cooling off period

[Carrie12345]

2 hours 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.

My friend not only didn’t receive help, she was in danger of loosing her children under the definition of “homelessness” for moving into a hotel, because her spouse wouldn’t leave the marital home.
And then he purchased multiple guns with their young child by his side.

[SKL]

12 hours 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.  

Screw compromise if I am under physical threat from my ex.  All of your waiver conditions require timely action by government officials, and require the victim to prove something that has only been threatened.  The number of women (and their children) who have been abused and murdered after reporting the SOB is not comforting.

(I also wouldn't limit it to "intimate partner."  What about the SOB you left long ago, or refused to be intimate with, who can't take no for an answer?  What about family members, housemates / neighbors, and any other lunatic who decides to come after you?)

[Lillyfee]

7 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

My friend not only didn’t receive help, she was in danger of loosing her children under the definition of “homelessness” for moving into a hotel, because her spouse wouldn’t leave the marital home.
And then he purchased multiple guns with their young child by his side.

That is horrible. 

[Bootsie]

29 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

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

Am I missing it?  I do not see any study that provides evidence that:  a waiting period would decrease the situations of someone going into a building and killing people. 

I really don't care if the person had a gun for 5 minutes, three weeks, had applied a month earlier and now received the gun, had gone through gun safety courses, had gone through military or police training--the problem is the killing.  I have not seen good statistics, but many reports I have seen of mass killings is a result of someone having collected weapons over a period of time.  Because a person buys a gun on Monday and goes in a building and shoots people on Monday, does not mean that if we made the person wait until Friday to get the gun the person would not have gone in a building and shot people on Friday.  (Yes it would 100% prevent them from going in the building on Monday and killing people--but that isn't really the goal.)

[Heartstrings]

7 minutes ago, SKL said:

Screw compromise if I am under physical threat from my ex.  All of your waiver conditions require timely action by government officials, and require the victim to prove something that has only been threatened.  The number of women (and their children) who have been abused and murdered after reporting the SOB is not comforting.

(I also wouldn't limit it to "intimate partner."  What about the SOB you left long ago, or refused to be intimate with, who can't take no for an answer?  What about family members, housemates / neighbors, and any other lunatic who decides to come after you?)

Go buy the gun now in case you need it in the future, maybe even train with it so have a clue what you’re doing if the need arises.   Buy a taser during the waiting period?  Use the waiting period to train at the range?

I’m not sure what gets solved by a complete gun newb buying a gun for self defense with no more knowledge or training other than what they’ve seen on TV. Do they YouTube it?   That seems like a bad plan.  If the argument is the gun is needed right now, by someone who has not previously had a gun, that doesn’t leave much time for training.  
 

 

 

[Heartstrings]

Some actual research has shown that waiting periods DO reduce homicides.  
 

https://www.science.org/content/article/gun-waiting-periods-could-save-hundreds-lives-year-study-says

 They found that states with mandatory waits—no matter the total length—had on average 17% fewer murders and about 10% fewer suicides.

 

Although that's an interesting correlation, Malhotra notes, it's not enough to say that waiting periods themselves led to fewer deaths. So the researchers turned to a natural experiment. In 1994, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act mandated background checks for all handgun purchases from licensed firearms dealers nationwide, as well as a 5-day waiting period to carry out these checks. That meant that 19 states without waiting periods suddenly had them. When the researchers analyzed the data, they found a sharp 17% drop-off in gun homicides and a 6% reduction in suicides when those states had waiting-period laws, they report today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[Bootsie]

3 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

Go buy the gun now in case you need it in the future, maybe even train with it so have a clue what you’re doing if the need arises.   Buy a taser during the waiting period?  Use the waiting period to train at the range?

I’m not sure what gets solved by a complete gun newb buying a gun for self defense with no more knowledge or training other than what they’ve seen on TV. Do they YouTube it?   That seems like a bad plan.  If the argument is the gun is needed right now, by someone who has not previously had a gun, that doesn’t leave much time for training.  
 

My concern is if we tell women there will be a delay should they find themselves in the situation that they do feel that they will be safer with a gun, then there will be a higher incidence of people having a gun "just in case"--because you never know and by the time you know you will need it the process of getting one will be delayed.  (Very similar to a hoarding mentality)  If there is evidence that having a gun in a home increases gun violence, this might be encouraging exactly what we want to discourage.  

[Heartstrings]

5 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

My concern is if we tell women there will be a delay should they find themselves in the situation that they do feel that they will be safer with a gun, then there will be a higher incidence of people having a gun "just in case"--because you never know and by the time you know you will need it the process of getting one will be delayed.  (Very similar to a hoarding mentality)  If there is evidence that having a gun in a home increases gun violence, this might be encouraging exactly what we want to discourage.  

Possibly.   I’m not sure the better alternative is for someone who has no experience with a gun to buy their first one in a moment of panic and high stress and go you tube how to load and shoot it.  Especially since that high stress time is likely to lead to that inexperienced person wanting that gun at hand or within reach at all times for self defense.  That sounds like a good way for an accident to happen.  

