Gun Control in the US

Quin_Dub

Manic Moran wrote: »

Perhaps the solution is not, in fact, to look at firearms, but to look at the people.

I think it's a bit of both..

There's no question that the solution is not as simple as "Ban Guns" , although having said that I fail to see any reasonable or legitimate argument for allowing the sale of things like Bump Stocks & Silencers to name a few..

After events like this , the two sides always seem to settle into well-worn tropes of "gun control" on the left and "improved mental health provisions" on the right , although this latest horror doesn't yet seem to fit the typical mental health narrative.

Other countries have guns , other countries have people with Mental health issues - Yet no other country on the planet comes even close to the level of gun deaths and mass shootings as the US.

So - Why do Americans "use" their guns much much more than any other gun owners in other countries??

There is a cultural/societal issue at play here that needs to be addressed.

As an outsider looking in ,albeit one that has spent a lot of time in the southern United States over the past 20 years. As a nation the US has an extremely unhealthy relationship with guns that needs to be addressed.

Tony EH

It's definitely both. But, it's just stupid and pigheaded to keep skirting around the issue of the ridiculous availability of guns to people wholly undeserving of them.

Much, MUCH, better regulation is needed, which would go someway to minimising the death tolls these sick fucks mount up when they want to suicide by cop.

Not only that, America needs to get its **** together regarding access to mental health facilities for people who cannot afford those facilities. Simply turning these people loose is a recipe for disaster. Reagan has an awful lot to answer for in that regard.

It comes down to this and I've said it before. The gun crowd simply just don't care about these mass slaughters. Access to their toys is more important to them than other people's lives.

Nody

Quin_Dub wrote: »

After events like this , the two sides always seem to settle into well-worn tropes of "gun control" on the left and "improved mental health provisions" on the right , although this latest horror doesn't yet seem to fit the typical mental health narrative.

Except the minor fact that NRA and Republicans actually reduced the mental health provisions and removed previous Obama legislation to limit those with such problems being allowed to buy guns...

Quin_Dub

Nody wrote: »

Except the minor fact that NRA and Republicans actually reduced the mental health provisions and removed previous Obama legislation to limit those with such problems being allowed to buy guns...

Absolutely agree - It's the "Guns don't kill people , People kill people" argument to deflect away from serious discussion about Gun control.

They never actually do anything about it.. It's just used as a shield.

seamus

Tony EH wrote: »

It's definitely both. But, it's just stupid and pigheaded to keep skirting around the issue of the ridiculous availability of guns to people wholly undeserving of them.

Much, MUCH, better regulation is needed, which would go someway to minimising the death tolls these sick fucks mount up when they want to suicide by cop.

There is an obvious solution here.

A federal weapons register which links weapons' serial numbers to a person, so every weapon can be traced to an owner.

This would also allow for reasonable limits to be placed on the number of weapons a single person may own, and a much simpler way of discovering if the weapon that Joe Bloggs is carrying, is actually legally held. If Joe is found with an unregistered weapon, that's a federal offence that carries jailtime. When Joe goes to buy a weapon, the dealer runs a check which says that Joe already had 3 weapons, he can't have another one. Sorry Joe, but you are keeping and bearing enough arms already.

It is no way infringing on the 2nd Amendment to regulate weapons in this way, since it does not include a blanket right to hold as many weapons as you feel like, or weapons of whatever type you feel like, nor keep them without registration or regulation.

If private citizens were entitled to pistols and simple hunting rifles only, the second amendment is happy and incidents like this would not be possible. A mass shooter with a scoped rifle, sure might kill a couple of people. Like those guys in Washington in 2002.
But they wouldn't be able to stock themselves with a military arsenal and massacre people from a distance like Paddock did.

Yes it is that simple, but there are too many vested interests tied up in it. The problem is that any time there has been an attempt in the US to tighten up gun control, the NRA with the assistance of the GOP and their partisan supreme court have pushed back even harder and loosened controls rather than tightened them.

The U.S. is onto a loser really. We're witnessing its last decades as a stable entity because those with the power to change the toxic parts of US society (gun control and healthcare being two examples) seem hell bent on going in exactly the wrong direction.

Tony EH

Agreed. That's a reasonable solution here and yes, nobody should be allowed to amass an arsenal that's roughly the same as the average Platoon. That's an utterly ridiculous situation.

But, it still comes down to giving a shit and as long as gun nuts don't and the NRA has the GOP in their pocket, nothing will change. It's money and there's too much to be made - so lives don't matter.

Maybe if these nutters made an effort to shoot the "right" people (a few politicians might do), something might happen.

spacecoyote

Good piece from John Oliver on the NRA:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ECYMvjU52E

Leroy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

Forgive me, but this seems to imply that there is only one viable course of action. That is not a position universally shared by the US population (or the population of this board). Personally, I have emailed my two congresscritters earlier this week and inquired as to if they have any interest at all in considering other points of focus such as prohibition on publicising such shooters or perhaps looking at the social or societal reasons these things seem to be happening in the US more than other firearms-holding countries. After all, the NRA can't object to those. Given that one is Kamala Harris, and the other Eric Swalwell, both (D-CA), I'm unconvinced that the response will do anything but focus on feelgood, superficial issue of the firearms. DiFi has wasted no time in copy/pasting a paragraph from her last attempt at a ban, submitting her new proposal which ignores the practical aspects of how the things work that she is trying to ban in the first place. But it's much easier to get superficial things passed when emotions are high, and when things settle down in the end, it's those of us on the receiving end that are trying to figure things out. As it is, I spent a half-hour today trying to figure out whether or not one of my rifles needs to be registered under the latest California regimen (And I still haven't come to a conclusion on the matter) because the folks passing the legislation have no clue what they're legislating about. And in the meantime, nothing is done as regards the most commonly used weapons in the US for murder or mass murder, precisely because they are (a) explicitly protected by the courts, and (b) also the most commonly legitimately held weapons. Perhaps the solution is not, in fact, to look at firearms, but to look at the people.

spacecoyote wrote: »

Good piece from John Oliver on the NRA:/QUOTE]

So in a country that wants to build a wall to keep out all Mexicans because some of them may be rapists, that wants to ban all Muslims until they work what what the "hell is going on" you think that the best response after the latest in a long line of mass shootings is to have a report on why other countries don't have the same problem?

Why not call for an immediate ban on gun sales? For every firearm to be registered and a halt on 2nd sales?

As was proposed above, an immediate register of all guns, limiting the number per person. It would actually make sense for the US to buy back the guns to get the additional guns out of circulation.

You claim that the NRA can't be against a report, but we already know that they are. In 1996 the Dickie act bared the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) for advocating or promote gun control. The CDC is already barred for advocating for anything, only to produce reports, but this amendment resulted in the research in gun violence dropping by 96%. It now spends just 100k a year out of a budget of over 5bn. On gun violence.

Gun violence has accounted for an average 33,000 deaths each year in the US. In 2016 there were more than 1 mass shooting everyday. Yet not only is nothing being done, research isn't even being carried out.

440k people have died as a result of guns since 2001, against less than 4k from foreign terrorism. Trump wants to keep the threat from getting in, guess what, the threat is already there and has access to military grade weapons.

Why is there not a call for all white men to be checked? Across all of the mass shootings, which have been carried out across many states, by different age groups, backgrounds, political and religious reasons. The common thread in all of them is the use of high grade weapons. Yet it seems US is oblivious to that simple fact.

You say it is not universally accepted. Do you know what the opinion polls show about Gun control. Depending on the poll, anywhere between 70% and 90% believe in stricter controls. Even a majority of NRA members agree. So yeah, you're right not universal, but in a democracy surely the majority gets some say. It is the skewed nature of US politics that the very states that are most for lax gun control happen to carry quite a weight within the system.

After the Orlando shooting, the Dems tried, even going as far as staging a sit in, to amend the laws. Not to take peoples gun away, to to restrict the types of weapons, or limit the ammunition. No. The wanted to legislate for background checks for sales in gun shows and to prohibit those on the terrorist watch list from buying guns. Hardly an attack on gun ownership. Hardly a feel good action. A practical, if limited start.

How did that go I hear you ask? Of course the GOP ignored it.

So when you post your funny cartoon showing the simple way being popular but the complex being "right", they have tried to do nothing approach and how has that gone? Each year seemingly brings a new record. Each year brings more deaths and more injured. But your thinking is that there is no need to go after any thing to do with guns but rather to have a review.

It is very simple. Take away peoples ability to own these types of weapons and their ability to create the carnage that this man did is massively reduced. Will it stop all the killings? No. But how many would he have killed with a pistol? 10 maybe. And injured? lets go with 50. So even that simple change would save 49 lives and save 450 people being injured.

US spends €2.8bn on gun related healthcare. Jebus. All so that a few people can feel big and strong and play at being Rambo.

And whenever a mass shooting occurs, the NRA etc come out bemoaning the fact that if only the teachers/parents etc had guns then it wouldn't have happened. Well this massacre well and truly blows that theory out of the water. Despite the state having very lax gun laws, where people are free to own as many as they want and can obtain permits to carry them. When every policeman is armed. Nobody could do a thing to stop him. Nothing. Where are all these gun owners that vow that they need guns to stop the bad guys. They completely failed. If being armed was the only way to avoid being shot then how come fully trained soldiers die in battle. How come a US marine, with years of training still gets shot? Because your weapon is only useful if the other guy isn't a step ahead of you. No point having a house full of guns if the guys can simply sneak up on you.

Simplistic? The reason the points put forward seem simplistic is that they really are. This really needed be complicated. US needs to stop this love affair with the gun.

For all the people that were involved, killed, injured or just caught up in it including all the brave police etc I have the utmost sympathy. I have no sympathy for US society. They have accepted that this is, as Bill O'Reilly said, "the price of freedom". They accept that to have toys people must die.

seamus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Because your weapon is only useful if the other guy isn't a step ahead of you. No point having a house full of guns if the guys can simply sneak up on you.

This is great point. Once arms are introduced, it becomes an arms race.

So every teacher is carrying a pistol? Fine, I'll buy a bulletproof vest, use an automatic and pick off the adults first.

Everyone has an automatic? Fine, I'll just use some explosives instead and then pick off anyone who's not dead or stunned.

Local cops have a SWAT team? Don't care, I'm not planning on getting out alive. I'll just lock the doors and kill everyone.

Everyone's carrying? Fine, I'll just get an elevated location and fire from a distance.

