Gun Control

Manic Moran

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Why allow them in bars though seriously who would support that?
Eight states currently allow firearms in bars.

Why not? What's wrong with putting some personal responsibility on the owner? It's not as if we prohibit car keys in bars, though the only reason for having a car key is if you wish to drive home after the evening in the bar is done. You can kill someone just as well driving drunk. Probably better, actually, as drunks are notoriously poor shots.

sin_city

Manic Moran wrote: »

Why not? What's wrong with putting some personal responsibility on the owner? It's not as if we prohibit car keys in bars, though the only reason for having a car key is if you wish to drive home after the evening in the bar is done. You can kill someone just as well driving drunk. Probably better, actually, as drunks are notoriously poor shots.

If there was ever an incident involving a gun shotout in a bar due to them being allowed in bars it would be widely reported.

If someone’s life or lives were saved due to this measure no one would ever know.

Those types of stories are not sexy enough for the media and don’t fit the agenda.

Manic Moran

http://www.timesdispatch.com/archive/gun-crimes-drop-at-virginia-bars-and-restaurants/article_07eae8c7-9e74-56d6-8928-a9fe2add8ebf.html

With the increase in States allowing firearms to be carried in more places, we get a good example of before-and-after comparisons, instead of parades of horribles.

Virginia's bars and restaurants did not turn into shooting galleries as some had feared during the first year of a new state law that allows patrons with permits to carry concealed guns into alcohol-serving businesses, a Richmond Times-Dispatch analysis found.

The number of major crimes involving firearms at bars and restaurants statewide declined 5.2 percent from July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011, compared with the fiscal year before the law went into effect, according to crime data compiled by Virginia State Police at the newspaper's request.

And overall, the crimes that occurred during the law's first year were relatively minor, and few of the incidents appeared to involve gun owners with concealed-carry permits, the analysis found.

LeinsterDub

1 city, 1 weekend , 14 dead .
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/american-independence-day-2014-mayhem-in-chicago-sees-police-chief-admit-we-lost-it-after-82-shootings-and-14-deaths-on-deadly-4-july-bank-holiday-9593017.html

Be like Nutella

I'm for gun laws of any sort that even theoreticallly can reduce gun deaths or massacres but unless somebody can offer a solution which involves dealing with the 200+ million guns in the US already then...

LeinsterDub

Be like Nutella wrote: »

I'm for gun laws of any sort that even theoreticallly can reduce gun deaths or massacres but unless somebody can offer a solution which involves dealing with the 200+ million guns in the US already then...

We can't put in place traffic safety laws while there currently exists cars...

AbusesToilets

Instead of demonising guns and looking to create more laws that only punish legitimate gun owners, more effort should be put into dealing with issues like mental health treatment. The lack of available facilities and treatment options is criminal and has no small part to play in the cases of those committing these mass shootings.

The sensationalistic reporting of major news outlets also serves as encouragement to sick individuals who feel it will bring them fame and notoriety.

LeinsterDub

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Instead of demonising guns and looking to create more laws that only punish legitimate gun owners, more effort should be put into dealing with issues like mental health treatment. The lack of available facilities and treatment options is criminal and has no small part to play in the cases of those committing these mass shootings.

The sensationalistic reporting of major news outlets also serves as encouragement to sick individuals who feel it will bring them fame and notoriety.

There was basically a mass shooting in Chicago over the independence day weekend. Of course since it was 14 different shooters it's not news worthy in the US. Mass shootings aren't the issue either is mental health

Manic Moran

LeinsterDub wrote: »

There was basically a mass shooting in Chicago over the independence day weekend. Of course since it was 14 different shooters it's not news worthy in the US. Mass shootings aren't the issue either is mental health

Arguably neither are the gun laws: Chicago's are some of the strictest in the nation already. Sometimes touted as a model for other parts of the country to follow.

Doesn't seem to be working.

LeinsterDub

Manic Moran wrote: »

Arguably neither are the gun laws: Chicago's are some of the strictest in the nation already. Sometimes touted as a model for other parts of the country to follow.

Doesn't seem to be working.