Edited June 3, 2022 by Heartstrings

[Harriet Vane]

3 hours 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.

Stalked women and abused women are spectacularly unprotected. In fact, they are often pressured to lighten up and their experiences are minimized and denied.

As others have noted, a restraining order is almost useless. It's more of a paper trail in case something does happen. People violate them all.the.time. There are almost no consequences in reality for violating a protective order.

Police do not respond to anything as quickly as they appear to on TV, and that goes quadruple for neighborhoods that are lower on the socioeconomic scale.

It is extremely common for police to support the abuser when they are called to a domestic violence incident. It is extremely common for the police to minimize what is happening and to disengage and leave the scene quickly, I know this from personal experience with a woman I sheltered secretly in my home as well as from many years of helping a single mom with a nasty ex. Often abused women are treated as though they are equal contributors to the abuse or are lying about abuse.

The police will not come if you call and remove your husband from his property simply because you feel threatened.

Shelter space for domestic violence victims is limited. There may or may not be openings. They are temporary. It can be very, very difficult to find and access shelter space.

Women who make abuse allegations often lose custody of their children or the courts may award preferential custody arrangements to the abuser. Women are perceived as lying for personal gain in an overwhelming number of these cases. This is part of why many women stay with an abuser--the grim reality is that many times they are more able to protect the children if they remain in the home with the abuser, which is terribly ironic as growing up in a violent home is deeply scarring to children.

All that said, I agree with others in this thread that having a gun will not usually help even an abused woman. It takes a ton of training and ongoing training. It requires the person wielding the gun to overcome their emotions to think and act quickly. This can be even harder for an abused woman who has been under the control of the abuser for an extended time. And abused women who kill or injure their attackers usually go to jail. They are sentenced as murderers despite the threat the abuser presented to their lives over time, despite the immediate threat the abuser presented in the moment she felt she had to shoot, and despite the presence of children she may have been trying to protect. It doesn't take much research at all to find these cases.

The deeper you fall down this rabbit hole, the more you see how vulnerable women are.

 

Edited June 3, 2022 by Harriet Vane

[EKS]

14 hours ago, Terabith said:

Part of our problems is because our laws prohibit RESEARCH in regard to anything about guns, there's a ton we do not know. 

Which is totally insane, if you want to know my opinion.

[Heartstrings]

4 minutes ago, Harriet Vane said:

Stalked women and abused women are spectacularly unprotected. In fact, they are often pressured to lighten up and their experiences are minimized and denied.

As others have noted, a restraining order is almost useless. It's more of a paper trail in case something does happen. People violate them all.the.time. There are almost no consequences in reality for violating a protective order.

Police do not respond to anything as quickly as they appear to on TV, and that goes quadruple for neighborhoods that are lower on the socioeconomic scale.

It is extremely common for police to support the abuser when they are called to a domestic violence incident. It is extremely common for the police to minimize what is happening and to disengage and leave the scene quickly, I know this from personal experience with a woman I sheltered secretly in my home as well as from many years of helping a single mom with a nasty ex. Often abused women are treated as though they are equal contributors to the abuse or are lying about abuse.

The police will not come if you call and remove your husband from his property simply because you feel threatened.

Shelter space for domestic violence victims is limited. There may or may not be openings. They are temporary. It can be very, very difficult to find and access shelter space.

Women who make abuse allegations often lose custody of their children or the courts may award preferential custody arrangements to the abuser. Women are perceived as lying for personal gain in an overwhelming number of these cases. This is part of why many women stay with an abuser--the grim reality is that many times they are more able to protect the children if they remain in the home with the abuser, which is terribly ironic as growing up in a violent home is deeply scarring to children.

All that said, I agree with others in this thread that having a gun will not usually help even an abused woman. It takes a ton of training and ongoing training. It requires the person wielding the gun to overcome their emotions to think and act quickly. This can be even harder for an abused woman who has been under the control of the abuser for an extended time. And abused women who kill or injure their attackers usually go to jail. They are sentenced as murderers despite the threat the abuser presented to their lives over time, despite the immediate threat the abuser presented in the moment she felt she had to shoot, and despite the presence of children she may have been trying to protect. It doesn't take much research at all to find these cases.

The deeper you fall down this rabbit hole, the more you see how vulnerable women are.

 

I think looking at how to help vulnerable women separate from just allowing them to get a gun would be a good thing.   Honestly the expectation that an abused woman should be able to get a gun and defend herself with it might be partly playing into why there is no help for them.  We are a very individualistic society and most people think everyone else should just protect their own self. If that’s the expectation why would we as a society help out?  If she can just buy a gun, why do we need to fund shelters?  
 

It feels kind of gross that abused and stalked women are taking center stage as everyone’s concern, from here to Congress yesterday.  It feels like they are being trotted out to prevent movement on sensible gun regulations and will be forgotten once the conversation moves on.  Will there be a bunch of bills introduced to try to help these women?  A thread to brainstorm new ideas to help? Will the charities that help them get a bump in funding from all this attention?  

[KSera]

1 hour 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. 