The "good guy with a gun" logic maybe works in a warzone where you're expecting an attack. It doesn't work in everyday life. Even if they came up with a good counter-terrorist strategy against the Paddock scenario, the next guy will just pick a different more devastating strategy. This is not "bad guys versus good guys". This is "bad guys and defenceless civilians".

One point that also worth noting is that it's irrelevant whether the guns Paddock held were legally or illegally held. The majority of illegally held weapons in the US come from legal sources - be that moved across state lines, stolen from gun shops and peoples' homes, or second sales.

Why doesn't most of Europe have this issue with illegal weapons? Because you have to smuggle them into the country. There isn't a gun shop on every street that you can ram-raid and drive off with hundreds of weapons.

If they weren't generally available in the first place, then it would be much harder/more expensive to get your hands on illegal weapons.

demfad

Manic Moran wrote: »

Forgive me, but this seems to imply that there is only one viable course of action. That is not a position universally shared by the US population (or the population of this board). Personally, I have emailed my two congresscritters earlier this week and inquired as to if they have any interest at all in considering other points of focus such as prohibition on publicising such shooters or perhaps looking at the social or societal reasons these things seem to be happening in the US more than other firearms-holding countries. After all, the NRA can't object to those. Given that one is Kamala Harris, and the other Eric Swalwell, both (D-CA), I'm unconvinced that the response will do anything but focus on feelgood, superficial issue of the firearms. DiFi has wasted no time in copy/pasting a paragraph from her last attempt at a ban, submitting her new proposal which ignores the practical aspects of how the things work that she is trying to ban in the first place. But it's much easier to get superficial things passed when emotions are high, and when things settle down in the end, it's those of us on the receiving end that are trying to figure things out. As it is, I spent a half-hour today trying to figure out whether or not one of my rifles needs to be registered under the latest California regimen (And I still haven't come to a conclusion on the matter) because the folks passing the legislation have no clue what they're legislating about. And in the meantime, nothing is done as regards the most commonly used weapons in the US for murder or mass murder, precisely because they are (a) explicitly protected by the courts, and (b) also the most commonly legitimately held weapons. Perhaps the solution is not, in fact, to look at firearms, but to look at the people.

Australia banned the sale of automatic and semiautomatic weapons in the 90s. It hasn't had a mass shooting since.

everlast75

Perhaps another gun control issue, even if the desire was there, would be different states have different laws. So if it is illegal to buy a fully auto assault rifle in X State, I'll just head across the border to Y, pick one up, and then head back home.

Any counter-measures must be Countrywide and consistently enforced. The problem is some are pro-gun and others not.

MadYaker

In most states they don't even have regulations stating that people have to keep their weapons in a proper gun safe like they do in Ireland, and even in states where these regulations exist they are very hard or impossible to enforce. People keep guns in their bedrooms, in their cars, on their boats etc so it's not that difficult for people to steal weapons and sell them on the black market.

Leroy42

MadYaker wrote: »

In most states they don't even have regulations stating that people have to keep their weapons in a proper gun safe like they do in Ireland, and even in states where these regulations exist they are very hard or impossible to enforce. People keep guns in their bedrooms, in their cars, on their boats etc so it's not that difficult for people to steal weapons and sell them on the black market.

And this is actually used as part of the defence of doing nothing.

"Sure no point doing anything unless you can do everything" attitude.
"The problem is so big there is nothing we can do about it". Well, no solution is going to stop it instantly (although you can be sure if they brought something in and other massacre happened that would be used to 'prove' the solution didn't work). But at this stage it has been allowed to develop for so long it will take time to change. But first step is to stop selling guns.

There is approx, 350m guns in the country, more than enough for everyone. Stop the sale of all guns unless you can prove you own none or trade in the ones you do have.

Also, ammunition should be limited to the basic type. None of this armour piercing, cop killer stuff. Will bad guys still get it, yeah, happens everywhere. But bad guys also use drugs and money laundering. Doesn't mean they should be legal.


Like in the John Oliver report, some of the GOP heads saying that there is no proof that tighter gun control would have an impact. Yes there is. Australia is a perfect example.

everlast75

Leroy42 wrote: »

Like in the John Oliver report, some of the GOP heads saying that there is no proof that tighter gun control would have an impact. Yes there is. Australia is a perfect example.

And in the UK - after Dunblane

Christy42

MadYaker wrote: »

In most states they don't even have regulations stating that people have to keep their weapons in a proper gun safe like they do in Ireland, and even in states where these regulations exist they are very hard or impossible to enforce. People keep guns in their bedrooms, in their cars, on their boats etc so it's not that difficult for people to steal weapons and sell them on the black market.

Doesn't Ireland have a weird law where you need a gun safe but don't have to use it?


As you say some laws in this should be required. How many cases have we heard of toddlers finding a parents pistol and accidentally doing some damage?

Palmy

It’s too little too late. It would almost be impossible to clamp down. Too many guns in circulation. No law abiding citizen is going to hand over their guns. Not a chance.

LeinsterDub

Palmy wrote: »

It’s too little too late. It would almost be impossible to clamp down. Too many guns in circulation. No law abiding citizen is going to hand over their guns. Not a chance.

Not a single one?

3%
Proportion of people who own half of the country’s guns, according to an unpublished Harvard/Northeastern University survey result summary. Anchoring this group are America’s gun super-owners – an estimated 7.7 million Americans who own between eight and 140 guns

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/02/us-gun-control-ownership-violence-statistics
Which suggests that the vast majority of Americans don't own a gun or wouldn't be die hard NRA/2nd amendment types

Samaris

Christy42 wrote: »

How many cases have we heard of toddlers finding a parents pistol and accidentally doing some damage?

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/north-america/toddler-shoots-two-threeyearolds-at-us-home-childcare-facility-36180117.html

There was that only a few days before the massacre. Didn't seem to raise much of an eyebrow (although the concert shooting did rather shove it into the background).

Manic Moran

Quin_Dub wrote: »

There's no question that the solution is not as simple as "Ban Guns" , although having said that I fail to see any reasonable or legitimate argument for allowing the sale of things like Bump Stocks & Silencers to name a few..

Although I'm happy enough to see bump stocks banned as an idea, there are two not so insignificant details.

1) How to define them in legislation, given that they do not change the mechanics of the firearm. Bump firing is a technique, not a device. It's like the difference between making your car go faster around a track by adding a Nitrous boost, vs changing the steering wheel from stock leather to racing-sized microsuede in order to make it a bit easier to grip as you're going around corners. The one is a mechanical change, the other is an aid to doing something which you can do with a 'stock' vehicle. 2) I can probably come up with some long-winded description which will cover them (and which bears no similarity to the proposals currently being put forward by politicians), but since I can go to the DIY store and in the shelving area get materials which will do the same thing for about $30 and requires only the most basic of mechanical ability (i.e. ability to measure, cut, drill and screw), I'm not sure I see the point anyway.

Depending on where you go, silencers (AKA Suppressors, Moderators) are mandatory to outright forbidden. They are lawful in Ireland with a permit. They are totally unregulated in countries like New Zealand or Norway, and effectively banned in Australia or Netherlands (Though Australia is starting to loosen them up a bit given recent incidents: Embarassingly ACT discovered that their own employees were breaking the law by using suppressors in kangaroo culls, which rather made the shooters' point of their positive features, a permitting scheme is being created). Their use can be dastardly, a courtesy, or a safety system. There is no common consensus worldwide, but that you are aware of no reasonable or legitimate argument is evidently not the case in more than a few jurisdictions. It has become a legislative and regulatory balancing act with arguments on both sides.

Except the minor fact that NRA and Republicans actually reduced the mental health provisions and removed previous Obama legislation to limit those with such problems being allowed to buy guns...

The provision which even the pro-gun-control ACLU said needed to go away?
https://www.aclu.org/blog/disability-rights/gun-control-laws-should-be-fair
But gun control laws, like any law, should be fair, effective and not based on prejudice or stereotype. This rule met none of those criteria.

In this era of “alternative facts,” we must urge politicians to create laws based on reliable evidence and solid data.

There is an obvious solution here.

A federal weapons register which links weapons' serial numbers to a person, so every weapon can be traced to an owner.

This would also allow for reasonable limits to be placed on the number of weapons a single person may own, and a much simpler way of discovering if the weapon that Joe Bloggs is carrying, is actually legally held. If Joe is found with an unregistered weapon, that's a federal offence that carries jailtime. When Joe goes to buy a weapon, the dealer runs a check which says that Joe already had 3 weapons, he can't have another one. Sorry Joe, but you are keeping and bearing enough arms already.

There are equally obvious problems.
1) Good luck creating such a register. Ask the Canadians how successful their attempt was a couple years back.
2) OK, we know who has the guns. Fantastic to know, after the fact.
3) I only have a pair of hands, and one dominant eye. What difference does it make to my lethality if I have three rifles or twelve? And that's assuming they are all comparable firearms, not ones suitable for the whole range of things for which they can be used. In the AH thread some chap listed off why he could have use for a dozen different firearms in the Irish legislative environment, let alone the US one.

I mean, if it makes people feel better, OK, try setting up a register. California already knows I have my firearms, it hasn't stopped me from committing any crimes (Not that I have committed any, but CA's knowledge hasn't been the cause of that). Of course, I can probably think of more practical things for my tax dollars to be going towards: Just as Canada did once they realised the registry wasn't working.

So in a country that wants to build a wall to keep out all Mexicans because some of them may be rapists, that wants to ban all Muslims until they work what what the "hell is going on" you think that the best response after the latest in a long line of mass shootings is to have a report on why other countries don't have the same problem?

No, the best response is not only to understand why other countries don't have the same problem, but to actually do something about it. We have one of the highest murder rates in the developed world, but the number of folks actually owning guns has dropped as a percentage.
You may have seen a video going around in the last couple of weeks by the Spokane County Sheriff, after there was a school shooting in his jurisdiction three weeks ago. Tell me he's wrong. Video below from NBC news. https://www.facebook.com/nbcnightlynews/videos/10155875993533689/

Why is there not a call for all white men to be checked? Across all of the mass shootings, which have been carried out across many states, by different age groups, backgrounds, political and religious reasons. The common thread in all of them is the use of high grade weapons. Yet it seems US is oblivious to that simple fact.

Define high grade weapons?
Look at the "top ten" mass shootings in the US.