The only item I and probably you own that has any way where the destructive potential as guns is my car.
I am required to

1. Prove my abilty to drive safely
2. Prove its safe to drive (NCT)
3. Pay towards the collective damage it does (Motor tax)
4. Pay to cover the damage I may do as an individual (Insurance)
5. Inform the government it's in my charge (Registration)
6. Inform the government it's not longer in my charge (Change of ownership)
7. Can have my right to it removed if I fail to comply with some reasonable standards
8. Are limits where I can take it

I think this would be a reasonable list of requirements for gun ownership

eire4

Manic Moran wrote: »

Arguably neither are the gun laws: Chicago's are some of the strictest in the nation already. Sometimes touted as a model for other parts of the country to follow.

Doesn't seem to be working.

Nice try but false. The vast majority of the gun deaths in Chicago are happening on the cities south side. This is very close to and within easy access of northwest Indiana where the gun laws are very lax and that is where the weapons are coming from which is fueling the massive gang violence issues which Chicago's south side is experiencing.

eire4

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The only item I and probably you own that has any way where the destructive potential as guns is my car.
I am required to

1. Prove my abilty to drive safely
2. Prove its safe to drive (NCT)
3. Pay towards the collective damage it does (Motor tax)
4. Pay to cover the damage I may do as an individual (Insurance)
5. Inform the government it's in my charge (Registration)
6. Inform the government it's not longer in my charge (Change of ownership)
7. Can have my right to it removed if I fail to comply with some reasonable standards
8. Are limits where I can take it

I think this would be a reasonable list of requirements for gun ownership

I agree with that. I think having insurance in particular on each gun would be a very good step forward.

Manic Moran

eire4 wrote: »

Nice try but false. The vast majority of the gun deaths in Chicago are happening on the cities south side. This is very close to and within easy access of northwest Indiana where the gun laws are very lax and that is where the weapons are coming from which is fueling the massive gang violence issues which Chicago's south side is experiencing.

The point here is that, as already mentioned, there are one or two firearms already in circulation. It doesn't matter if the availability to Chicagoans is coming from Indiana-where-you-can-easily-buy-firearms-in-addition-to-the-millions-already-in-Indiana, or if they're coming from Indiana-where-you-can't-easily-buy-firearms-in-addition-to-the-millions-already-in-Indiana.

Any attempt at dealing with the problem must reflect the reality that saying "You can't have a gun" will have basically no effect on the fact that there will be ways for the folks doing most of the shooting to get one anyway. The solution lies elsewhere.

I think having insurance in particular on each gun would be a very good step forward.

What would the insurance cover, exactly, and how would it help?

LeinsterDub

Manic Moran wrote: »

Any attempt at dealing with the problem must reflect the reality that saying "You can't have a gun" will have basically no effect on the fact that there will be ways for the folks doing most of the shooting to get one anyway.

I don't think anyone said you can't have a gun. Just because someone can steal my car doesn't mean we should resort to anarchy. This isn't a boolean situation guns or no guns. Gun laws or no gun laws.

No one is nieve enough to suggest that a law will prevent all gun crime or lead to a dramatic change overnight. What it might lead to is some accountability as to who is buying guns and selling them illegally

sin_city

LeinsterDub wrote: »

1 city, 1 weekend , 14 dead .
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/american-independence-day-2014-mayhem-in-chicago-sees-police-chief-admit-we-lost-it-after-82-shootings-and-14-deaths-on-deadly-4-july-bank-holiday-9593017.html

What were the gun laws in the north during the troubles?

sin_city

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Just because someone can steal my car doesn't mean we should resort to anarchy.

You're referring to anarchy as if it is a bad thing.

I don’t think getting rid of a mafia would be a bad thing….”resorting to anarchy” would be great.

Manic Moran

LeinsterDub wrote: »

No one is nieve enough to suggest that a law will prevent all gun crime or lead to a dramatic change overnight. What it might lead to is some accountability as to who is buying guns and selling them illegally

Is that not an issue of enforcement? There are already a number of laws about who can purchase firearms and who is eligible to be sold to, which don't seem to be particularly outside reason.

LeinsterDub

Manic Moran wrote: »

Is that not an issue of enforcement? There are already a number of laws about who can purchase firearms and who is eligible to be sold to, which don't seem to be particularly outside reason.

