstrings]

2 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

A lot of deaths here have nothing to do with gangs, and if you don’t have a criminal connection already, finding a black market gun would take some effort and time. It won’t stop all problems but it would help, and without really a downside. 

Exactly.  Finding a black market connection takes time and is difficult. I would think that black market sellers don't want to sell to someone they don't know that might turn them in or set them up.  It would also cost a lot more.  The Uvalde killer seems to have financed at least part of his purchase and black market sellers aren't that generous.  

[Ting Tang]

I said other because I’m not sure how long is right, but I do feel this is something reasonable people can all get behind. Two weeks, three… not a big deal in the grand scheme of life.  I thought the school shooter guy had his arsenal for ten days? But I also feel he gave himself away with enough time to be stopped. Social media - if they could identify and alert, with the help of red flag laws… that might help.  I’ll probably never shoot a gun, but I also don’t even carry mace. Once a safety disengaged on spray I was given, and just nope. I guess I take my chances. 

[Heartstrings]

5 minutes ago, whitestavern said:

Maybe we should have hotlines where people can anonymously report those they feel are at risk of carrying out a shooting. Seems we hear about all the warning signs after the fact. Like a pre red flag law.

This is the idea behind the "red flag" laws that are being proposed and voted down every where here.  Its a good idea but its going no where.  

[Arcadia]

3 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

A lot of deaths here have nothing to do with gangs, and if you don’t have a criminal connection already, finding a black market gun would take some effort and time. It won’t stop all problems but it would help, and without really a downside. 

I’m just pessimistic about that.

Below happened in April this year https://apnews.com/article/sacramento-shootings-crime-massacres-arrests-b7bf0ab7239d0db8820787c6842a7415

“SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The mass killing that left six people dead and 12 wounded outside bars just blocks from California’s Capitol last weekend was a gunfight involving at least five shooters from rival gangs, Sacramento police said Wednesday.

… Gregory Chris Brown, a criminal justice professor at California State University, Fullerton, said gangs often target rivals in drive-by shootings with fewer victims, though innocent bystanders are sometimes also struck. 

… Police were trying to determine if a stolen handgun found at the crime scene was used in the massacre. It had been converted to a weapon capable of automatic gunfire.”

[whitestavern]

4 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

This is the idea behind the "red flag" laws that are being proposed and voted down every where here.  Its a good idea but its going no where.  

But those are for people who already own guns. This would be to identify dangerous people before they purchase. Their names are put on a registry and any potential purchases are heavily scrutinized. Idk just thinking out loud. 

[LucyStoner]

I think most gun owners should be required to have a license and insurance.  The license should require that they can demonstrate competency with gun safety and that don’t have any disqualifying factors.  I would imagine setting that up would take more than 2 weeks at least for the first gun purchase.  Honestly if we required insurance, the insurance companies would set up some pretty stringent standards.  

[ktgrok]

42 minutes ago, Ting Tang said:

I said other because I’m not sure how long is right, but I do feel this is something reasonable people can all get behind. Two weeks, three… not a big deal in the grand scheme of life.  I thought the school shooter guy had his arsenal for ten days? But I also feel he gave himself away with enough time to be stopped. Social media - if they could identify and alert, with the help of red flag laws… that might help.  I’ll probably never shoot a gun, but I also don’t even carry mace. Once a safety disengaged on spray I was given, and just nope. I guess I take my chances. 

I definitely don't think a cool off period is some magical thing that will stop all gun deaths. No one thing will do that, short of all guns being magically transported off the planet. I think we need lots of different things, personally, including some mentioned in this thread. 

I'm just asking if the only thing on the ballot at the given time was yes or no to a cool off period, would you say yes, and if so for how long. Doesn't mean other measure can't be implemented too. 

39 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

I’m just pessimistic about that.

Below happened in April this year https://apnews.com/article/sacramento-shootings-crime-massacres-arrests-b7bf0ab7239d0db8820787c6842a7415

“SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The mass killing that left six people dead and 12 wounded outside bars just blocks from California’s Capitol last weekend was a gunfight involving at least five shooters from rival gangs, Sacramento police said Wednesday.