 

ARs are easier for someone to shoot accurately and do far more damage to the people on the receiving end of the bullets, resulting in a much higher rate of death in people shot by them than people shot by handguns. I posted several links about that from trauma doctors and scientists on the poofed thread,  but if you’re unaware of the differences in velocity and force of a bullet leaving a gun like an AR-15,  Let me know and I will find the links and share them again.

Gun enthusiasts  like to get caught up in the semantics game as a defense for why people who think these weapons are dangerous and unnecessary are just foolish and don’t know anything, but let’s put the terms for what we call them aside and acknowledge that these are very dangerous guns that allow inexperienced people to kill a lot of people very quickly. There’s no good reason someone needs that ability. 

1 hour ago, SKL said:

The number of women (and their children) who have been abused and murdered after reporting the SOB is not comforting.

The number of women and children who are killed even before leaving because the SOB has a gun and there’s no red flag law allowing it to be removed is even less comforting.

20 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

It feels kind of gross that abused and stalked women are taking center stage as everyone’s concern, from here to Congress yesterday.  It feels like they are being trotted out to prevent movement on sensible gun regulations and will be forgotten once the conversation moves on.  Will there be a bunch of bills introduced to try to help these women?  A thread to brainstorm new ideas to help? Will the charities that help them get a bump in funding from all this attention?  

Agreed with all this. Continuing to center on this issue when there are people currently plotting the next school shooting works well for those who don’t want to do anything to fix it. It’s not about abused women for them at all, but other people falling into the trap of making it about that sure does help the ones who have no interest in changing the status quo. 
 

I think a poll and thread on red flag laws might be even more helpful. It’s understandable to have started with the cooling off period one just based on the specifics of the Tulsa shooting, but the red flag laws are likely to be even more effective. Like with Covid though, we need multiple layers of protection. I’m sure people will come up with their excuse for why they can’t support red flag laws, because goodness knows there’s going to be something they feel outweighs the importance of keeping guns away from people threatening to shoot up schools and kill themself or their partners. It will actually be interesting to see what those people have to say about the risk to stalked and abused women then. Are they still important enough to take guns away from the people stalking them?

Edited June 3, 2022 by KSera
So many typos

[Pawz4me]

1 hour 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. 

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.

This person, who seems to qualify as an expert in the matter, disagrees with you (see entire thread) --

 

[Heartstrings]

7 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

This person, who seems to qualify as an expert in the matter, disagrees with you (see entire thread) --

 

The “their just guns” line is a thought terminating cliche.  It’s designed to shut down the discussion by implying that thinking ARs are different makes us too ignorant to participate in the discussion.  It’s time is over.  

Edited June 3, 2022 by Heartstrings

[TravelingChris]

14 hours ago, KSera said:

The fact is still clear that statistically speaking, the woman or her children are much more likely to be shot by that gun than she is likely to be protected by it. Your story about your mom keeping a loaded shotgun on hand is actually an example of why that is true.

Shotguns are not weapons that small children can use.  They are also much more difficult to use in suicides, which is the main reason keeping guns in the home can be unsafe.

[TravelingChris]

13 hours ago, Pam in CT said:

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.

Well we can try to compare ourselves to Switzerland, where the nation depends on males? (haven't read whether they now include females), to defend their country.  Basically, almost every household has a gun.  But there are many social differences--number one, almost everyone in Switzerland is Swiss---like genetically Swiss.   We are a gigantic genetic miss-mash.  Also, much lower percentages of children living in single parent households.

You know that the one characteristic that school shooters had in a government funded study from a few years ago?  Broken families.

[TravelingChris]

14 hours ago, Heartstrings said:

 

I’m not sure about federal checks being better.  Federal checks do t pick up on someone being married to a violent felon for example.  Or someone being arrested for DV that morning.   A federal background check looking only for convictions and other court judgements misses a lot.  I think reference checks would be good things to add.  
 

 

The first time we got concealed carry permits, we had to list two or three people for reference check.  We listed friends in the area who we knew weren't anti- gun fanatics.  I am sure that sketch people could still find two or three friends or older, clueless people to sign too.

[Elona]

16 hours ago, HS Mom in NC said:

I always ask myself these questions in light of a woman being stalked, threatened, or abused.  If she decides to purchase a gun to protect herself from a man who would disregard a restraining order, would (insert gun regulation here) help keep her safer?

That's what my husband said. He thinks it should be graduated based on the deadliness of the gun. A basic handgun for self-protection is one thing, an AR-15 is very different and should have a longer waiting period.

[KSera]

2 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

Basically, almost every household has a gun.  But there are many social differences--number one, almost everyone in Switzerland is Swiss---like genetically Swiss.   We are a gigantic genetic miss-mash.

What exactly are you suggesting here? 
 

For the people who don’t want any gun safety regulations put in place, is this an acceptable trade off to you?

“The U.S. stands out among high-income countries: Over 90% of all the firearm deaths among children and adolescents that occur in industrialized nations occur in this country.”

(https://sph.umich.edu/pursuit/2019posts/the-facts-on-the-us-children-and-teens-killed-by-firearms.html)

Is the attachment to guns worth that?