#1 (Vegas) Semi-auto Rifle
#2 (Orlando) Semi-auto Rifle and Pistol
#3 (Virginia Tech) Pistol
#4 (Sandy Hook) Semi-auto Rifle, Pistol present but not used.
#5 (Luby's) Pistol
#6 (San Ysidro) Pistol, Shotgun, and a single-shot Uzi which effectively is a 9mm pistol
#7 (U-Texas) Shotgun, Bolt-action rifle
#8 (Edmond Post office). Pistols (Stolen from a military armory, of all places)
#9 (San Bernadino). Semi-auto rifle.
#10 (Fort Hood). Pistol and Revolver.

That makes six of ten solely using weapons which are legal for sale in Australia today. Only in three of them did the man solely use semi-auto rifles. "High grade weapons" is the common thread?

You say it is not universally accepted. Do you know what the opinion polls show about Gun control. Depending on the poll, anywhere between 70% and 90% believe in stricter controls. Even a majority of NRA members agree

We do, but not the gun control which is being advocated. We are, for example, as a majority heavily in favour of requiring background checks for all sales. Closing, as they say, the "gun show loophole." It's easy to do. "If you are planning on selling a firearm, call this number. It is the same number that dealers use, the person on the other end will ask for the details and run the check. Its use is mandatory. We will enforce by undercover purchase attempts." That's it. Such a proposal was actually put forward after Sandy Hook by one Republican congresscritter. But, no, that wasn't what was put to the vote. Instead we got a bill put forward by the Democrats which overreached with an excessive system for doing the same thing, except with more hassle and expense. And got shot down as a result.

Oh, wait, you're familiar with the incident:

The wanted to legislate for background checks for sales in gun shows and to prohibit those on the terrorist watch list from buying guns.

Yes, so not only do we have the first problem, but then you now add the problem of allowing an unaccountable, anonymous government functionary from restricting Constitutional rights. Can you imagine the outcry if the same system of unaccountability was being used to remove folks from voters' rolls? That wouldn't go over well at all.

I would be happy to see the above proposed legislation on background checks re-submitted for a vote.

. Nobody could do a thing to stop him. Nothing. Where are all these gun owners that vow that they need guns to stop the bad guys. They completely failed. If being armed was the only way to avoid being shot then how come fully trained soldiers die in battle. How come a US marine, with years of training still gets shot? Because your weapon is only useful if the other guy isn't a step ahead of you. No point having a house full of guns if the guys can simply sneak up on you.

You can never eliminate all risk. You can take actions to mitigate it, but there is never a guarantee. Anywhere. Anybody who claims otherwise, on any side of the argument, is deluding themselves.

Australia banned the sale of automatic and semiautomatic weapons in the 90s. It hasn't had a mass shooting since.

The Australian murder rate has been on a downward trend both before and after. It is the sixth largest importer of firearms in the world. It is estimated that 2/3 of the 'banned' weapons are still in the country. University of Melbourne could not find any causative relationship between the buyback and crime rates. A 9mm Glock such as used by at least two of the shooters in the 'top ten' list above is available online (As of two days ago) at GunWorld for Aus$898. Plus, presumably, shipping. Neighbouring New Zealand has not banned semi-automatic weapons, they also have not had a mass shooting since the 90s. (Incidentally, most weapons in NZ don't need to be registered either).

Now, certainly, the application/eligibility schemes are entirely non-comparable between the US and Australia. But whatever the reasons that Australia has not had a mass shooting since 1990s, the lack of availablility of firearms isn't it. Some time ago Sparks did a long post on the issue, quoting the head of the federal police as well as a few other sources, saying that the solution was police work and social policy. I'm good with police work and social policy. Particularly the latter. We sure as heck need it in the US.

None of this armour piercing, cop killer stuff.

What 'armor piercing, cop killer stuff?' You realise that the legal definitions of what is or is not armor piercing does not involve the question of 'does it pierce armor'? Resulting in all sorts of bizarre outcomes, such as some ammunition being banned which won't penetrate any sort of armor, ammunition which penetrates body armor but not steel being not banned, ammunition which penetrates steel but not body armor also not being banned, and with no attempt made at making a standard level of penetration by calibre against any type of armor at all. The regulation was put into place so they could say "We are banning armor-piercing, cop killer bullets", and the only effect was to confuse the industry. It's a great vote-winner, fantastic for the emotional appeal to "We must do something", and achieves nothing. And that's basically what we're expecting to deal with next.

Leroy42

While a well written post Manic, it all basically revolves around the central point of it would be really difficult so probably not worth it.

You mention loads of ways that it would be impracticle to enforce, but not really. Like the steering wheel example, you obviously can't stop a person determined to get one from the black market, but you make sure there is heavy penalties for those caught using them or selling them. Will that stop them all? Of course not, no more than having a speed limit stops everybody from speeding. But it makes the majority of people to think about it as getting caught could have the consequence of losing your right to own guns for example.

In terms of limits on the type of bullets. You are right that trying to define what is and isn't acceptable is very difficult, but again a start can be made. To simply say that it must be a free for all makes no sense. You make some regulations. It won't solve all the issues but will solve some of them.

But you're right. Tell those 59 dead and 500+ injured, not to mention all the hundreds that have been killed in other recent shooting that nothing can be done. That in the internet age, where FB have literally every piece of personal info that it is not possible to gather a register of guns and owners.

In terms of high grade, I am talking about anything other than that required for personal protection. What possible reason is there for a civilian to have anything other than a side arm? That is not meant as an accusation, I really don't understand the thinking so if you can provide some then I would welcome it.

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

Although I'm happy enough to see bump stocks banned as an idea, there are two not so insignificant details.

1) How to define them in legislation, given that they do not change the mechanics of the firearm. Bump firing is a technique, not a device. It's like the difference between making your car go faster around a track by adding a Nitrous boost, vs changing the steering wheel from stock leather to racing-sized microsuede in order to make it a bit easier to grip as you're going around corners. The one is a mechanical change, the other is an aid to doing something which you can do with a 'stock' vehicle. 2) I can probably come up with some long-winded description which will cover them (and which bears no similarity to the proposals currently being put forward by politicians), but since I can go to the DIY store and in the shelving area get materials which will do the same thing for about $30 and requires only the most basic of mechanical ability (i.e. ability to measure, cut, drill and screw), I'm not sure I see the point anyway.

Depending on where you go, silencers (AKA Suppressors, Moderators) are mandatory to outright forbidden. They are lawful in Ireland with a permit. They are totally unregulated in countries like New Zealand or Norway, and effectively banned in Australia or Netherlands (Though Australia is starting to loosen them up a bit given recent incidents: Embarassingly ACT discovered that their own employees were breaking the law by using suppressors in kangaroo culls, which rather made the shooters' point of their positive features, a permitting scheme is being created). Their use can be dastardly, a courtesy, or a safety system. There is no common consensus worldwide, but that you are aware of no reasonable or legitimate argument is evidently not the case in more than a few jurisdictions. It has become a legislative and regulatory balancing act with arguments on both sides.



The provision which even the pro-gun-control ACLU said needed to go away?
https://www.aclu.org/blog/disability-rights/gun-control-laws-should-be-fair
But gun control laws, like any law, should be fair, effective and not based on prejudice or stereotype. This rule met none of those criteria.

In this era of “alternative facts,” we must urge politicians to create laws based on reliable evidence and solid data.



There are equally obvious problems.
1) Good luck creating such a register. Ask the Canadians how successful their attempt was a couple years back.
2) OK, we know who has the guns. Fantastic to know, after the fact.
3) I only have a pair of hands, and one dominant eye. What difference does it make to my lethality if I have three rifles or twelve? And that's assuming they are all comparable firearms, not ones suitable for the whole range of things for which they can be used. In the AH thread some chap listed off why he could have use for a dozen different firearms in the Irish legislative environment, let alone the US one.

I mean, if it makes people feel better, OK, try setting up a register. California already knows I have my firearms, it hasn't stopped me from committing any crimes (Not that I have committed any, but CA's knowledge hasn't been the cause of that). Of course, I can probably think of more practical things for my tax dollars to be going towards: Just as Canada did once they realised the registry wasn't working.



No, the best response is not only to understand why other countries don't have the same problem, but to actually do something about it. We have one of the highest murder rates in the developed world, but the number of folks actually owning guns has dropped as a percentage.
You may have seen a video going around in the last couple of weeks by the Spokane County Sheriff, after there was a school shooting in his jurisdiction three weeks ago. Tell me he's wrong. Video below from NBC news. https://www.facebook.com/nbcnightlynews/videos/10155875993533689/



Define high grade weapons?
Look at the "top ten" mass shootings in the US.

#1 (Vegas) Semi-auto Rifle
#2 (Orlando) Semi-auto Rifle and Pistol
#3 (Virginia Tech) Pistol
#4 (Sandy Hook) Semi-auto Rifle, Pistol present but not used.
#5 (Luby's) Pistol
#6 (San Ysidro) Pistol, Shotgun, and a single-shot Uzi which effectively is a 9mm pistol
#7 (U-Texas) Shotgun, Bolt-action rifle
#8 (Edmond Post office). Pistols (Stolen from a military armory, of all places)
#9 (San Bernadino). Semi-auto rifle.
#10 (Fort Hood). Pistol and Revolver.

That makes six of ten solely using weapons which are legal for sale in Australia today. Only in three of them did the man solely use semi-auto rifles. "High grade weapons" is the common thread?



We do, but not the gun control which is being advocated. We are, for example, as a majority heavily in favour of requiring background checks for all sales. Closing, as they say, the "gun show loophole." It's easy to do. "If you are planning on selling a firearm, call this number. It is the same number that dealers use, the person on the other end will ask for the details and run the check. Its use is mandatory. We will enforce by undercover purchase attempts." That's it. Such a proposal was actually put forward after Sandy Hook by one Republican congresscritter. But, no, that wasn't what was put to the vote. Instead we got a bill put forward by the Democrats which overreached with an excessive system for doing the same thing, except with more hassle and expense. And got shot down as a result.

Oh, wait, you're familiar with the incident:



Yes, so not only do we have the first problem, but then you now add the problem of allowing an unaccountable, anonymous government functionary from restricting Constitutional rights. Can you imagine the outcry if the same system of unaccountability was being used to remove folks from voters' rolls? That wouldn't go over well at all.

I would be happy to see the above proposed legislation on background checks re-submitted for a vote.



You can never eliminate all risk. You can take actions to mitigate it, but there is never a guarantee. Anywhere. Anybody who claims otherwise, on any side of the argument, is deluding themselves.