… Gregory Chris Brown, a criminal justice professor at California State University, Fullerton, said gangs often target rivals in drive-by shootings with fewer victims, though innocent bystanders are sometimes also struck. 

… Police were trying to determine if a stolen handgun found at the crime scene was used in the massacre. It had been converted to a weapon capable of automatic gunfire.”

As I said above, no one is saying that a cool off period or any other measure will fix all gun deaths. But stopping say, 10% of suicides and gun deaths with just a brief cool off period would be a good thing. It's one step. Doesn't mean more can't be taken, but those are lives saved. 

 

[Ting Tang]

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

I definitely don't think a cool off period is some magical thing that will stop all gun deaths. No one thing will do that, short of all guns being magically transported off the planet. I think we need lots of different things, personally, including some mentioned in this thread. 

I'm just asking if the only thing on the ballot at the given time was yes or no to a cool off period, would you say yes, and if so for how long. Doesn't mean other measure can't be implemented too. 

As I said above, no one is saying that a cool off period or any other measure will fix all gun deaths. But stopping say, 10% of suicides and gun deaths with just a brief cool off period would be a good thing. It's one step. Doesn't mean more can't be taken, but those are lives saved. 

 

Oh I gotcha. Yes. I feel like most everyone should be in favor. But I’m also someone willing to bend if it ultimately helps keep myself and others safe. 

[AnotherNewName]

2 hours ago, Heartstrings said:

I tend to think of mass shooters as different from average criminals.  I've always heard that many of them are looking for quick fame and a suicide by cop end scenario, so using a flashy AR 15 to draw more attention is the whole goal.  I'm obviously not sure how true that is but its repeated often.  That would make them unique compared to a guy robbing a convivence store with the plan to be around to spend the money he has stolen.  

Correct.  But that is why so many more murders are committed by handguns - mass shooters are different than the typical murderer.

[KSera]

2 hours ago, whitestavern said:

I replied other. I’m curious to know the stats on how far in advance most mass shooters purchase their guns.

The medical center shooter yesterday bought his AR-15 hours earlier. The Uvalde shooter bought one 7 days and the other 4 days before. I don't know what the usual pattern is, though. I think the cooling off period is best when in conjunction with red flag laws so that people who've seen warning signs can report them. There were lots of them with both Uvalde and Buffalo. I don't know enough about the Tulsa one to say. His seems like exactly the kind of scenario cooling off laws would be good for. I really find the red flag laws to be the one more likely to be useful if I could only choose one or the other, but also wholeheartedly agree with "well regulating" the "militia"  by requiring licensing and insurance.

2 hours ago, Ting Tang said:

] I thought the school shooter guy had his arsenal for ten days? But I also feel he gave himself away with enough time to be stopped. Social media - if they could identify and alert, with the help of red flag laws… that might help.

Honestly, it's kind of more awful to contemplate, but I feel like the Uvalde guy wanted to be caught. So many warning signs and then his behavior on the day of the shooting. The fact he shot outside the school for 12 minutes before even going in. Then after going in, the shots were spread out. It's like he was waiting for suicide by cop and no one would do it and so he kept shooting 😥.

2 hours ago, Heartstrings said:

This is the idea behind the "red flag" laws that are being proposed and voted down every where here.  Its a good idea but its going no where.  

This is the most unbelievable one to me. Who on earth would be against making sure that people threatening to shoot people and people in a mental health crisis didn't have firearms? It's completely crazy. I think very, very few regular citizens are against these. It's a complete no brainer to pass them. Heck, even Florida passed them after Parkland.

2 hours ago, Arcadia said:

I’m just pessimistic about that.

Below happened in April this year https://apnews.com/article/sacramento-shootings-crime-massacres-arrests-b7bf0ab7239d0db8820787c6842a7415

“SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The mass killing that left six people dead and 12 wounded outside bars just blocks from California’s Capitol last weekend was a gunfight involving at least five shooters from rival gangs, Sacramento police said Wednesday.