People who think rural kids are at less risk might be surprised by this data as well:

 

[Heartstrings]

4 minutes ago, KSera said:

What exactly are you suggesting here? 

I always assume this means racism.  Not that travelingchris is racist, I think it just acknowledges that a lot of violence in our country is race based.  Racism also keeps the simmer of violence going.   Racism gives angry young men a place to point their anger and it gives old men something to stoke the fires with.  

[TravelingChris]

13 hours 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. 

Actually most of the deaths do have to do with gangs and other criminal activities.  That is what is driving up most of the killings in big cities like Chicago, Memphis, Philadelphia, etc.

[KSera]

1 hour ago, TravelingChris said:

Well we can try to compare ourselves to Switzerland, where the nation depends on males? (haven't read whether they now include females), to defend their country.  Basically, almost every household has a gun.  But there are many social differences--number one, almost everyone in Switzerland is Swiss---like genetically Swiss.  

I’m totally on board with us deciding to go the Switzerland route for gun ownership regulations. Let’s do that. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/switzerland-gun-laws-rates-of-gun-deaths-2018-2?op=1#most-people-arent-allowed-to-carry-their-guns-around-in-switzerland-12

“Swiss authorities decide on a local level whether to give people gun permits. They also keep a log of everyone who owns a gun in their region — known as a canton — though hunting rifles and some semiautomatic long arms are exempt from the permit requirement.

Cantonal police don't take their duty doling out gun licenses lightly. They might consult a psychiatrist or talk with authorities in other cantons where a prospective gun buyer has lived to vet the person.

Swiss laws are designed to prevent anyone who's violent or incompetent from owning a gun.

 

People who've been convicted of a crime or have an alcohol or drug addiction aren't allowed to buy guns in Switzerland.

The law also states that anyone who "expresses a violent or dangerous attitude" won't be permitted to own a gun.

Gun owners who want to carry their weapon for "defensive purposes" also have to prove they can properly load, unload, and shoot their weapon and must pass a test to get a license.

 

Switzerland is also one of the richest, healthiest, and, by some measures, happiest countries in the world.”

While we’re at it, we could also enact some of the other policies Switzerland has that keep their population among the happiest. 

Edited June 3, 2022 by KSera
missed first words of quote

[SKL]

1 hour ago, Heartstrings said:

Go buy the gun now in case you need it in the future, maybe even train with it so have a clue what you’re doing if the need arises.   Buy a taser during the waiting period?  Use the waiting period to train at the range?

I’m not sure what gets solved by a complete gun newb buying a gun for self defense with no more knowledge or training other than what they’ve seen on TV. Do they YouTube it?   That seems like a bad plan.  If the argument is the gun is needed right now, by someone who has not previously had a gun, that doesn’t leave much time for training. 

How does one prove that one knows how to handle and shoot a gun right now?  My family has always had a number of guns in the house, and my dad taught his kids over the years.  There is no documentation of this.  I've also taken gun training with my kids, but there is no documentation of this.  My dad, who has been shooting since he was a teen - and the half of Americans with the same background - would be a lot safer with a gun bought today than the other half would be with a gun and a waiting / "cooling off"  period.

[SKL]

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

My concern is if we tell women there will be a delay should they find themselves in the situation that they do feel that they will be safer with a gun, then there will be a higher incidence of people having a gun "just in case"--because you never know and by the time you know you will need it the process of getting one will be delayed.  (Very similar to a hoarding mentality)  If there is evidence that having a gun in a home increases gun violence, this might be encouraging exactly what we want to discourage.  

Definitely.  Not only that, but we are more likely to take steps to make sure our daughters are armed when they leave the nest, whether they need to be or not.

[TravelingChris]

10 hours 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/

Almost all handguns are semi-automatic,  I am the strange one around here because I have two revolvers- for 2 reasons.  first, they are more reliable and secondly, I find clips to be hard to load.

[Heartstrings]

Just now, TravelingChris said:

Almost all handguns are semi-automatic,  I am the strange one around here because I have two revolvers- for 2 reasons.  first, they are more reliable and secondly, I find clips to be hard to load.

That’s just how Mother Jones separates it out so I wanted to note it for accuracy.  I prefer revolvers myself too, my wrists are too weak to comfortably handle clips. I like the way they look too.  More cowboy less military.    

[SKL]

1 hour ago, Heartstrings said:

I always assume this means racism.  Not that travelingchris is racist, I think it just acknowledges that a lot of violence in our country is race based.  Racism also keeps the simmer of violence going.   Racism gives angry young men a place to point their anger and it gives old men something to stoke the fires with.  

Since the vast, vast majority of US gun murders are by shooters (usually males) of the same race or ethnicity as the victim ... and those that are not are more likely to involve a white victim rather than a white shooter ... I am not sure what you are saying here.

Edited June 3, 2022 by SKL

[AnotherNewName]

2 hours ago, lauraw4321 said:

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. 

A TRO doesn't involve seizure of property.

[TravelingChris]

2 hours ago, lauraw4321 said:

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. 