The Australian murder rate has been on a downward trend both before and after. It is the sixth largest importer of firearms in the world. It is estimated that 2/3 of the 'banned' weapons are still in the country. University of Melbourne could not find any causative relationship between the buyback and crime rates. A 9mm Glock such as used by at least two of the shooters in the 'top ten' list above is available online (As of two days ago) at GunWorld for Aus$898. Plus, presumably, shipping. Neighbouring New Zealand has not banned semi-automatic weapons, they also have not had a mass shooting since the 90s. (Incidentally, most weapons in NZ don't need to be registered either).

Now, certainly, the application/eligibility schemes are entirely non-comparable between the US and Australia. But whatever the reasons that Australia has not had a mass shooting since 1990s, the lack of availablility of firearms isn't it. Some time ago Sparks did a long post on the issue, quoting the head of the federal police as well as a few other sources, saying that the solution was police work and social policy. I'm good with police work and social policy. Particularly the latter. We sure as heck need it in the US.



What 'armor piercing, cop killer stuff?' You realise that the legal definitions of what is or is not armor piercing does not involve the question of 'does it pierce armor'? Resulting in all sorts of bizarre outcomes, such as some ammunition being banned which won't penetrate any sort of armor, ammunition which penetrates body armor but not steel being not banned, ammunition which penetrates steel but not body armor also not being banned, and with no attempt made at making a standard level of penetration by calibre against any type of armor at all. The regulation was put into place so they could say "We are banning armor-piercing, cop killer bullets", and the only effect was to confuse the industry. It's a great vote-winner, fantastic for the emotional appeal to "We must do something", and achieves nothing. And that's basically what we're expecting to deal with next.

Absolutely nothing in the way of solutions just a complete defence of why doing nothing is the best option.

Tbh it's saddening you can't seem to get inside the hurt of the families of last week but I suppose if you did you'd offer more real solutions than typical 'no, no, no' responses.

Anything in the way of concrete proposals? I mean how can you even fight a database of gun ownership it's laughable Manic

Manic Moran

Leroy42 wrote: »

While a well written post Manic, it all basically revolves around the central point of it would be really difficult so probably not worth it.

Not at all. It would be really difficult and absolutely worth it, to fix our problems which result in, not only mass shootings, but the rather substantial level of unlawful shootings in the US in general. But it is, however, far more difficult to achieve such a result than simply saying "Let's ban something which isn't responsible for a lot of our problems anyway.." Combination of Politician's Syllogism and the election cycle.

Quoting the ever-accurate "Yes, Prime Minister"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vidzkYnaf6Y

Let's do this thing, without thinking it through.

You mention loads of ways that it would be impracticle to enforce, but not really. Like the steering wheel example, you obviously can't stop a person determined to get one from the black market, but you make sure there is heavy penalties for those caught using them or selling them. Will that stop them all? Of course not, no more than having a speed limit stops everybody from speeding. But it makes the majority of people to think about it as getting caught could have the consequence of losing your right to own guns for example.

To change the AR rifles in the San Bernadino shooting from "legal" to "illegal" took somewhere under five minutes. I can change my SIG-556 from one to the other in about ten seconds, longer if I spend a while fumbling on my pocket for my multi-tool. I believe a bump-stock change would take somewhere not far over five minutes. I routinely enough take my rifles out and about, quite legally, only a few seconds (OK, my AUG and FAL will take a couple of minutes) away from illegality and there is no risk of my being caught. What positive achievement has been gained by the implementation of these laws, except for the creation of a new economy based on the premise of getting around them? (I've decided since yesterday that I needed to buy a $55 part to mount onto my FAL for the simple purpose of making it clear in a photograph to Cal DOJ that the rifle does exactly what I said it does because of a change I made internally to the rifle. Cal DOJ requires that I send visual proof.) It'll still take me only five minutes to take it off....

Besides, as I have said before, bump-stocks don't actually do anything to the rifle. Let's say Pollack didn't have a bump stock because they were banned. What difference on the receiving end is there between this wooden-stock semi-auto and the one Pollack used in Vegas?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMUF-eqSliA

Now, since it's not necessary to have a bump-stock to fire rapidly, then it's no skin off my nose to see them banned. Unless, however, the legislation written to do it is so inaccurate, broad, or non-specific as to cause all sorts of additional hassle. So you've passed a law, provided little if any benefit other than a photo op, and risked 'collateral damage'. Much as the armor piercing regulation has done.

In terms of limits on the type of bullets. You are right that trying to define what is and isn't acceptable is very difficult, but again a start can be made. To simply say that it must be a free for all makes no sense.

I do not say they must be a free-for-all. I said that the regulations must make sense. They must set out to achieve a defined goal, and then meet that defined goal. They must be feasible and appropriate both. Regulation which does not do this is bad regulation, and should not exist solely for the purpose of existing. If someone wanted to say "No 9mm ammunition capable of penetrating Level II armor may be sold", then fantastic. Clear, unambigious regulation. We know the calibre type, and we know the armor it is not permitted to penetrate. This, apparently, is beyond the ken of whoever it is coming up with the rules.

That in the internet age, where FB have literally every piece of personal info that it is not possible to gather a register of guns and owners.

Can you come up with a case of a registry which has been created from scratch? Canada tried, and failed. Maryland tried, and failed. California tried, and failed. Heck, even the ones California knows about, California can't enforce: It is estimated that some 10,000 Californians are known to own weapons they are prohibited from holding due to subsequent conviction, mental adjudication, etc. California doesn't have the money to do anything about them.

In terms of high grade, I am talking about anything other than that required for personal protection. What possible reason is there for a civilian to have anything other than a side arm? That is meant as an accusation, I really don't understand the thinking so if you can provide some then I would welcome it.

That gets into a much larger argument varying from 'what are you protecting yourself from' (You use a sidearm against a bear, you'll just annoy it), through 'where are you protecting yourself'.

The three general categories, pistol, rifle and shotgun all have their positives and minuses depending on the particular circumstances at play. Generally speaking, the only 'plusses' for a pistol are 'portability' and 'single-handed use'. Rifles and shotguns are substantially the better system if one is not concerned about those two criteria. The difference between rifle and shotgun tends to revolve around one's environment, layout of the house or property, construction materials, and so on.

Leroy42

So 1 rifle. And your really telling me that there are bears out there that require a military grade machine gun to stop.

But I'm no expert so am happy enough to admit that there are instances where serious firepower is required. But that must be a very small % of the population and certainly not too onerous a task to set up and maintain a database.

How can a registered owner be maintained for every car but its beyond our ability to maintain one for guns.

Limit guns to one per person. If they require more they should need to provide evidence of the reason and how it will be stored etc.

Why do you need two guns? Not why do you have them, but do you need them? If everygun owner was required to ask that question it might lead to a change in thinking.

There is no doubt that there is a certain % of the us population which believes that gun ownership should be free and unfettered. Large arsenals should be build up on the pretence of security. Yet I go back to the recent shooting. Despite lax laws, police all being armed, plenty of civilians being gun owners none of them were capable of doing anything to stop the carnage.

Tony EH

Leroy42 wrote: »

While a well written post Manic, it all basically revolves around the central point of it would be really difficult so probably not worth it.

You mention loads of ways that it would be impracticle to enforce, but not really. Like the steering wheel example, you obviously can't stop a person determined to get one from the black market, but you make sure there is heavy penalties for those caught using them or selling them. Will that stop them all? Of course not, no more than having a speed limit stops everybody from speeding. But it makes the majority of people to think about it as getting caught could have the consequence of losing your right to own guns for example.

In terms of limits on the type of bullets. You are right that trying to define what is and isn't acceptable is very difficult, but again a start can be made. To simply say that it must be a free for all makes no sense. You make some regulations. It won't solve all the issues but will solve some of them.

But you're right. Tell those 59 dead and 500+ injured, not to mention all the hundreds that have been killed in other recent shooting that nothing can be done. That in the internet age, where FB have literally every piece of personal info that it is not possible to gather a register of guns and owners.

In terms of high grade, I am talking about anything other than that required for personal protection. What possible reason is there for a civilian to have anything other than a side arm? That is not meant as an accusation, I really don't understand the thinking so if you can provide some then I would welcome it.

It all just comes down to, simply, not giving a shit.

People getting blown away?

...meh, whatever.

Sure, there's "nothing" can be done.

Manic Moran

Leroy42 wrote: »

So 1 rifle. And your really telling me that there are bears out there that require a military grade machine gun to stop.

No, just ones requiring military grade rifles.

But I'm no expert so am happy enough to admit that there are instances where serious firepower is required. But that must be a very small % of the population and certainly not too onerous a task to set up and maintain a database.

So what happens under your theory if I, as a San Francisco, California area inhabitant, wish to go camping for the weekend three hours up the coast in Humboldt County, CA which is Black Bear territory?

How can a registered owner be maintained for every car but its beyond our ability to maintain one for guns.

A lot fewer cars in existance, they are not easily overlooked in public (Can't exactly put them in a suitcase) and they have a much shorter service life. The average car is around for ten, fifteen years. Firearms are around for decades, often without anyone other than the owner and some friends seeing them.

Limit guns to one per person. If they require more they should need to provide evidence of the reason and how it will be stored etc.

Case in point as to why someone in Ireland might want a dozen firearms.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104860611&postcount=929

Why do you need two guns? Not why do you have them, but do you need them? If everygun owner was required to ask that question it might lead to a change in thinking.

Perhaps. I'm not sure it would change the overall opinion, though.

Yet I go back to the recent shooting. Despite lax laws, police all being armed, plenty of civilians being gun owners none of them were capable of doing anything to stop the carnage.

Nope. And nobody has been able to stop vehicle carnage such as in France or Germany either. All one can do is try to minimize the damage and opportunity. An old truism of police work is that "we have to be lucky or get it right all the time. The other guy just needs to be lucky or get it right once."

Leroy42

The big difference with the car carnage is that vehicles were used to inflict death and damage in a split from their primary purpose. Remove all vehicles and the entire fabric of life would change.

Guns sole purpose is to kill. They serve no other purpose. To limit guns would not a detremental effect on society.

So you accept that the central argument of the NRA, that they have used after nearly every previous massacre, that if only the teachers/parents etc had guns this wouldn't have happened is bunk. So why the neec for civilians to have guns? This proves that there is little to be gained from arming everyone.

recedite

Manic Moran wrote: »

I can change my SIG-556 from one to the other in about ten seconds, longer if I spend a while fumbling on my pocket for my multi-tool.

Would you not use a Swiss army knife for that?

Manic Moran

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you accept that the central argument of the NRA, that they have used after nearly every previous massacre, that if only the teachers/parents etc had guns this wouldn't have happened is bunk. So why the neec for civilians to have guns? This proves that there is little to be gained from arming everyone.