… Gregory Chris Brown, a criminal justice professor at California State University, Fullerton, said gangs often target rivals in drive-by shootings with fewer victims, though innocent bystanders are sometimes also struck. 

… Police were trying to determine if a stolen handgun found at the crime scene was used in the massacre. It had been converted to a weapon capable of automatic gunfire.”

Individual instances where a particular shooting wouldn't have been stopped doesn't mean that laws that would prevent some others shouldn't be implemented. Fewer gun deaths are fewer gun deaths even if we still have more than any other wealthy nation and most poor ones too.

[AnotherNewName]

1 hour ago, LucyStoner said:

I think most gun owners should be required to have a license and insurance.  The license should require that they can demonstrate competency with gun safety and that don’t have any disqualifying factors.  I would imagine setting that up would take more than 2 weeks at least for the first gun purchase.  Honestly if we required insurance, the insurance companies would set up some pretty stringent standards.  

Insurance wouldn't have the impact most seem to think.  A majority of legal gun owners are already covered for general liability with a firearm under their HO/renters/umbrella policies.  Insurance companies will refuse (for very good reason) to cover intentional acts/crimes.  Insurance companies are not going to jump into a market where they would be expected to be responsible for massive payouts and creating their own standards to try and manage a societal risk.

[Heartstrings]

3 minutes ago, AnotherNewName said:

Correct.  But that is why so many more murders are committed by handguns - mass shooters are different than the typical murderer.

Mass shooting are also done more frequently with handguns, which blew my mind.   I’ve been looking at the data set from Mother Jones and if you combine handgun with semiautomatic handgun it’s over half of all mass shootings.  Way more than I expected.

 

Im sure it’s not perfect data but it’s pretty good considering the government isn’t allowed to study this stuff.  It’s been updated to include at least through Uvalde.   
 

 

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

[AnotherNewName]

19 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

Mass shooting are also done more frequently with handguns, which blew my mind.   I’ve been looking at the data set from Mother Jones and if you combine handgun with semiautomatic handgun it’s over half of all mass shootings.  Way more than I expected.

 

Im sure it’s not perfect data but it’s pretty good considering the government isn’t allowed to study this stuff.  It’s been updated to include at least through Uvalde.   
 

 

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

I am using "mass shooter" more narrowly and it would have been more correct for me to mass murderer (which is still too fuzzy but I will stick with it for the sake of brevity).  The mass shooter standard of 4 or more victims (not deaths) manages to capture a lot of gang/general criminal activity where a more strict standard confines the discussion to the headline type incidents we have seen in the past couple of weeks.  The mass murderer scenarios have different root causes and possible solutions for harm reduction than the shootings with more  typical criminal motive.  

For example, if the red flag laws being discussed were to have any impact, we would most likely see it in the reduction of suicides, shootings related to domestic violence, and the headline mass murder scenarios.  

Cooling off periods would likely impact the domestic violence and suicide categories the most.

Neither of those changes would have a significant, if any, impact on shootings related to other criminal activity.  What would? Just spit balling here but a greater focus on strawman purchases, which is pipeline for guns directly into illegal activity, would probably help.  Tighter controls on gun storage in the home would help in theory, although my guess is the impact would be more limited than we believe due to the difficulty in enforcement and the simple reality that thieves can quite often defeat most home storage devices with enough incentive.  

To the OP's point back in post 1, no one suggestion has to solve the problem.  Make fixes based on what works to eliminate those instances and build from there. Evidence based reform will take us farther than pet theories (like insurance) which have no evidence to support them as a solution.

Edited June 3, 2022 by AnotherNewName
Two edits and I am done. Too late to find more errors.

[AnotherNewName]

Just a quick word about red flag laws.  I support them conceptually, but we do need to be very careful with the implementation. Some of the laws passed due have significant due process issues.  Before putting a national law in effect, we need thoroughly consider the process.

1.) Who can file the petition? Family? Dating partners? Nosy neighbors with a concern?