And you have to indicate where you live and where you work.  A woman I know who was very badly beaten by her ex-husband, didn't want to get one because she figured she was safer living at first with people he didn't know were her friends and then later on, she got a boyfriend and lives with him now.  In the meantime, her ex bonded out of jail immediately and even though this all happened in 2018 or early 2019, still no trial.

[Pam in CT]

Katie, I think a similar poll about receptivity to some sort of red flag legislation would also be interesting/ helpful.

It's complicated.

13 hours ago, whitestavern said:

....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. ...

 

13 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.  

Not nowhere. 20 states (including mine) have passed red flag legislation of some sort, mostly within the last five years; compare the terms here.

But without a well-resourced place for such hotline tips to go TO, and without the kind of education of what kinds of warning signs to look for, and without coordination between family members and schools/ employers and mental health resource providers and law enforcement... the impact is too little too late.

 

And there are real, legitimate, privacy rights to be balanced...

12 hours ago, whitestavern said:

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. 

... along with the ever-present evergreen real danger that in the real world society that we actually live in, any tool that includes any degree of law enforcement discretion may well be wielded AGAINST the most marginalized / vulnerable people in our midst.

9 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.

 

This is the summary of the red flag bill ("extreme risk protection order" = the bill's terminology) currently in the respective Judiciary Committees in House & Senate.  (The same elements of this bill are also rolled into a couple efforts at wider-spanning omnibus bills; but I concur with pp that it's more helpful to think about the various policy ideas one by one).  Its basic elements include:

Among its provisions, the bill

• directs the Department of Justice to establish a grant program to help states, local governments, Indian tribes, and other entities implement extreme risk protection order laws;
• extends federal restrictions on the receipt, possession, shipment, and transportation of firearms and ammunition to individuals who are subject to extreme risk protection orders; and
• requires the Federal Bureau of Investigation to compile records from federal, tribal, and state courts and other agencies that identify individuals who are subject to extreme risk protection orders.

(and you can click through to the full text to see each of these in further detail)

House Judiciary actually held a marathon markup hearing yesterday about a number of gun safety measures yesterday; it was unfortunately a bit of a circus, but if you're interested in seeing how the sausage gets made (or not), and petitioning your legislator as is also your Constitutional right on what you'd like to see: every hearing is televised and recorded.

 

[Heartstrings]

2 minutes ago, SKL said:

Since the vast, vast majority of US gun murders are by shooters (usually males) of the same race or ethnicity as the victim ... and of those that are not, most involve a white victim rather than a white shooter ... I am not sure what you are saying here.

The majority can be of the same race and “a lot” can still be explained by racism.  And I said violence not gun deaths. We have enough violence in this country that less than a majority can still be a lot. Also gang violence is often mixed race, gangs tend to divide up along racial lines, although not exclusively.  Since “a lot” of violence is gang violence “a lot” of violence is mixed race.  
 

I was also trying to say that “some amount” of the violent culture that we live on is fueled by racism.   Violent rhetoric often has a racist element to it.(element meaning part, not all of it) “Some” if the most violent people in our culture are also racist.  Racist rhetoric is often violent.  Racism feeds the violent culture. (Feeds, not causes or is exclusively responsible for).

Maybe it’s just because I live in the south.  A current of racism or race tension runs through literally everything.  

 

If there is another explanation  for the saying that other countries are less violent because they are more homogeneous than I’ve never heard it. We are not homogeneous therefore we are more violent seems to be the implication.  

[lauraw4321]

15 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

And you have to indicate where you live and where you work.  A woman I know who was very badly beaten by her ex-husband, didn't want to get one because she figured she was safer living at first with people he didn't know were her friends and then later on, she got a boyfriend and lives with him now.  In the meantime, her ex bonded out of jail immediately and even though this all happened in 2018 or early 2019, still no trial.

Of course TROs aren’t perfect. My point is there are legal avenues we can pull from to model our red flag laws from. 

[KSera]

8 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

If there is another explanation  for the saying that other countries are less violent because they are more homogeneous than I’ve never heard it. We are not homogeneous therefore we are more violent seems to be the implication.  

But those countries (Switzerland, for example) have many, many other differences that are better explanations for the reduced violence than the fact that they are racially homogenous. Clearly we have racially motivated crime (Buffalo, for example), but it's not at all sufficient to explain the kind of violence we have in this country. You can look at statistics for various parts of the country that are not racially diverse, and you're still going to see more gun violence than in most other countries.

[Heartstrings]

10 minutes ago, KSera said:

But those countries (Switzerland, for example) have many, many other differences that are better explanations for the reduced violence than the fact that they are racially homogenous. Clearly we have racially motivated crime (Buffalo, for example), but it's not at all sufficient to explain the kind of violence we have in this country. You can look at statistics for various parts of the country that are not racially diverse, and you're still going to see more gun violence than in most other countries.

I’m not the one that said racial homogeny explains it, but it’s a common refrain.  You’re right, there are many other reasons.  I wonder why racial homophony of those countries always gets mentioned when there are so many other differences? It might be because we know race plays a role here, in some way or another, both in the violence we have and in why we don’t have the same social programs. 
 