I do not so accept. There have been ample incidents in the past where personnel who are armed have intervened to limit death tolls. Of course, because they are 'limited', they do not often reach the stage of 'mass killing' for us to debate about. That it would not have worked in this specific instance does not deny the utility of other instances.

nything in the way of concrete proposals?

I copy my earlier statement

I would be happy to see the above proposed legislation on background checks re-submitted for a vote. (The simple one that was proposed by the Republican, for clarity). Simple, short, to the point. I would like to see better input of data into the NICS system to check against. I have also proposed setting an objective sensible standard for the definition of armor piercing ammunition. The long-term solution is to attack our societal issues, which I suspect is not easily packaged in a simple short bill which you would like to see. We have a cultural problem. Cultural problems cannot be legislated away overnight. They require a thorough, long-term plan involving multiple agencies. Something that the US government over the past decade or two seems to have failed to bring about.

I mean how can you even fight a database of gun ownership it's laughable Manic

It doesn't work, doesn't do anything, and costs money which could be better spent. What could Canada have done with the billion dollars? (Yes, Wiki says it cost $2bn, but I can't find supporting evidence for anything after 2002) https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#16c6ddeb5a1b . Perhaps spent it on firearms safety courses to help reduce the 60 or so accidental firearms deaths they have every year?

Maryland tried a more sophisticated one. At least it only cost a couple million. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-bullet-casings-20151107-story.html

I'm a taxpayer. There's enough stupid use of my taxes going on without adding to them.

OK, you like the idea of a firearms registry. I get it. Though you haven't explained how it would help on a practical level, even if one could be properly created. The US is not alone in not having a registry. The problem isn't a registry or lack thereof. Or we would be having US-type problems in places like Canada and New Zealand.

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

I do not so accept. There have been ample incidents in the past where personnel who are armed have intervened to limit death tolls. Of course, because they are 'limited', they do not often reach the stage of 'mass killing' for us to debate about. That it would not have worked in this specific instance does not deny the utility of other instances.



I copy my earlier statement

I would be happy to see the above proposed legislation on background checks re-submitted for a vote. (The simple one that was proposed by the Republican, for clarity). Simple, short, to the point. I would like to see better input of data into the NICS system to check against. I have also proposed setting an objective sensible standard for the definition of armor piercing ammunition. The long-term solution is to attack our societal issues, which I suspect is not easily packaged in a simple short bill which you would like to see. We have a cultural problem. Cultural problems cannot be legislated away overnight. They require a thorough, long-term plan involving multiple agencies. Something that the US government over the past decade or two seems to have failed to bring about.



It doesn't work, doesn't do anything, and costs money which could be better spent. What could Canada have done with the billion dollars? (Yes, Wiki says it cost $2bn, but I can't find supporting evidence for anything after 2002) https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#16c6ddeb5a1b . Perhaps spent it on firearms safety courses to help reduce the 60 or so accidental firearms deaths they have every year?

Maryland tried a more sophisticated one. At least it only cost a couple million. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-bullet-casings-20151107-story.html

I'm a taxpayer. There's enough stupid use of my taxes going on without adding to them.

OK, you like the idea of a firearms registry. I get it. Though you haven't explained how it would help on a practical level, even if one could be properly created. The US is not alone in not having a registry. The problem isn't a registry or lack thereof. Or we would be having US-type problems in places like Canada and New Zealand.

Do nothing, basically.


You are part of the problem which caused last week. There is no other explanation

Samaris

Manic Moran - is there a possibility of making guns less modifiable and/or something like tracking them through computer chips? I realise that this would cause the more ardent Second Amendment folk to spontaneously combust (which admittedly is one solution too).

Gun GPS...yeah, that really would cause conniption fits. The physical structure of a gun is probably too simplistic to render permanently unmodifiable, there will always be people who are good at getting around that (although they will be far more limited than people able to just buy a modification such as a bump-stock or suppressor off the shelf), but then at least one has a clear violation and the modified gun is confiscated. It would also require concluding what is and isn't legal and sticking to it, which the US hasn't been all that good at.

Quin_Dub

Thread to discuss Gun Control in the US.

spacecoyote

Good article in the FT around some statistics on guns in the US vs the rest of the world:

https://www.ft.com/content/ec6ad756-a915-11e7-93c5-648314d2c72c

One of the most interesting ones to me:

In the whole of 2015, Japan, who have strict gun control laws had 1 gun related death. In the same year, there were 13,500 in the US

ambro25

Manic Moran wrote: »

No, just ones requiring military grade rifles.

That requirement (genuine and which I accept, for countries with 'big' game) does not extend to a semi- or full-auto cycling capacity, nor to 15/30/box mags, though.

Personally, pragmatically, I'm struggling to see any incompatibility between the 2nd Amendment, and legislation restricting the type and calibre of firearms legally available to civilians. Say,

• anything up to 2 shots max before reload,
• freely available when chambered in less lethal calibres (e.g. 7.5mm, 22LR),
• strictly licensed (with handling 'driving test') when chambered in a few higher calibres (e.g. 8 to 12 for smooth bore, or 8x57 for rifled)
• with select few (and strict) exceptions to maintain sports shooting (thinking of international/Olympians disciplines)

And make everything else law enforcement/military -only, and illegal to own for civilians.

demfad

Manic Moran wrote: »

The Australian murder rate has been on a downward trend both before and after.It is the sixth largest importer of firearms in the world. It is estimated that 2/3 of the 'banned' weapons are still in the country. University of Melbourne could not find any causative relationship between the buyback and crime rates. A 9mm Glock such as used by at least two of the shooters in the 'top ten' list above is available online (As of two days ago) at GunWorld for Aus$898. Plus, presumably, shipping. Neighbouring New Zealand has not banned semi-automatic weapons, they also have not had a mass shooting since the 90s. (Incidentally, most weapons in NZ don't need to be registered either).

Australia's 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings (S Chapman, P Alpers, K Agho, and M Jones)

Main outcome measures

Changes in trends of total firearm death rates, mass fatal shooting incidents, rates of firearm homicide, suicide and unintentional firearm deaths, and of total homicides and suicides per 100 000 population.

Results

In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards. Declines in firearm‐related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p = 0.04), firearm suicides (p = 0.007) and firearm homicides (p = 0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased. No evidence of substitution effect for suicides or homicides was observed. The rates per 100 000 of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the revised gun laws.

Conclusions

Australia's 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern. Removing large numbers of rapid‐firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides.

If two of the top ten shooter used Glock's (as you say) then it stands to reason that more lives in the future might be saved from banning these easily availability weapons also.

listermint

Quite simply must be the biggest market for Weapons in the world outside of an actual War.

Which is why this goes on , which is why folks are duped by stats avoidance and discussion avoidance.

MadYaker

ambro25 wrote: »

That requirement (genuine and which I accept, for countries with 'big' game) does not extend to a semi- or full-auto cycling capacity, nor to 15/30/box mags, though.

Personally, pragmatically, I'm struggling to see any incompatibility between the 2nd Amendment, and legislation restricting the type and calibre of firearms legally available to civilians. Say,

• anything up to 2 shots max before reload,
• freely available when chambered in less lethal calibres (e.g. 7.5mm, 22LR),
• strictly licensed (with handling 'driving test') when chambered in a few higher calibres (e.g. 8 to 12 for smooth bore, or 8x57 for rifled)
• with select few (and strict) exceptions to maintain sports shooting (thinking of international/Olympians disciplines)

And make everything else law enforcement/military -only, and illegal to own for civilians.

I agree. Though this won't solve the issue of the fact that many of the weapons that would be made illegal by this are currently legally owned by hundreds of thousands of Americans. I think it's pretty obvious that the vast majority of these people will not hand them over willingly. A government buy back scheme may work to a certain extent. I have yet to see anyone suggest a workable solution for that aspect of the problem. But to be honest, I think the legislation based on what you've said above could be brought in, and then have certain dates every month for a year afterwards where everyone can hand in their illegal weapons no questions asked. If anyone still wants to hold to them after that that's their call but obviously they would risk prosecution.

There's going to be a knock on economic affect also. According to this There are over 260,000 people employed full time in the guns industry in the US (that doesn't include the people making tanks and bombs and planes etc for the military). That's a decent sized chunk of the economy and large scale bans on certain types of weapons is likely to make tens of thousands of people unemployed.

Any attempt by the government to seize weapons held by civilians is met with extreme hostility from many parts of society, not just conservatives. That combined with the economic effects makes it politcal suicide, even for the more moderate democrats. Realistically there will be no big changes anytime soon.

Inquitus

Ban all guns that don't have a legitimate hunting purpose. There are no need for Semi-Automatic weapons, Bump Stocks and the like. Magazine size could be capped at 5 which should be enough for any hunter. At a bare minimum only allowing handguns and hunting rifles would be a huge step in the right direction imho, not that it's ever going to happen with the power of the gun lobby!

Manic Moran

demfad wrote: »

Australia's 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings (S Chapman, P Alpers, K Agho, and M Jones)

Well, if we're quoting folks.
http://guns.ie/2015/01/09/submission-committee-justice-defence-equality-review-firearms-licensing/

The head of the Australian Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Doctor Don Weatherburn, said in 2005:

“There has been a drop in firearm-related crime, particularly in homicide, but it began long before the new laws and has continued on afterwards. I don’t think anyone really understands why. A lot of people assume that the tougher laws did it, but I would need more specific, convincing evidence.”

“There has been a more specific problem with handguns, which rose up quite rapidly and then declined. The decline appears to have more to do with the arrest of those responsible than the new laws. As soon as the heroin shortage hit, the armed robbery rate came down. I don’t think it was anything to do with the tougher firearm laws.”

The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths. Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi

This paper takes a closer look at the effects of the National Firearms Agreement on gun deaths. Using a battery of structural break tests, there is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides.
[...]
Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.

Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference. British Journal of Criminology, Jeanine Baker Samara McPhedran

Mass murders in Dunblane, United Kingdom, and Port Arthur, Australia, provoked rapid responses from the governments of both countries. Major changes to Australian laws resulted in a controversial buy-back of longarms and tighter legislation. The Australian situation enables evaluation of the effect of a national buy-back, accompanied by tightened legislation in a country with relatively secure borders. AutoRegressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) was used to predict future values of the time series for homicide, suicide and accidental death before and after the 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA). When compared with observed values, firearm suicide was the only parameter the NFA may have influenced, although societal factors could also have influenced observed changes.