2.) Should the subject be notified of the petition have an opportunity to be heard in court before the petition is granted? What is the appropriate burden of proof?

3.) Is the subject allowed to challenge the petition after the fact? If so, how?  

The questions aren't complex, but the answers could be.  When we are giving the state the power to separate someone from their personal property, we need to hold the state to a high standard, and I do have concerns that this would not be the case.

[Heartstrings]

22 minutes ago, AnotherNewName said:

m using "mass shooter" more narrowly and it would have been more correct for me to mass murderer (which is still too fuzzy but I will stick with it for the sake of brevity).  The mass shooter standard of 4 or more victims (not deaths) manages to capture a lot of gang/general criminal activity where a more strict standard confines the discussion to the headline type incidents we have seen in the past couple of weeks.  The mass murderer scenarios have different root causes and possible solutions for harm reduction than the shootings with more  typical criminal motive.  

That’s why the Mother Jones data set is so good.  It’s focused on mass shooters, using the FBI definition of 4 or more and excludes “shootings stemming from more conventionally motivated crimes such as armed robbery or gang violence. (Or in which the perpetrators have not been identified.)”.  It does include some spree killers.    
I’ve had the same thought, that mass shooters and these headline grabbers are separate but I’ve decided that there is something to learn from them as a whole, especially once you take out gang and other street crime, which seems appropriate.  
 

Mass shootings are of course not the focus of this thread but it’s helpful to have more information where we can so we aren’t just speculating.  It doesn’t help if we are thinking mass shooters all use AR 15s when a bit more than half use hand guns of some sort, which I thought until my son sent me the Mother Jones database.  
 

Anyone interested in their methodology or findings can look here https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map/

 

 

 

 

Edited June 3, 2022 by Heartstrings

[Bootsie]

6 hours ago, KSera said:

A number of options have been given here so far, and I think above all, having better help than "buy a gun that is more likely to kill your children" is top priority. Women's shelters can be excellent places for an abused woman to start and provide protection during that immediate very dangerous period (during which she could be waiting for her gun if she so chooses). And I still fully agree with the poster above that, cold comfort though it might be to someone in this circumstance, if this very specific scenario being made a little more difficult prevents classrooms full of kids being shot up or cases like yesterdays medical office shooting where the shooter bought his AR-15 just hours before his rampage, how does one say that's not worth it? Let's protect the woman in other ways and keep the kids and people visiting the grocery store and the doctors office from being shot up while they're there

The options that have been mentioned would have done nothing for my situation when I was stalked.  I was stalked by a student who became infatuated with me--not someone I had a relationship with. I was a professional woman who had a career and owned my own home (with no children present).  Going to a women's shelter was not going to protect me while I was at work, walking across the parking lot, etc.  The situation lasted over a several year time period; staying with friends was not an option.  My stalker did not have to wait for a gun--he had one.  

As I said, I made the choice not to get a gun.  I did not publicize that the decision at the time, because I thought the notion that I MIGHT have one might be somewhat of a deterrent.  If I were an actress, professional athlete, mayor of the city, etc. it would have been a situation in which I had armed bodyguards constantly.  It did make me think if we want a society where the wealthy and famous can hire armed protection but others cannot easily arm themselves.  I was in a situation where I felt I did not have much power or control.  Knowing I had the choice to get a gun (when I knew my stalker had one) did give me some feeling of control over the decision I was making.  The last thing I needed was other people, who knew nothing about the specifics of my situation, deciding what was going to make me safer.  

I am not sure that a waiting period would decrease the situations of someone going into a building and killing people.  It would decrease the incidence of someone purchasing a gun and using it within 24 hours.  But, can we conclude that it would reduce the incidence of someone purchasing a gun and using it within 24 hours of RECEIVING the gun?  

[rebcoola]

I am totally for a waiting period 2 weeks is not a long time for regular people to wait at all.  I am not anti-gun in any way my ODD is on a speed shooting team and regularly competes and my Brother in law is a highly acclaimed hunting guide.  Having Australian type laws wouldn't cause more than mild annoyance. None of us have any delusion that even as experienced shooters with much more training than average that we could defend ourselves from a criminal.   