Also gun violence is too large an umbrella to look at as a whole, which leads to circular arguments in this kind of threads or discussions because what might help mass shootings gets shot down as not helping DV.  But what might help DV won’t help gang violence.  But fixing gangs don’t fix suicides. But fixing suicides won’t stop street crimes.  Round and round and it all turns into a game of semantics. It’s happening in this very thread and only serves as a mechanism to shut down discussion.  
 

 

Edit: racism can stoke general anger even in racially homogeneous parts of our country.  You can find confederate flags flying in all white parts.  It’s stoking the general culture of anger and violence without needing the immediate pressure of a minority.  

Edited June 3, 2022 by Heartstrings

[Pam in CT]

re Maybe this would all be easier if our society were more like Switzerland's

43 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

Well we can try to compare ourselves to Switzerland, where the nation depends on males? (haven't read whether they now include females), to defend their country.  Basically, almost every household has a gun.  But there are many social differences--number one, almost everyone in Switzerland is Swiss---like genetically Swiss.   We are a gigantic genetic miss-mash.  Also, much lower percentages of children living in single parent households.

You know that the one characteristic that school shooters had in a government funded study from a few years ago?  Broken families.

There's a lot to unpack here, but, at the top line: I agree that much of the fear that both fuels American gun purchases, and is tapped into and amplified and stoked by the NRA and their allies and in dark corners of the interwebs, is race-based. Absolutely.

Our population is NOT genetically pure as the snow on the Swiss Alps. That kind of homogeneity and social cohesion is definitely related to social trust, willingness to "see" one another as deserving and valuable, willingness to extend social safety net services to the most vulnerable, willingness to support the tax and redistributive structures to enable such services.

But, we have no choice but to muddle through as best we can with who we actually are, gigantic genetic mish-mash and all.

 

And aside from all that: were we to enact the gun safety protocols that Switzerland actually has, we'd be in a substantially different place, even despite our genetic mishmash.

39 minutes ago, KSera said:

I’m totally on board with us deciding to go to Switzerland route for gun ownership regulations. Let’s do that. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/switzerland-gun-laws-rates-of-gun-deaths-2018-2?op=1#most-people-arent-allowed-to-carry-their-guns-around-in-switzerland-12

“Swiss authorities decide on a local level whether to give people gun permits. They also keep a log of everyone who owns a gun in their region — known as a canton — though hunting rifles and some semiautomatic long arms are exempt from the permit requirement.

Cantonal police don't take their duty doling out gun licenses lightly. They might consult a psychiatrist or talk with authorities in other cantons where a prospective gun buyer has lived to vet the person.

Swiss laws are designed to prevent anyone who's violent or incompetent from owning a gun.

 

People who've been convicted of a crime or have an alcohol or drug addiction aren't allowed to buy guns in Switzerland.

The law also states that anyone who "expresses a violent or dangerous attitude" won't be permitted to own a gun.

Gun owners who want to carry their weapon for "defensive purposes" also have to prove they can properly load, unload, and shoot their weapon and must pass a test to get a license.

 

Switzerland is also one of the richest, healthiest, and, by some measures, happiest countries in the world.”

While we’re at it, we could also enact some of the other policies Switzerland has that keep their population among the happiest. 

• Meaningful background checks, including meaningful reference checks
• Registry of what weapons are in which households
• Restrictions on gun ownership based on prior convictions or drug abuse
• Licenses to carry, including an upfront test to demonstrate proper gun usage

All sensible in their own right and also all signal the responsibility aspects of gun ownership (as opposed to the Muh Rights aspects that are typically more frontal in the US), which itself helps build social trust and cohesion.

The way our debate typically plays out here -- thankfully not, so far, too much on this thread -- very often drives toward caricatures of the presumed extremism of the Other Side as well as fearmongering. 

When what we need to do is learn to believe in our common humanity and BUILD toward the sort of social cohesion that comes easier in a place like Switzerland... even across our gigantic genetic mishmash. 

[TravelingChris]

3 hours 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. 

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.

In fact, I remember that one of the so-called assault weapons bans was the color of the weapon- which is monumentally ridiculous.

And then we can start talking about people who want to make laws but know nothing about what they are legislating.  For example, Pres. Biden was talking about .22 being lodged in a lung and the person surviving last week.  Well, .22 are much more likely to bounce around in your body, causing many tears and bleeds, then simply lodge any where.  On the other hand, a more powerful bullet may actually do less damage, depending on where it goes, since it goes right through the body with one hole, rather than lodging in the body after doing zig-zags all over the place.

[KSera]

2 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

And then we can start talking about people who want to make laws but know nothing about what they are legislating.  For example, Pres. Biden was talking about .22 being lodged in a lung and the person surviving last week.  Well, .22 are much more likely to bounce around in your body, causing many tears and bleeds, then simply lodge any where.  On the other hand, a more powerful bullet may actually do less damage, depending on where it goes, since it goes right through the body with one hole, rather than lodging in the body after doing zig-zags all over the place.

You haven't read any of the links shared from the doctors actually working on the gunshot victims then. This is simply not the case. They will all tell you a .223 does a lot more damage. It does not simply go right through the body. The amount of force causes shock waves that destroy the surrounding tissue. A .22 through the liver can be survivable. A .223 through the liver is going to cause so much damage the victim will bleed out before anyone can even help them.