Mass Shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A Descriptive Study of Incidence. Justice Policy Journal, Jeanine Baker Samara McPhedran

Although a body of research has examined the impacts of significant epochs of regulatory reform upon firearm-related suicides and homicides in countries like Australia, where strict nationwide firearms regulations were introduced in 1996, relatively little research has considered the occurrence of a specific type of homicide: mass shooting events. The current paper examines the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand (a country that is socioeconomically similar to Australia, but with a different approach to firearms regulation) over a 30 year period. It does not find support for the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms has prevented mass shootings, with New Zealand not experiencing a mass shooting since 1997 despite the availability in that country of firearms banned in Australia. These findings are discussed in the context of social and economic trends.

If two of the top ten shooter used Glock's (as you say) then it stands to reason that more lives in the future might be saved from banning these easily availability weapons also.

It does, and it does not.
Mass shootings are not the only cause of homicide in the US. The majority are common or garden criminal events, more often than not conducted by those illegally carrying firearms to begin with. They are also protected, as per Supreme Court: "Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid." So, in effect, you get to balance out the mass shooting benefits with the downside of the loss of its use in personal protection. And at that, the one is enshrined in long-standing culture and law, the other is not, so the chances of getting that one passed in the US environment is, effectively, zero. Pretty much nobody on any side is trying to prohibit handguns at this time.

Ban all guns that don't have a legitimate hunting purpose. There are no need for Semi-Automatic weapons, Bump Stocks and the like. Magazine size could be capped at 5 which should be enough for any hunter. At a bare minimum only allowing handguns and hunting rifles would be a huge step in the right direction imho, not that it's ever going to happen with the power of the gun lobby!

The use of firearms for personal protection has ruled upon at the federal level by the courts, and is protected by the Constitutions of over half the States. (Most of the rest have had State level rulings in favour). Some are very short and explicit, such as New Hampshire All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state or Delaware A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.. Both are Democrat-voting states, so we're not just talking redneck conservatives here. The full list is here: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

So, banning anything but hunting rifles is a non-starter. Which brings us back to magazine capacity, and the utility of five-round magazines (pick arbitary number) as sufficient for purposes of defense. Exactly where that number is is still being debated in the courts.

Brian?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, if we're quoting folks.
http://guns.ie/2015/01/09/submission-committee-justice-defence-equality-review-firearms-licensing/


The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths. Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi



Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference. British Journal of Criminology, Jeanine Baker Samara McPhedran



Mass Shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A Descriptive Study of Incidence. Justice Policy Journal, Jeanine Baker Samara McPhedran






It does, and it does not.
Mass shootings are not the only cause of homicide in the US. The majority are common or garden criminal events, more often than not conducted by those illegally carrying firearms to begin with. They are also protected, as per Supreme Court: "Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid." So, in effect, you get to balance out the mass shooting benefits with the downside of the loss of its use in personal protection. And at that, the one is enshrined in long-standing culture and law, the other is not, so the chances of getting that one passed in the US environment is, effectively, zero. Pretty much nobody on any side is trying to prohibit handguns at this time.



The use of firearms for personal protection has ruled upon at the federal level by the courts, and is protected by the Constitutions of over half the States. (Most of the rest have had State level rulings in favour). Some are very short and explicit, such as New Hampshire All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state or Delaware A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.. Both are Democrat-voting states, so we're not just talking redneck conservatives here. The full list is here: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

So, banning anything but hunting rifles is a non-starter. Which brings us back to magazine capacity, and the utility of five-round magazines (pick arbitary number) as sufficient for purposes of defense. Exactly where that number is is still being debated in the courts.

What do you think should be done? Nothing? Something? You’ve shot down every argument for tighter gun control, pun intended, how do you think the mass shootings can be avoided?

Leroy42

Manic, what what posts shows in that in the cases that you have highlighted, and I would guess many others, the introduction of tighter gun controls cannot solely be the contributory factor in the reduction in the cases of mass shootings in the country.

But what none of it shows, not one, is that tighter gun control leads to an increase. At the very least they played a part in the reduction of mass shootings. What legislation cannot do is bring about a change in culture overnight. That takes time and takes a change of attitude from the citizens.

You seem to be arguing that because you can show that it takes more than gun control that gun control should not even be attempted. Despite your own evidence pointing to the fact that in all cases where gun control has been introduced, that mass shootings have declined.

It is clear that the constitution, as currently interpreted, is harmful to citizens of the US. The first thing that US needs to do is accept that the 2nd amendment is no longer fit for purpose. That whatever reasoning behind it (and it is usually stated as the ability of people to defend themselves against the government) has, at the very least, been usurped.

I get it that people like playing guns. They like going to the shooting range and having the feeling of security. But that is coming at a huge cost in terms of lives and injuries and it is very hard to justify the continued mass shootings on the basis that people like to play soldier.

CJhaughey

I don't see him as shooting down anything, Manic is simply explaining clearly what the problems are in US society, and that laws either can't be enacted due to the 2nd amendment or that laws that appear to be decent and may have some chance of being useful are being rejected because of party political divides.
Its not what you want to hear but there is no simple fix to this, a point apparently lost on most.
If it was possible to have a simple fix I am sure it would have been enacted, if it suited both parties.....

Leroy42

CJhaughey wrote: »

I don't see him as shooting down anything, Manic is simply explaining clearly what the problems are in US society, and that laws either can't be enacted due to the 2nd amendment or that laws that appear to be decent and may have some chance of being useful are being rejected because of party political divides.
Its not what you want to hear but there is no simple fix to this, a point apparently lost on most.
If it was possible to have a simple fix I am sure it would have been enacted, if it suited both parties.....

It actually is quite a simple fix, it is people like Manic that make it sound complicated. Australia is a perfect example. A similar gun culture at the end but they realised that the laws they had simply did not reflect the society they existed and had to be changed. It wil be difficult, no doubt there, as they are plenty of people, namely the likes of the NRA, you will actively try to stifle any attempts to make things better on the basis that they don't want it and their wants outweigh the pain and destruction reaped by these mass shootings. But at some point, these people need to be stood up to. The majority of americans, based on multiple polls, are in favour of restrictions and those people need to put the same effort into saving lives that the NRA etc put into saving guns. The recent RnR of healthcare, and then massive backlash that many GOP members faced at the town halls etc, shows what can be done when people mobilise.

Was it easy, was it perfect. No. Has it been a success? No mass shootings since is the only evidence you need. The US have tried almost everything else to try to avoid the hard question. More guns, different guns, blame the parents, blame the school, muslims, gays, black men, white men, video games, movies, Barack Obama, Democrats, the senate.

All people are suggesting is that maybe it is worth trying to copy what has worked so well in other countries. But instead, people like Manic and the NRA focus on the negative effects of any ban. How it didn't solve 100% of the gun deaths. How it takes more than simply a gun legislation to change culture. And they are right in that but why not, at the same time, point out the positives. The main one being a significant drop off in mass shootings.

59 people dead and 500+ injured in Las Vegas. And, IMO, the death toll is actually remarkably low given the planning that he did. It doesn't take much to think that next time a group of people will take up opposite positions to increase the carnage. or computer controlled guns so that multiple positions can be held from a single point.

And if that was to happen, you would see Manic and their like call for controls over computers, limited Wi-Fi. Controls over hotel bookings. Security in hotel rooms. Anything to avoid even the possibility that their love affair with guns is allowing the culture that has mass shootings on a regular basis.

US loves its constitution, seemingly thinking it to be the greatest document ever written. But 2nd Amend is, as the name suggests, and amendment. It was changed once and can be changed again. For all the bluff and bluster about the downsides to gun control, very little evidence is ever put forward as to the benefits on the current situation.

Do people like Manic have any limit on the type of guns and the ammunition that people should be allowed? Why not fully automatic rather than semi? I fail to see the justification of allowing one but not the other except that there is an acceptance that there is no place for automatic weapons.

But if they get that far, they why have machine guns at all? Why handguns only? Yes of course there will always be the professions that require them. Police, rangers, etc, but they are easily controlled and professionally trained. Everyone else should be limited to personal safety only and I cannot see how that extends beyond a handgun. If you are a hunter and you need a machine gun to protect yourself from wild animals then I would question your suitability to be in the environment.

So, apart from, IMO, a flawed interpretation (not legally but flawed in that it was never intended for machine guns etc) of the 2nd amendment, what justification is their for the continued availability of guns in US society? And you need to weigh any justification against the numbers of people than die every year from mass shootings. Mass shootings, btw, is termed 4 or more in a single event, so this is not counting the many people that are killed either in accidents or by gang violence.

Akrasia

The popular perception is that americans love guns, but in reality, the vast majority of the guns are owned by a small percentage of the population

3% of americans own half of all the guns (average 17 guns each)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/09/22/study-guns-owners-violence/90858752/

there are 55 million gun owners in America out of a population of over 300 million people.

There is a problem with a lack of high quality studies into gun ownership in America. This is because the likes of the CDC are legally prohibited from studying gun violence


If assault rifles were banned and a buyback scheme was introduced, only a very small percentage of gun owners would be affected, and if they refuse to comply with the law, then they're hardly the law abiding responsible gun owners they claim to be, and therefore shouldn't be trusted with these guns anyway.

If stricter control of handguns including mandatory registration and mandatory gun safety courses and requirements for guns to be stored in locked safes was brought in, it would reduce the number of tragic accidents involving children (which happen every day, and are fatal every other day)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/10/14/ap-usa-today-gun-accidents-children/91906700/

Manic Moran

Brian? wrote: »

What do you think should be done? Nothing? Something? You’ve shot down every argument for tighter gun control, pun intended, how do you think the mass shootings can be avoided?