[Carrie12345]

I didn’t vote because I. Don’t. Know.

I recognize the difference between feeling safe and being safe. And I live the difference between having local emergency responders and not. I also know that the sound of a gunshot will not prompt anyone here to call the police. And I am close to people in abusive situations where *non-convicted* abusers own guns. And I’m in an area where criminals ignore camera systems and just get caught after they’ve done whatever their crime is.

I feel like I’m not against a waiting period on the surface, but I wind up feeling hesitation about it in conversation. I think, perhaps, in this case, the connotation of “cooling off” influences me. Whatever time a universal background check or other measures might take probably wouldn’t hit me the same way.  Semantics, absolutely, but I’m trying to be honest.  Unfortunately, I think semantics are hugely important in getting anything done with this issue.

FTR, I spend more time researching guard dog training for scary looking dogs than I do firearms training and safety. But I also have a little dog that could be a snack for a big dog, so who knows?

[Lillyfee]

I am so confused by the stalked woman question as it sounds like we talk about a patriarchal country in the Middle East without any laws to protect women. Are women here that bad protected? No safe houses? No police that helps? I am seriously concerned now that women in the US feel the need to carry guns to protect themselves from men because they cant get proper help. I never felt the need for a gun even when my former boyfriend would not leave me alone a came with his brothers to my house.  Guns escalate situations usually more. I never thought about the need to kill someone. Maybe pepper spray or some other tool for emergencies? I just feel the idea by protecting myself by killing somebody so disturbing.

If I would call right now the police and would say I feel threatened by my husband they would pick up my husband right now and he could not come back until I would feel OK with it. I thought that would be true for all of the US.

And the guard dog thing as my dad trained dogs for the police for years, also here is the chance that your dog bites an innocent person a lot higher than that you need him for a criminal. At least in Europe.

Edited June 3, 2022 by Lillyfee

[Mrs Tiggywinkle]

1 hour ago, Lillyfee said:

I am so confused by the stalked woman question as it sounds like we talk about a patriarchal country in the Middle East without any laws to protect women. Are women here that bad protected? No safe houses? No police that helps? I am seriously concerned now that women in the US feel the need to carry guns to protect themselves from men because they cant get proper help. I never felt the need for a gun even when my former boyfriend would not leave me alone a came with his brothers to my house.  Guns escalate situations usually more. I never thought about the need to kill someone. Maybe pepper spray or some other tool for emergencies? I just feel the idea by protecting myself by killing somebody so disturbing.

If I would call right now the police and would say I feel threatened by my husband they would pick up my husband right now and he could not come back until I would feel OK with it. I thought that would be true for all of the US.

And the guard dog thing as my dad trained dogs for the police for years, also here is the chance that your dog bites an innocent person a lot higher than that you need him for a criminal. At least in Europe.

Restraining orders are pieces of paper, basically. People walk right through them all the time. A relative has one against an abusive ex boyfriend who has threatened her over text. The protective order includes texts, but she took it to the police and they basically just said they’d talk to him.  She got no where.  She also lives rurally.  Police response to her house is 25-30 minutes from time of 911 call.  What’s stopping her ex from showing up at her house? Absolutely nothing.  She can’t live in a safe house; this has been going on for a year and a half.  Safe houses usually have limits on how long you can stay, anyway. 
The police can’t just take someone and hold them without a reason.  If I called and said that I felt threatened by my husband, two cops would show up and tell us to spend the night apart and cool down.  They can’t arrest someone without that person doing something against the law, and in NY, at least, most people are issued an appearance ticket or sprung on very low bail within a few hours.

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, Lillyfee said:

I am so confused by the stalked woman question as it sounds like we talk about a patriarchal country in the Middle East without any laws to protect women. Are women here that bad protected? No safe houses? No police that helps? I am seriously concerned now that women in the US feel the need to carry guns to protect themselves from men because they cant get proper help. I never felt the need for a gun even when my former boyfriend would not leave me alone a came with his brothers to my house.  Guns escalate situations usually more. I never thought about the need to kill someone. Maybe pepper spray or some other tool for emergencies? I just feel the idea by protecting myself by killing somebody so disturbing.