If you are genuinely interested, I can share the links again.

[TravelingChris]

2 hours ago, Bootsie said:

My concern is if we tell women there will be a delay should they find themselves in the situation that they do feel that they will be safer with a gun, then there will be a higher incidence of people having a gun "just in case"--because you never know and by the time you know you will need it the process of getting one will be delayed.  (Very similar to a hoarding mentality)  If there is evidence that having a gun in a home increases gun violence, this might be encouraging exactly what we want to discourage.  

And every single time gun control talk heats up, gun sales and ammo sales sky rocket.  My dh remarked that some of these people in govt probably have stock in these companies that make either guns or ammo because it is such a reliable correlation.

[TravelingChris]

Just now, KSera said:

You haven't read any of the links shared from the doctors actually working on the gunshot victims then. This is simply not the case. They will all tell you a .223 does a lot more damage. It does not simply go right through the body. The amount of force causes shock waves that destroy the surrounding tissue. A .22 through the liver can be survivable. A .223 through the liver is going to cause so much damage the victim will bleed out before anyone can even help them.

If you are genuinely interested, I can share the links again.

I just read a book by a coroner this year.

[Heartstrings]

1 minute ago, TravelingChris said:

And every single time gun control talk heats up, gun sales and ammo sales sky rocket.  My dh remarked that some of these people in govt probably have stock in these companies that make either guns or ammo because it is such a reliable correlation.

Along those same lines I’ve been thinking about how the same people who don’t think we should try to fix school shootings also want to privatize education and end public schooling.  Not that one is causing the other, just that it leads to the same ends.  I’ve had 2 people reach out to me for help getting started homeschooling after Uvalde. 
  I bet some charter and private schools will use increased security as a draw going forward, if they don’t already.  

[KSera]

1 minute ago, TravelingChris said:

And every single time gun control talk heats up, gun sales and ammo sales sky rocket.  My dh remarked that some of these people in govt probably have stock in these companies that make either guns or ammo because it is such a reliable correlation.

I know, it is completely disgusting. And your dh is correct. The manufacturer of the gun used in the Uvalde shooting remarked that the shooting at Sandy Hook drove a lot of sales. So gross that people respond to these things by doubling down on how much they need their guns and buying more of them.

Just now, TravelingChris said:

I just read a book by a coroner this year.

I don't know how that relates to what I said about the damage of a .223 shot from a rifle. It's physics.

Here's one such article, from the trauma surgeon treating the Parkland shooting victims:

They weren’t the first mass-shooting victims the Florida radiologist saw—but their wounds were radically different.

Again, if you're interested in reading more about the physics involved and why it is so much more force, I'm happy to look up those links again and share them.

[Heartstrings]

4 minutes ago, KSera said:

I know, it is completely disgusting. And your dh is correct. The manufacturer of the gun used in the Uvalde shooting remarked that the shooting at Sandy Hook drove a lot of sales. So gross that people respond to these things by doubling down on how much they need their guns and buying more of them.

I don't know how that relates to what I said about the damage of a .223 shot from a rifle. It's physics.

Here's one such article, from the trauma surgeon treating the Parkland shooting victims:

They weren’t the first mass-shooting victims the Florida radiologist saw—but their wounds were radically different.

Again, if you're interested in reading more about the physics involved and why it is so much more force, I'm happy to look up those links again and share them.

It’s also the velocity of the rounds.  I think that article talks about the difference when shot at ballistics gel.    The AR is modeled off of the M whatever in the military that was designed specifically to kill with fewer bullets, meaning one bullet needed to do more damage.   

[KSera]

19 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

It’s also the velocity of the rounds.  I think that article talks about the difference when shot at ballistics gel.    The AR is modeled off of the M whatever in the military that was designed specifically to kill with fewer bullets, meaning one bullet needed to do more damage.   

Exactly. From an article I shared on the poofed thread:

Quote

Semiautomatic rifles don’t shoot the largest bullets on the market. In fact, the .223 projectile, a common round for the AR-15, is not much larger than many .22 rounds like the Hornet, typically used for youth shooting sports, target shooting, and hunting varmints. The .223 weighs in at 55 grains, while the .22 is usually 45 grains or smaller.

What makes the .223 potentially deadlier than the .22 is its velocity. When the .223 exits the barrel of a gun, it flies at more than 3,200 feet per second, and is still going 1,660 feet per second after traveling 500 yards. The .22, meanwhile, leaves the muzzle at 2,690 feet per second, and slows to 840 feet per second at 500 yards. At that long distance, the .223 will slam into its target with almost twice the speed of the .22. The .223 is carrying 335 foot-pounds of force, while the .22 carries 70 foot-pounds.

Slow-motion videos of ballistics tests clearly illustrate this difference. Watch the .22 and the .223 tested on blocks of ballistics gelatin, a material that mimics human tissue. The .223 generates a far larger shock wave, and penetrates farther, than the .22.