I'm shooting down arguments which are either impractical for legal or political reasons, or which will not achieve very much except feel-good measures.
I have in the past proposed arguments which have been ignored by members on this board who are focused solely on firearms descriptions. They have varied from a simple process to ensure all firearms are sold with a background check (And correct input of the NICS data) to mandatory firearms training in the same manner that we school folks on sex or driving. We have some 500 accidental/negligent deaths a year, but, no, we can't teach firearms safety because icky guns. It's like the conservatives saying that sex ed merely will encourage promiscuity so it should not be taught (That said, the accidental death rate has been dropping consistently, from some 1,400 a year in 1993, so obviously the fewer people who have firearms today seem to be more likely to know what they're on about).
Last month, the death toll in Chicago was some 55 plus 300 wounded. About the same as Paddock's spree. Every month. Firearms are highly restricted in Chicago. Effective policies to address the crime rate, both social and criminal ones, will have a dramatic effect on the nation's firearms death rate, certainly more than criminalising firearms. It will be impossible to pass a single piece of legislation and point to it as 'success', but does anyone deny that (a) the crime problem must be addressed, and (b) that when it does, the firearms death rate will decrease, just as it did in Australia? Can someone explain why names like Cho and Paddock are so famous? Why are we celebretizing these folks? Is it that hard to pass a law saying "They must die in obscurity", which, according to more than a few psychologists, may reduce the temptation for people to carry out dramatic spree shootings?
As I was sorting out my FAL problem last week, I came to one positive of the various laws being created, mind. They are encouraging business. Not just business which booms when something is about to be banned, but the entire industry of small independent operations which create products which adapt to whatever the latest law is. After 'assault weapons' were banned in California, an industry sprung up to create a new type of magazine release. Cost about $50. This year, such magazine releases were banned. Took about two months before someone came out with another type, which also costs somewhere under $50. Other than giving some folks additional disposable income, the new law (Which requires registration and submission of photographs to Cal DOJ, all of which has to be maintained and processed) is going to cost the taxpayers a heck of a lot of money, and do precisely nada. Money which could be spent on crime prevention, firearms training, mental health services.... You know, something which will have benefit to society, be it gun related or not.
So, to summarise, there are at least four tracks which can be considered.
1) Physical features of the firearms themselves. These are the ones which tend to be advocated for the most by the people who know about them the least. They are typified by the regimen we have here in California, where law after law is passed, only to see them nullified or bypassed by people who do know about the subject matter. The top end limit is that the individual right to bear arms by definition will only apply to arms which can be borne by the individual. This is generally considered to stop at crew-served weapons, so no right to Cal. .50 MGs, for example. The bottom end limit is that whatever legislation is passed must permit effective self defense. The government, per Supreme Court ruling, may not specify the type of weapon which is suitable for defense: The argument of D.C. in Heller was that since long guns were legal, they could ban handguns (Handguns, of course, being the primary cause of firearms murder in the US and thus the primary concern of D.C.). This did not fly. (An odd one last year saw the Supreme Court rule that Massachusetts could not mandate the use of firearms over tasers. Quite what MA was trying with that one, I'm not sure). I am personally fine with the current regimen of certification for full-auto capabilities, though I can also see how a legal argument in favour of "borne by individuals" could actually succeed in loosening it. And, of course, all this is before we get into the 3D printing realm, which is advancing by leaps and bounds. Anyway, those are the parameters you have to work with when it comes to the description of the firearm. 
2) Restrictions on acquisition of firearms. The fundamental limit here is the Federal and State Constitutional right to arms. This means that good cause must be presented to restrict it. We have generally concluded that we don't want folks adjudicated mentally incompetent, or those who are felons, or those who are convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence have forfeited their right. Thus, any proposal must take into account the fact that most anyone can get a gun, and most anyone can get a gun suitable for defensive purposes, which in practice means semi-automatic handgun, rifle or shotgun. We can get into a long argument as to why someone may pick one over the other, even in the home, but suffice to say that all three are commonly used for the purpose (Whether you understand it or 'see' it or not). In theory, the Constitution can be changed. In practice, any thinking that this is going to happen before we move on from firearms to disruptor beams is, I submit, optimistic. Combine this with point 1 above, and the reality is that such firearms will be commonly found in the US, in perpetuity and cannot be removed, no matter how much you may think that Australia provides a good example of removing semi-auto rifles and neighboring New Zealand can be ignored. 
3) Conditions of Ownership. Such as safes, registration, numbers, training, etc. This sort of thing is, at least, somewhat feasible. Mandating that firearms be kept in safes when the owner is not present seems generally lawful, subject to the 'reasonable cost' restriction. (Mandating that firearms always be locked up has been declared unConstitutional by the Supreme Court). Gun safes are not cheap. It is unConstitutional to mandate unreasonable costs to exercise a right, and mandating that one purchase a safe which likely costs more than the gun you are putting in it is going to cause issue. Why should the right apply in effect only to rich folks? Whether this sort of thing will pass muster has not yet been determined by SCOTUS. Registration, I have already voiced objection to on the grounds that they won't achieve anything useful, and that's in the unlikely event that all (or even most) firearms are registered, which past experience indicates that they won't. Training, I'm good with. See above. Right now, anyone can walk off the street, not know which end of the gun the bullets come out, and still purchase one. Given that, given also that in this country folks will encounter a firearm at some point in their lives no matter how dislikeable that fact may be, why the hell are we not teaching all folks the basics of firearms? Even the three golden rules. The last time a congressman/woman suggested firearms training for all?
4) Motivations for firearms usage. Why do we have shootings anyway? The majority, as mentioned, is basic criminal activity. Attacking that, by a combination of law enforcement and social policy, is absolutely not going to be easy, fast or cheap. The benefits, though, are going to be universal, and not merely in the category of firearms deaths. Firearms deaths will drop, but they will be a positive side effect. Why do we have so many spree shootings in the US, when the phenomenon was all but unheard of three decades ago? We have cultural problems. We have societal problems. We have, as I mentioned on another thread, a fundamental lack of empathy, respect, and love of thy neighbour, as it were. This category, #4, is far and away the most difficult, but success here will make all the factors of #1-3 irrelevant, as well as generally increasing the quality of life in the US.
So this is why I have been arguing against the various proposals which have been placed forward on this thread. Not that I believe that nothing can be done, but that the somethings which have been proposed here are unworkable in the US environment, and that somethings other have not been considered.

Leroy42

Yet you still haven't given a good reason why guns should not be banned.

You do know that the constitution can, and has been, changed?

You talk about the crime rate in Chicago, and I fully agree that it is terrible. But that has really nothing to do with gun ownership, as you yourself acknowledge. It is a crime problem. And not one that we are looking to deal with here. It stems, in part, from a chronic lack of social policies leading to no hope within these communities and the only way out is through crime and thus violence. Since the US is still arguing over whether health care is a human right then I don't hold much hope for a chance anytime soon.

You keep arguing based on there always being guns. But why? Surely intelligent, non selfish people can see the terrible damage that guns have had, and continue to have, on american society.

But bearing in mind the tortuous nature of any change in the constitution, what other avenues to we have to deal with such a major issue.

The first would be to limit the type and amount of ammunition. And to bring in serious penalties for people caught outside the rule. Make it an offence to knowingly sell products to customers over a certain limit. 100 bullets a year. Companies selling them would need to keep records. Of course people could get around them, people will usually find a way, but much smaller numbers than presently.

Limit guns in the same way. One gun per owner. Before you buy a gun you have to register and to do that you must complete a full run down of the guns you have. It must be signed by a member of the police. If you are caught lying then you face jail time and a restriction on future gun ownership. Anyone found to have aided you will also face penalties.

You still haven't given any reason for why you require a FAL and other guns. In terms of security, surely a handgun is more than enough if someone was to attack your home? In terms of hunting, then a single fire rifle is more than enough. For camping etc, if you really think you need a machine gun to protect you from bears I would suggest that camping is not really for you and you need to learn proper survival skills.

Manic Moran

Leroy42;104918854Yet you still haven't given a good reason why guns should not be banned.

Before one gets to the question of if they should be banned, one must debate the possibility if they can be, as either a legal or practical matter. As another poster said, Pandora's box is opened. There are hundreds of millions of firearms in circulation. They are not going anywhere, banned or not. And, frankly, personal defense is a pretty good reason for them not to be banned.

You do know that the constitution can, and has been, changed?

I do. But the practical reality is it will not be with respect to firearms. It requires 3/4 of the States to support such an amendment. 45 of 50 States have their own Constitutional right to bear arms, and the trend in State amendments in the few decades has been to strengthen them, not remove them, most recently Missouri in 2014. A dozen since the 1980s. Not one State has ever removed such a right. There is no indication of any movement at all in that direction. If a proposed solution is reliant upon the modification of the Constitution, you are going to be relying upon a very, very long-term program if at all. And for that amount of time, we may as well fix other problems.

You talk about the crime rate in Chicago, and I fully agree that it is terrible.  But that has really nothing to do with gun ownership, as you yourself acknowledge.  It is a crime problem.  And not one that we are looking to deal with here.

Why should it not be dealt with?

Crime is directly responsible for the overwhelming majority of murders and unlawful injury committed with firearms. If the objective is a reduction in the number of murders and injury committed with firearms, where is the problem with looking at this as part of a solution?

It stems, in part, from a chronic lack of social policies leading to no hope within these communities and the only way out is through crime and thus violence.  Since the US is still arguing over whether health care is a human right then I don't hold much hope for a chance anytime soon.

Agreed. But I think there is still more chance of this than a Constitutional Amendment. And, face it, fixing that problem will do a lot more for the country than changing 2A.

You keep arguing based on there always being guns.  But why?  Surely intelligent, non selfish people can see the terrible damage that guns have had, and continue to have, on american society.

Guns have also proven very useful for law abiding folks who merely wish to pursue life, liberty and happiness, as American society aspires to. But, again, we go back to 'there always being guns'. Since we have a hugely difficult and significant legal hurdle to overcome before they can be banned, and since even registering the things has proven questionable, let alone removing them from circulation, any practicable solution must be predicated on the proposal that there will always be guns.

The first would be to limit the type and amount of ammunition.  And to bring in serious penalties for people caught outside the rule.  Make it an offence to knowingly sell products to customers over a certain limit.  100 bullets a year.  Companies selling them would need to keep records.  Of course people could get around them, people will usually find a way, but much smaller numbers than presently.

100 a year? You do want folks who have firearms to actually be competent with them, don't you? I go through several hundred rounds in a single afternoon at the range. 

Limit guns in the same way.  One gun per owner.  Before you buy a gun you have to register and to do that you must complete a full run down of the guns you have.  It must be signed by a member of the police.  If you are caught lying then you face jail time and a restriction on future gun ownership.  Anyone found to have aided you will also face penalties.

1) Why one? Must I make a decision between if I want a home defense firearm, and olympic target shooting firearm, a hunting firearm or a clay pigeon firearm? And if I have more than one, how much more dangerous am I? How many weapons can I use at once?
What is the purpose of a police signature? Most firearms sales require the federal background check anyway. It should be all, and that should be an easy fix, so let's say they all do. Other than wasting police time, who I would rather see on the street than doing paperwork, what is the goal? Lying on the federal firearms form (eg straw purchases) are already illegal. Max penalty is ten years in jail, and quarter million dollars in fines. The government does not prioritise enforcement of this. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/11/justice-department-rarely-prosecutes-straw-buyers-/ 48,000 cases, of which 44 are prosecuted. You know the way the NRA says "We should try enforcing the laws we already have instead of making new ones?" On this, the NRA seems to have a point.