If I would call right now the police and would say I feel threatened by my husband they would pick up my husband right now and he could not come back until I would feel OK with it. I thought that would be true for all of the US.

And the guard dog thing as my dad trained dogs for the police for years, also here is the chance that your dog bites an innocent person a lot higher than that you need him for a criminal. At least in Europe.

I do not know any place in the US that a woman can call the police and simply say she feels threatened and the police will just come pick up the man (and not allow him to return to his own property until the women is OK with it).   And, there are a number of stalking situations that do not involve a husband/wife situation.  

I am bothered by the fact as a nation, we collect tax dollars to purchase massive amounts of arms, and train 18 year olds (predominantly male) to use them.  And, we have armed police forces (again mostly male).  Then we have the view that someone with military or police training is emotionally and mentally better suited to have weapons than "civilians".  

[Lillyfee]

It is that case in the US Army and that is the only America I know and I always thought "Wow, the US really takes these things serious."

Maybe I is because domestic violence I a big issue.

I am glad that I have never felt that threatened that I would feel that I need a gun to potentially kill somebody. 

However, I also think police officers and soldiers should only have guns at their job and no special right to have them home. They are also just like everybody else.

[TheReader]

I voted other -- I'm in favor, but have no idea what a good length is. I think 72 hours *minimum* and up to however long (well, maybe not past a month) they can all agree on. 

[lauraw4321]

7 hours ago, AnotherNewName said:

Just a quick word about red flag laws.  I support them conceptually, but we do need to be very careful with the implementation. Some of the laws passed due have significant due process issues.  Before putting a national law in effect, we need thoroughly consider the process.

1.) Who can file the petition? Family? Dating partners? Nosy neighbors with a concern?

2.) Should the subject be notified of the petition have an opportunity to be heard in court before the petition is granted? What is the appropriate burden of proof?

3.) Is the subject allowed to challenge the petition after the fact? If so, how?  

The questions aren't complex, but the answers could be.  When we are giving the state the power to separate someone from their personal property, we need to hold the state to a high standard, and I do have concerns that this would not be the case.

Our legal system deals with similar issues all the time. If’s like a TRO - temporary restraining order. To get one you have to provide sworn testimony that your life /safety are at risk. Then a judge has to review and grant or deny. Then there is a hearing scheduled with notice and opportunity to be heard before a judge. My point is that we have robust procedures for similar restraints on constitutional rights. 

[ktgrok]

5 hours ago, Bootsie said:

The options that have been mentioned would have done nothing for my situation when I was stalked.  I was stalked by a student who became infatuated with me--not someone I had a relationship with. I was a professional woman who had a career and owned my own home (with no children present).  Going to a women's shelter was not going to protect me while I was at work, walking across the parking lot, etc.  The situation lasted over a several year time period; staying with friends was not an option.  My stalker did not have to wait for a gun--he had one.  

As I said, I made the choice not to get a gun.  I did not publicize that the decision at the time, because I thought the notion that I MIGHT have one might be somewhat of a deterrent.  If I were an actress, professional athlete, mayor of the city, etc. it would have been a situation in which I had armed bodyguards constantly.  It did make me think if we want a society where the wealthy and famous can hire armed protection but others cannot easily arm themselves.  I was in a situation where I felt I did not have much power or control.  Knowing I had the choice to get a gun (when I knew my stalker had one) did give me some feeling of control over the decision I was making.  The last thing I needed was other people, who knew nothing about the specifics of my situation, deciding what was going to make me safer.  

I am not sure that a waiting period would decrease the situations of someone going into a building and killing people.  It would decrease the incidence of someone purchasing a gun and using it within 24 hours.  But, can we conclude that it would reduce the incidence of someone purchasing a gun and using it within 24 hours of RECEIVING the gun?  

Yes, we have some data that it would reduce gun deaths, study was posted earlier in the thread. 