(https://www.thetrace.org/2017/06/physics-deadly-bullets-assault-rifles/)

And the qualitative difference is readily apparent in the kinds of injuries suffered by those shot with .223 bullets and those shot with .22 bullets.

[TravelingChris]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

Since the vast, vast majority of US gun murders are by shooters (usually males) of the same race or ethnicity as the victim ... and those that are not are more likely to involve a white victim rather than a white shooter ... I am not sure what you are saying here.

I am not sure what she is saying here but we have different cultures here in the US,.  Particularly, there is a sub-set of of black culture that is more likely to use guns to settle disputes-often these same people are in gangs but not always.  But that isn't the only group that has higher crime statistics---descendants of Anglo -Irish, in Appalachia and Cumberland plateau areas also have a propensity for higher gun crime rates too.  There is almost certainly a combo of genetic traits towards things like impulsive behavior, quick temperaments, along with culture along with family circumstances.  Then we have various gang members and other violent criminals coming from some Central American countries or with ties to cartels.  None of these cultures are in Switzerland.

[KSera]

This is thoroughly disgusting, but I think important if people are trying to argue that bullets shot by an AR-15 are less damaging than from other guns and are just going to go right through people (how completely bizarre is it that we are even having this conversation, as if that would be okay as long as they went right through?).

Quote

Developed in the early 1960s, the .223 round was first used in Vietnam. The U.S. military collected reports of its effects on the first Viet Cong combatants to be shot with the bullet. Here’s what they found it did to those enemies’ bodies, as republished in New York Times reporter C.J. Chivers’s history of the assault rifle, The Gun:

 

The fact is, we know what these guns do to rooms full of children. We keep seeing it again and again. To argue they really aren't that damaging is mind blowing. But people want their toys.

[TravelingChris]

38 minutes ago, KSera said:

I know, it is completely disgusting. And your dh is correct. The manufacturer of the gun used in the Uvalde shooting remarked that the shooting at Sandy Hook drove a lot of sales. So gross that people respond to these things by doubling down on how much they need their guns and buying more of them.

I don't know how that relates to what I said about the damage of a .223 shot from a rifle. It's physics.

Here's one such article, from the trauma surgeon treating the Parkland shooting victims:

They weren’t the first mass-shooting victims the Florida radiologist saw—but their wounds were radically different.

Again, if you're interested in reading more about the physics involved and why it is so much more force, I'm happy to look up those links again and share them.

I am not arguing of .22 v .223.  Higher caliber would be like .38 or .44.  And yes, I get physics and higher velocity.    But I also know that we have at least 20 million of these weapons that fire .223 at high velocity and if you try to ban and confiscate, that won't be a pretty picture. 

[Heartstrings]

3 minutes ago, KSera said:

This is thoroughly disgusting, but I think important if people are trying to argue that bullets shot by an AR-15 are less damaging than from other guns and are just going to go right through people (how completely bizarre is it that we are even having this conversation, as if that would be okay as long as they went right through?)

It’s especially odd because the people arguing that ARs are no different are usually doing so to make the person acknowledging the difference feel ignorant.  It’s quite a feat to attempt to tell the person with correct information that they are too ignorant to speak on an issue.  

[Heartstrings]

3 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

  But I also know that we have at least 20 million of these weapons that fire .223 at high velocity and if you try to ban and confiscate, that won't be a pretty picture. 

That’s a separate point and honestly one that has swayed me that bans aren’t the right way to go.  The cat is out of the bag, so to speak.  I would still favor some sensible hoop jumping of some sort for buying an AR as well as a voluntary buy back program paying top dollar just to reduce the numbers.  A buy back would be GOOD for manufacturers too because it would lesson private sales.

[KSera]

8 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

I am not arguing of .22 v .223.  Higher caliber would be like .38 or .44.  And yes, I get physics and higher velocity.    But I also know that we have at least 20 million of these weapons that fire .223 at high velocity and if you try to ban and confiscate, that won't be a pretty picture. 

That says a lot about the owners, doesn't it?

5 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

It’s especially odd because the people arguing that ARs are no different are usually doing so to make the person acknowledging the difference feel ignorant.  It’s quite a feat to attempt to tell the person with correct information that they are too ignorant to speak on an issue.  

Isn't it though?

[KSera]

1 minute ago, Heartstrings said:

That’s a separate point and honestly one that has swayed me that bans aren’t the right way to go.  The cat is out of the bag, so to speak.  I would still favor some sensible hoop jumping of some sort for buying an AR as well as a voluntary buy back program paying top dollar just to reduce the numbers.  A buy back would be GOOD for manufacturers too because it would lesson private sales.

I think it's essential we not let perfect be the enemy of good (you may even have said the same in this thread?? Maybe that was someone else). It won't fix everything. Stopping new sales would almost surely prevent some tragedies though. And for gun owners to argue that it's not going to do any good would be them essentially saying they aren't going to be lawful with their weapons and keep them under their own lock and key, not sell them to criminals and not otherwise let them get into the wrong hands. This has worked in other countries. There's no reason that making guns like the AR-15 difficult or impossible to buy won't reduce the number of kids killed in schools.