You still haven't given any reason for why you require a FAL and other guns.  In terms of security, surely a handgun is more than enough if someone was to attack your home?  In terms of hunting, then a single fire rifle is more than enough.  For camping etc, if you really think you need a machine gun to protect you from bears I would suggest that camping is not really for you and you need to learn proper survival skills.

Again, the merits of what is a suitable home defense weapon are long and situation dependent. If you really want, I can get into the tactical and technical aspects behind it, but the best one-liner I have seen is that a handgun is never the best choice if convenience and portability is not a concern. Sometimes these things are counter-intuitive: The reason, for example, that SWAT teams have moved from pistol-calibre weapons to 5.56mm is that the rifle rounds are less likely to overpenetrate walls: A significant concern in the urban environment. I personally have an FAL for simple memorabilia's sake (my former weapon in the Irish military) though there isn't a hell of a lot of practical difference on the receiving end between that and a  more traditional-looking Remington .308 Woodsmaster hunting rifle. I guess I could fit a bayonet to the FAL, though bayonettings don't seem to be a common problem anywhere. Otherwise, what's the difference? Both are magazine-fed, semi-auto .308 rifles quite useful for hunting. One is less likely to snag in brush, the other is more comfortable to shoot.

Samaris

Could the design of a gun be changed to allow for greater safety measures? I have no doubt but that people would freak the hell out if anything of the sort happened, but why not use ingenuity with computer chips for tracking rather than relying on serial numbers which can be ground off. It would have to be extremely difficult to remove it without destroying the gun though. Coupled with point-of-purchase registration and scanning (at roadstops, etc) for license and registration checks. Where the design becomes awkward is to allow for the chip to remotely render the gun inoperable if, for instance, it is reported stolen. Not being a gun expert or an engineer, it's generally along the lines of the chip's panic mode is operated and a metal slide is dropped into the barrel or some other difficult-to-get-into place. This can only be repaired at licensed dealers who will have to check license and registration before handing an "unlocked" gun back. Some limitations in terms of how the "panic mode" is switched on, I assume you'd need some sort of internet link ultimately. People being people, lead carry-cases would become popular!

Guns that are not registered are confiscated, guns that are registered to someone not carrying it are confiscated, license is required.

At some point, I assume that police or FBI or some other enforcement agency would figure out how to render other guns inoperable which may have a place in dealing with mass shootings or other gun attacks. On the other hand, it would cause furry conniption fits on the part of "the government is coming for us" people. Then again, since they have guns, and the government has guns, drones, bombs and other paraphernalia, I don't know why they think the government is holding off.

demfad

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, if we're quoting folks.
......

There is a loophole in Australia which allows owners 'with good reason' to own over 5 guns. Many are abusing this loophole.

Any comparison to NZ to try to negate the downward trend aren't valid as NZ is a relatively small country with smaller incidence of such mass shootings. The absence of such a shooting since the 90's would not be evidence of successful policy as it would with a larger country such as Australia with more numerous occurences. (as the scholarly study I quoted demonstrates)

It does, and it does not.
Mass shootings are not the only cause of homicide in the US. The majority are common or garden criminal events, more often than not conducted by those illegally carrying firearms to begin with.

"More than half of women murdered with guns in the U.S. in 2011 — at least 53 percent — were killed by intimate partners or family members."


"When a gun is present in a domestic violence situation, it increases the risk of homicide for women by 500 percent.14

Over the past 25 years in
the U.S., more intimate partner homicides have been committed with guns than with all other weapons combined"

"Domestic violence also drives the majority of mass shootings in America.17 Everytown for Gun Safety has determined that in 57 percent of mass shootings (61 of 107 incidents), the shooter killed a current or former spouse or intimate partner or other family member.18 In 18 percent of the mass shootings, the perpetrator had been previously charged with domestic violence. Whereas women make up only 13 percent of victims of gun homicide nationwide, they made up 51 percent of victims of mass shootings between 2009 and 2014.19"

In essence the issue of gun murder and mass shootings is closely connected to domestic violence and the issue of availability of a weapon to the assailant.

How is this managed by Federal and State authorities?

• First, federal law does nothing to keep guns out of the hands of abusive dating partners or convicted stalkers. The federal laws prohibiting domestic abusers from buying or owning guns do not apply to dangerous people convicted of misdemeanor stalking offenses or to dating partners—even though more women in the U.S. are killed by their dating partners than by their spouses.
• Second, in 35 states, state law does not prohibit all people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes and all people subject to restraining orders from buying or using guns.
• Third, federal law (and the law in most states) allows domestic abusers and stalkers to easily evade gun prohibitions by purchasing guns from unlicensed, private sellers.
• Finally, forty-one states do not require all prohibited domestic abusers to relinquish guns they already own.

Not well.

It's OK to keep referencing constitutional amendments but clearly laws can be amended to curb much of this issue.
A woman in danger is 5 times more likely to be killed if the assailant has access to a gun. The US seems to put the assailants wish to have a gun (its no right) ahead of the safety of the person the assailant is likely to murder with it.

Manic Moran

Samaris wrote: »

Could the design of a gun be changed to allow for greater safety measures? I have no doubt but that people would freak the hell out if anything of the sort happened, but why not use ingenuity with computer chips for tracking rather than relying on serial numbers which can be ground off. It would have to be extremely difficult to remove it without destroying the gun though. Coupled with point-of-purchase registration and scanning (at roadstops, etc) for license and registration checks. Where the design becomes awkward is to allow for the chip to remotely render the gun inoperable if, for instance, it is reported stolen. Not being a gun expert or an engineer, it's generally along the lines of the chip's panic mode is operated and a metal slide is dropped into the barrel or some other difficult-to-get-into place. This can only be repaired at licensed dealers who will have to check license and registration before handing an "unlocked" gun back. Some limitations in terms of how the "panic mode" is switched on, I assume you'd need some sort of internet link ultimately. People being people, lead carry-cases would become popular!

Hmm. Points for thinking outside the box. There certainly have been technological solutions proposed, be it microstamping, fingerprint identification, RFID tags etc, but thus far the technology simply has not been proven robust or practical enough. For example, the idea behind fingerprint scanning is that only the authorised user may fire the weapon, but under stress, palms get sweaty, grips change from that use on the range etc, and if you need a weapon, you need it to be rock reliable.

Your idea of disabling the weapon probably would require an electronic trigger mechanism, which in itself is not an ideal solution because you can't argue the reliability of a mechanical mechanism. It's mechanically feasible, I have no idea what the volume of the electronics/batteries etc would be, or how well it wouild withstand the shock of firing. Of course, it would just create a bigger market for the 200 million or whatever pre-electronics firearms if implemented. The theory is worth investigating, though.

Guns that are not registered are confiscated, guns that are registered to someone not carrying it are confiscated, license is required.

Subject to the earlier question about the practicalities and costs of registration. A lot of firearms will not be registered, and will not be taken out and about to official ranges for practice. As long as folks fly 'under the radar' when transporting firearms, such as not speeding, the firearms will remain 'ghosts'.

Interestingly, the trend of late has been away from requiring a license. The term is "Constitutional Carry", and currently thirteen States follow such policies. This is an instructional GIF which shows the trends, watch the green.


Although I would personally like to see a competency test before carrying a firearm (i.e, the blue States in that GIF) I can understand the legal principles behind not requiring one if one is legally permitted to have a firearm, and it is worth pointing out the trend to demonstrate the political realities behind such a suggestion.

The other minor detail is that 'concealed' means 'concealed', nobody is supposed to know who is armed in such a jurisdiction. If you transponder-equipped firearms, that means that anyone with such a transponder receiver can determine who is armed. We have enough trouble with folks stealing cars by nicking the electronic signature of the keys, so having such equipment on the streets in the hands of undesirable elements is not an unrealistic proposition.

It's OK to keep referencing constitutional amendments but clearly laws can be amended to curb much of this issue.
A woman in danger is 5 times more likely to be killed if the assailant has access to a gun. The US seems to put the assailants wish to have a gun (its no right) ahead of the safety of the person the assailant is likely to murder with it.

Well, it is a right, it clearly says so in writing. I take the point about convicted stalkers, but it is worth pointing out that there are different grades of stalking conviction. In California, for example, some types will rise to a felony level which prohibits the ownership of firearms. I'm not sure how it works in other States.

I don't, however, see what can be done about dating partners. Such relationships are extremely hard to define in legislation. I suspect the information on restraining orders may be outdated or overstated, given Title 18 922 (g) 8 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

Granted, it only prohibits those subject to restraining orders from possessing firearms or ammunition which are involved in interstate commerce (which is the purview of federal law). However, taking my own collection as a straw sample, every one of my firearms came from out of State and thus would be subject to this federal prohibition. It certainly provides an additional hoop for someone to jump through. That hoop can be closed by State legislation, I wouldn't envision too much opposition to a properly tailored law.

Leroy42

Surely something like a massive tax on bullets and guns is the way to go. It keeps the right the bare arms but makes it much more expensive.

$100 tax per bullet, including those used in firing ranges, and $10,000 tax on each weapon (this could be graded to take account of higher class weapons). That should relate to an agreed basic level bullet. Anything about that should be taxed at a higher rate.

This money can to be ring-fenced to pay for the costs of dealing with firearm offences like Las Vegas and now the one in Texas and the administration of the licence program.

Also, give an amnesty on all currently owned firearms. Tax refund for all guns handed in , along with the proper reg papers.

In addition, each year every gun holder must renew the gun licence. It would become a criminal offence to be in possession of an unregistered/unlicenced weapon. To obtain a gun licence you must be a member of a gun club. The club club would have to provide insurance that any member of their club that unlawfully kills another person, that persons family will receive a minimum compensation.

There should be a limit to the number of guns a registered owner can register at any one time. 2 seems reasonable. Any more than that can be leased from the gun club but must remain in control of the gun club, ie only given out to members for specific and recorded times along with details of the ammo used and returned.

All new gun owners must first pass a "driving test" style exam whereby they need to show that they both understand the rules and guidelines of gun ownership and safety. They must be a member of a gun club and have a proposer and seconder from a club club vouch for them.

Snickers Man

Leroy42 wrote: »

For all the people that were involved, killed, injured or just caught up in it including all the brave police etc I have the utmost sympathy. I have no sympathy for US society. They have accepted that this is, as Bill O'Reilly said, "the price of freedom". They accept that to have toys people must die.

Amen.