I had a different reply ready but I know I'd just get the standard reply or sure there is nothing wrong or sure we can't do anything about it so lets not even try

SeanW

LeinsterDub wrote: »

There was basically a mass shooting in Chicago over the independence day weekend. Of course since it was 14 different shooters it's not news worthy in the US. Mass shootings aren't the issue either is mental health

How many of those shooters held their firearms legally?

LeinsterDub

SeanW wrote: »

How many of those shooters held their firearms legally?

A other round of sure it's pointless to try?

Sure why not

Case 1 they where all legally held: Sure they where all legally held why would more regulation make any difference?
Case 2 they where all illegally held: Sure criminals just ignore the law anyway why would more regulation make any difference?
Case 3 the mixed bag, take 1 and 2 , ram them together and end with why would more regulation make any difference?

Close to the mark?

SeanW

LeinsterDub wrote: »

A other round of sure it's pointless to try?

Whatever you think yourself :P

Case 1 they where all legally held: Sure they where all legally held why would more regulation make any difference?

If they were all legally held, then it would make a difference because it would be a sign that the regulations that existed were inadequate. There would indeed be a case for more restrictions on legally held guns.

Case 2 they where all illegally held: Sure criminals just ignore the law anyway why would more regulation make any difference?

If the guns are illegally held, then the solution is have more law enforcement and make illegally held weapons easier to seize.

When crime is committed by people with illegally held weapons, strict gun control does nothing but ensuring that only criminals have a monopoly on the use of deadly force. Which is not "not making a difference" it's making things worse.

Case 3 the mixed bag, take 1 and 2 , ram them together and end with why would more regulation make any difference?

Huh?

Close to the mark?

About as wide of it as a Brazilian soccer player in a match with Germany I would say.

LeinsterDub

SeanW wrote: »

When crime is committed by people with illegally held weapons, strict gun control does nothing but ensuring that only criminals have a monopoly on the use of deadly force. Which is not "not making a difference" it's making things worse.
.

Under most if not all serious gun control proposals anyone legitimate who wants a gun can still get one

Manic Moran

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I had a different reply ready but I know I'd just get the standard reply or sure there is nothing wrong or sure we can't do anything about it so lets not even try

It's the standard reply, much as "Forty-two" is the standard reply to the "Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything": Because it's the correct reply to a standard proposal.

Look at the handwaving you're doing. In effect, "we must do something about X because doing nothing about X is not an answer", whilst not being particularly enlightening about just what should be done, and why it is likely to have the effect you would like it to have.

Give me a proposal which accepts the realities of existence in North America, and I'll give you a reasoned response. (I'll go over your list in a second)

In the meantime, I'll counterpropose that "Doing something about X" is not the correct answer, and instead, we should be doing something about "Y" and "Z", prime examples being enforcement and social changes. Of course, Y and Z are far more trouble and effort to implement, so why bother? We'll just do more "X", which hasn't gotten a great track record of success so far.

Manic Moran

The only item I and probably you own that has any way where the destructive potential as guns is my car.

1.Prove my abilty to drive safely
2.Prove its safe to drive (NCT)
3.Pay towards the collective damage it does (Motor tax)
4.Pay to cover the damage I may do as an individual (Insurance)
5.Inform the government it's in my charge (Registration)
6.Inform the government it's not longer in my charge (Change of ownership)
7.Can have my right to it removed if I fail to comply with some reasonable standards
8.Are limits where I can take it

Not a direct equivalence as, for example, one does not need a background check for criminal and mental history in order to purchase a vehicle, but let's go on.

1) Here in the paradise that is California, in order to purchase a pistol, one must first hold a Handgun Safety Certificate, and demonstrate correct loading, unloading, remedial actions of the specific handgun you are purchasing before being allowed to take it home from the shop. http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/hscinfo . Exemptions are given to police and military. I live about 15 minutes from one of the top ten most dangerous cities in America, so it's obviously working well. The problem here is that effectively using a firearm is not, in fairness, particularly difficult, certainly not in comparison to the operation of a motor vehicle. Indeed, the 'problem' is defined by people who are vaguely competent in the use of their firearms. If they didn't know how to make it work and how to put lead on target, there wouldn't be as many firearm murders. Driving tests are designed to reduce danger of people who -don't- know how to use their vehicle.

