Gun Control in the US

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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Proportion of people who own half of the country’s guns, according to an unpublished Harvard/Northeastern University survey result summary.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

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.

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.

Manic Moran wrote: »

No, just ones requiring military grade rifles.

• 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)

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.