2 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

I didn’t vote because I. Don’t. Know.

I recognize the difference between feeling safe and being safe. And I live the difference between having local emergency responders and not. I also know that the sound of a gunshot will not prompt anyone here to call the police. And I am close to people in abusive situations where *non-convicted* abusers own guns. And I’m in an area where criminals ignore camera systems and just get caught after they’ve done whatever their crime is.

I feel like I’m not against a waiting period on the surface, but I wind up feeling hesitation about it in conversation. I think, perhaps, in this case, the connotation of “cooling off” influences me. Whatever time a universal background check or other measures might take probably wouldn’t hit me the same way.  Semantics, absolutely, but I’m trying to be honest.  Unfortunately, I think semantics are hugely important in getting anything done with this issue.

FTR, I spend more time researching guard dog training for scary looking dogs than I do firearms training and safety. But I also have a little dog that could be a snack for a big dog, so who knows?

Background checks often are immediate. Can take up to three days, but often do not. 

[SKL]

A little off topic, but I could see needing a license that requires you to know how to use a gun, provided they don't use this as a way of preventing gun ownership without good cause.  (Like they used to use voter tests.)  I also think that more people should get training, whether they immediately need it or not.  It should be as common as learning to drive a car.

I could also get on board with a graduated type of licensing.  Age/experience limits as well as skill training requirements, with background checks mixed in.  My teens have limits on what kind of vehicle they can drive, during what hours, and with what kind of people on board.  People under 21 have limits on what they can do with alcoholic beverages.  How is a gun different?  2nd amendment "rights" aren't absolute, as shown by the many many state gun laws already in existence.

The above two don't really address what you can do if someone is actively stalking you ... but IMO women should get trained and licensed as a routine life task, like we get a driver's license even though we don't need to make a hasty getaway.  And kids should be trained in gun safety too, to reduce accidents.

Edited June 3, 2022 by SKL

[mom2scouts]

11 hours ago, KSera said:

I agree with that. It seems the AR-15s are the most common for school shootings and some of the other similar attacks, but they certainly aren't responsible for the greatest number of deaths overall. But when we're talking prevention/reduction of school shootings, banning them would likely be very helpful. That's the kind of weapon this kind of individual wants to use and it causes far more destruction than if they used a handgun.

ARs are the most common for shootings because they are one of THE most common sport rifles in the US. They are *not* "assault weapons" or "weapons of war" but rifles designed to *look* like military weapons. I've actually shown people pictures of very powerful weapons that have a wooden stock and an AR that isn't even even close and ask which should be restricted. They'll pick the scary looking AR every time. I think this is one of the reasons we never make progress. 

ETA: Red Flag Laws. In theory, I support them. Almost without exception, recent shooters have had huge red flags that were ignored. I'm just not sure how we implement them to protect rights and prevent them from being used in a way that puts people at risk or allows people to use it against someone they don't like.

Edited June 3, 2022 by mom2scouts

[Heartstrings]

22 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Yes, we have some data that it would reduce gun deaths, study was posted earlier in the thread. 

Background checks often are immediate. Can take up to three days, but often do not. 

Can confirm.  Last time my husband bought a gun it took a couple of minutes.  We were in and out with a new gun in less time than it takes me to buy groceries

[lauraw4321]

4 minutes ago, mom2scouts said:

ARs are the most common for shootings because they are one of THE most common sport rifles in the US. They are *not* "assault weapons" or "weapons of war" but rifles designed to *look* like military weapons. I've actually shown people pictures of very powerful weapons that have a wooden stock and an AR that isn't even even close and ask which should be restricted. They'll pick the scary looking AR every time. I think this is one of the reasons we never make progress. 

Right, they look scary. They make the shooter look and feel cool and powerful. Marketing. Packaging. I still support a ban / buy back. The murder rates fell in Australia after the buy back. The states with the most buy back had the biggest falls. The people who were less likely to die? Women. Fewer guns = fewer gun deaths. We can disagree on policy but I hope we can all agree on facts.