2. In theory, correct. Again, we have such a thing here in California, it's called the "Safe Handgun Roster." Before being made available for sale in the State, every model of pistol must be submitted to the State DOJ for approval and no pistol may be sold by a shop to a non-LEO unless it is on this roster. It supposedly covers things such as "Will it discharge if you drop it?" Unfortunately, it also covers things like "Is it a different colour?" (Really. You introduce a new color for the pistol, it must be separately listed, submitted, tested and paid for by the company). It also covers things which the legislature think are a good idea, but firearms owners aren't so sure about, such as magazine disconnects. It has since turned into a mechanism for banning firearms. By the standards enacted by the legislature of the Great State of California, not a single new pistol being manufactured in the US today is legal for addition to the roster. I'm serious, since January of this year (When the latest set of requirements was added) only two pistols have been added to the roster: A custom-engraved version of a 20-year-old colt, the basic design of which was grandfathered in, and a .22 limited edition variant of a pistol also grandfathered in. In the meantime, if the company doesn't pay the listing fee every year, the handgun is apparently declared no longer safe, and removed from the roster, scores have been removed. See http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/ PDFs for recently added, recently removed. As a result, this roster is currently under legal challenge (See Pena v Cid). So, nice idea in theory, but given past experience, we're suspicious. The implementation would have to be changed. Arguably it's irrelevant anyway, as standard liability laws as against the manufacturer should cover things nicely: The NCT primarily exists to reduce the hazard your vehicle poses to other road users, the handgun roster exists primarily to reduce the hazard the pistol causes to yourself: If the pistol's working well, it's causing harm to someone else!

3. Quoting the CA DMV website: "The Vehicle License Fee in California was established in 1935 in lieu of a property tax on vehicles. The DMV returns almost all vehicle license fee revenue to the cities and counties. For more details on how your VLF money is used, contact your local city or county government officials." i.e. it goes into the county's general fund, and is not particularly related to 'the collective damage that it does.' (As an aside, we booted out the Governor a couple of years ago when he proposed raising the VLF to help cover the State's general operating debt, further emphasizing the lack of connection). We already pay sales tax on weapons, but let's go down the rabbit hole and presume that a fee of a few dollars has to be paid on every weapon on an annual basis. I pay about $200 in fees on a car I bought for $60,000, so on a similar percentage basis, my $800 Sig-Sauer pistol would be due fees of about $2.66 a year. The cost of administration is probably not worth it. And then you have the issue of enforcement. My car has a sticker on the license plate which clearly tells passing law enforcement if I'm in compliance or not. It's a little harder to do that with a pistol. And then there's the issue of equality. The law would disproportionately affect people who happen to have recently purchased their firearm from a shop. The millions of firearms already in circulation would effectively go untaxed and unlike a car, which must be brought out into public to be used (And thus display the sticker), there is no such requirement for firearms. (Not least also we've already established that the firearms causing the problems are the illegally held ones anyway, so probably they're not going to be paying the tax on them to counter the damage caused).

4. A little less controversial, but as a homeowner I already have liability insurance, so in my case, at least, no change need occur. (I'm not entirely sure I understand why I have liability insurance as part of homeowner's insurance, but that's the way it works around here). The idea begs two further questions, however. (1) As already mentioned, the vast majority of trouble comes from people who are unlikely to have their weapons taxed and insured, and (2) insurance only covers things after the fact. It doesn't stop the violence to begin with, only who pays for cleaning it up.

5. Fails on a practical level. In no recent attempt to register firearms in North America (eg California, Canada) has there been an estimated majority compliance. I think the figure was about 10% in the case of the Canadian Long Gun Registry. That's before you get to the political question of if it'll even pass: There are only two practical reasons to register a firearm: Crime solving, and confiscation. The problem is that the 'success rate' in for the former is incredibly low (Simply because of the practical realities), and there is enough concern about the latter to disincentivise people from registering with little perceived benefit.

6. Relates to 5, fails on a practical level for the same reason.

7. This is in effect with firearms as well.

8. Also in effect with firearms.

eire4

Manic Moran wrote: »

The point here is that, as already mentioned, there are one or two firearms already in circulation. It doesn't matter if the availability to Chicagoans is coming from Indiana-where-you-can-easily-buy-firearms-in-addition-to-the-millions-already-in-Indiana, or if they're coming from Indiana-where-you-can't-easily-buy-firearms-in-addition-to-the-millions-already-in-Indiana.

Any attempt at dealing with the problem must reflect the reality that saying "You can't have a gun" will have basically no effect on the fact that there will be ways for the folks doing most of the shooting to get one anyway. The solution lies elsewhere.



What would the insurance cover, exactly, and how would it help?

Anyone hurt or injured by a gun due to the unlawful actions or negligence of the guns owner would now at least have the ability to have medical costs paid for them or if unfortunately the person is not alive his relatives would no longer have to deal with the expenses realted to that.

Manic Moran

I'm not actually sure if it's possible to get insurance to pay out for such things. Most insurance policies tend to have a caveat along the lines of "does not apply during commission of a felony", so road traffic accidents as part of daily business are covered, but RTAs resulting from a getaway chase after a bank robbery become personal liability of the accident causer, with the victim's insurance covering the gap (Uninsured driver coverage). Unlawfully shooting someone tends to be a felony.

There are arguably moral issues with providing insurance to cover unlawful acts as well. Why the hell would we be insuring people who do unlawful acts and giving them a fiscal shield?

Manic Moran

Court case from DC came out this week, and it was a fairly righteous smackdown. Basically DC police have been ordered by the court not to arrest anyone for carrying a legally owned firearm, openly or concealed, until the DC government can come up with some acceptable form of regulation.

Basically some jurisdictions, to include DC, have been fighting tooth and nail to avoid practical loosening of firearm restrictions, doing the absolute minimum they think they can get away with.

OpEd piece which I rather agree with here. Suprisingly, since I consider Huffington Post to be a bit left-leaning.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-santiago/guns-in-america-why-i-thi_b_5628403.html

Adaptations will need to be made. Licensing systems need to be updated. Training and skills requirements need to be standardized. Peace Officer Standards Training (POST) for dealing with a more broadly armed populace need to be updated particularly in those "local" jurisdictions that are the most resistive. Public awareness and nervousness about firearms need to be dealt with by some sort of operationally constructive -- as opposed to fearful -- educational campaign. And all of this needs to be done in a fashion much more organized than waking up on a Saturday morning to the news that you've just gotten a whammy of a court order to cease enforcing the laws on your books until you get back in line. Because, you know what, it just happened.

eire4

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not actually sure if it's possible to get insurance to pay out for such things. Most insurance policies tend to have a caveat along the lines of "does not apply during commission of a felony", so road traffic accidents as part of daily business are covered, but RTAs resulting from a getaway chase after a bank robbery become personal liability of the accident causer, with the victim's insurance covering the gap (Uninsured driver coverage). Unlawfully shooting someone tends to be a felony.

There are arguably moral issues with providing insurance to cover unlawful acts as well. Why the hell would we be insuring people who do unlawful acts and giving them a fiscal shield?

This is America we are talking about. If having insurance becomes the law and there is money to be made there will be companies to provide the policies.
Certainly there are details of how such a law would work that would need to be ironed out but there are benefits to such a law. There are sadly many incidents of accidents with guns which result in death or injury where those people injured or relatives of the dead can be compensated rather then as things stand currently where they have to deal with all the costs and medical expenses themselves.

FISMA

Manic Moran wrote: »

Court case from DC came out this week, and it was a fairly righteous smackdown. Basically DC police have been ordered by the court not to arrest anyone for carrying a legally owned firearm, openly or concealed, until the DC government can come up with some acceptable form of regulation.

Yep! The majority of the mainstream media glanced right over it.

I caught a clip of Marion Barry saying how violence is going to increase in DC as a result.:rolleyes:

The Dems better leave this topic alone. They do not need to fire up their opposition's base for November.

Overheal

FISMA wrote: »

Yep! The majority of the mainstream media glanced right over it.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh in fairness, that might hopefully be an example of journalistic discretion. What might happen if the 24 hour news cycle told everyone in DC they could go ham waving rifles in the air and shoving shotguns down their pants?