Gun Control in the US

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The situation in the US versus Australia is vastly different in terms of the number of firearms owned by the public. Additionally, such ownership was not constitutionally protected in Australia.

As ever, laws only affect those who are willing to follow them. What law, that would actually be capable of being passed and enforced, would have stopped this shooting, or the Las Vegas one?

So you don't have any actual backup, its just an opinion. And opinion is fine, but when we are dealing with people being killed, on a regular basis, simply putting out that changing access to guns will have no effect is, at best, disingenuous.

The fact they are protected is nothing more than a problem that can be worked around. It is not the constitution that is the real issue, but rather than attitude of the people.

As Bill O'Reilly stated after Las Vegas, this is the price of freedom. Well except in every other free country in the world of course.

No law can protect everyone 100%. Not everyone pays taxes, not everyone obeys the speed limit, people continue to take drugs etc. But that doesn't stop the government bringing in such laws in order to get as many as possible to comply.

What you hope to achieve is to limit the possibility and start to change attitudes over time. Currently guns are seen as simply an extension of the person. They put their belt and their gun on. Guns in the house, in the truck etc. Reduce the availability by way of cost or access and people will start to drift away. If none of your friends are into it, on average most people will not get into it. Will people still retain interest in guns, of course, but your start to reduce the numbers.

There is very little anyone can do to stop a person hell bent on killing others. But why not take the same approach to terrorism? No law is going to stop them? So why even try? That seems to be your view.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It's not an opinion that there are far more guns owned in the US currently, than there were in Australia when they banned them. Neither is it an opinion that gun ownership is a Constitutional right in the US.

None of which I questioned. You ascertained that

Things that won't reduce gun related injuries or death:

Legislation to restrict gun types based on cosmetic features

National registries of gun owners

Bans on "assault rifles"

And I was asking what evidence you had that they wouldn't work.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It is extremely challenging to pass Amendments to the US Constitution, as MM has laid out in previous posts.

I have already addressed this point. I totally agree that even trying to amend it would be a non starter, so there is no point. But nowhere does it say that guns cannot have levies, ownership requirements etc. In many states there already is ownership requirements so it is obviously constitutional to bring them in.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The ratio for firearm related deaths, roughly speaking, 2/3 suicides, 1/6 accidents and 1/6 homicides (of which, the majority would be related to criminal acts such as drugs and gang related activities).

Given that information, if one is serious about committing to a reduction in firearm related deaths, the logical areas to focus on would be suicides, accidents and policing.

Well, the quickest way to address it is to limit all guns. But that is not an option, certainly not in the short-term. And I agree that focus should be on mental health (suicides) accidents and policing. That all requires investment. So where is the money to come from. I don't think it reasonable to expect those that never use guns to pay for it so therefore a levy on each bullet bought, on each gun owner/purchased and a requirement for membership of a gun club with part of the fee going to state programs would help the problem.

People get to keep their guns, and the people who need help get it. Everyone wins.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Similar initiatives have been tried previously, with no discernable positive outcome.

The biggest example has been in Australia, and proven to be very successful. You can also look at just about any other country in the world which has more limits and the gun issue is far less. Gun ownership by itself is not the sole problem, Canada has similar laws but much less mass shootings for example.

Where has it been tried in the US and failed? And on what measure are you judging failure?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Anything that would infringe upon a persons ability to purchase a firearm would likely be struck down as unconstitutional.

Again, it would go back to an unreasonable restriction on a protected right.

You keep asserting that the constitution gives unfettered access to guns. It does not. It gives a right to own guns, it saws nothing about how much they should cost or what controls should be in place.

This is evidenced by the fact that many states require forms of ID, background checks, cooling off period etc. If the constitution was as you assert then guns would be freely available.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

What one of your proposals would have any effect, to where would stop a shooting of this type?

Simple answer is yes. No way a normal person could afford a assault rifle and multiple rounds. Would this guy have had all these weapons if they required such costs and such paperwork?

Imagine that he could only access these weapons from his gun club. Surely they would ask a few questions and notice that the guy seems a bit off. Maybe keep him on the firing range rather than heading out on the streets.

But as I said before, there is very little to stop a determined person hell bent on an evil act. But what it would do is vastly reduce both the availability and normalisation of guns. Imagine if every bullet costs $100 minimum. People would be less inclined to buy stockpiles. Imagine if a trip to the firing range cost you $100 per shot. Can't see too many people spending much time in there. Would you bring your kid out shooting practice if every bullet cost $100?

And the gun costs $10,000 on top of the cost. And you needed to register every year. And you could only have two guns in your control at any stage. The others having to be kept in a gun club?

One is trying to change the mindset that events like yesterday are simply a price to be paid.

None of these infringe on peoples rights. It does shift the responsibility of the outcome of guns back onto the gun owners and manufacturers. They need to provide the insurance, the safes and training, vouch for their members and be held liable if they break the rules.

The costs of increased mental health services, increased policing, education and training could all be met out of these funds. Why should the large amount of people who never own a gun have to continue to pay to clean up the mess left behind by the products of the gun manufacturers?

Leroy42 wrote: »

The biggest example has been in Australia, and proven to be very successful. You can also look at just about any other country in the world which has more limits and the gun issue is far less. Gun ownership by itself is not the sole problem, Canada has similar laws but much less mass shootings for example.

Where has it been tried in the US and failed? And on what measure are you judging failure?






You keep asserting that the constitution gives unfettered access to guns. It does not. It gives a right to own guns, it saws nothing about how much they should cost or what controls should be in place.

This is evidenced by the fact that many states require forms of ID, background checks, cooling off period etc. If the constitution was as you assert then guns would be freely available.




Simple answer is yes. No way a normal person could afford a assault rifle and multiple rounds. Would this guy have had all these weapons if they required such costs and such paperwork?

Imagine that he could only access these weapons from his gun club. Surely they would ask a few questions and notice that the guy seems a bit off. Maybe keep him on the firing range rather than heading out on the streets.

But as I said before, there is very little to stop a determined person hell bent on an evil act. But what it would do is vastly reduce both the availability and normalisation of guns. Imagine if every bullet costs $100 minimum. People would be less inclined to buy stockpiles. Imagine if a trip to the firing range cost you $100 per shot. Can't see too many people spending much time in there. Would you bring your kid out shooting practice if every bullet cost $100?

And the gun costs $10,000 on top of the cost. And you needed to register every year. And you could only have two guns in your control at any stage. The others having to be kept in a gun club?

One is trying to change the mindset that events like yesterday are simply a price to be paid.

None of these infringe on peoples rights. It does shift the responsibility of the outcome of guns back onto the gun owners and manufacturers. They need to provide the insurance, the safes and training, vouch for their members and be held liable if they break the rules.

The costs of increased mental health services, increased policing, education and training could all be met out of these funds. Why should the large amount of people who never own a gun have to continue to pay to clean up the mess left behind by the products of the gun manufacturers?

The market determines the price for goods. Are you proposing that the government dictate to private businesses what price they should set for their goods? I have to imagine you can see how that would be a non-starter. The government would (rightly) lose the resulting lawsuits.

You have a mindset that the government should impose restrictions on people who are otherwise law abiding owners, and that this would curtail gun violence. Any cursory examination of the statistics around firearms related deaths in the US shows the paucity of such arguments.

How is making the life of a rifle owner in Maine going to reduce gang killings in Chicago?

You need to read through the case law on the 2nd amendment. It’s a joke. Every US citizen over the age of 18 is considered part of a militia. SCOTUS made it so.

In what way is it a joke? You might disagree with the concept of the 2nd Amendment, but it is founded with particular ideals in mind. Allowing a citizen a capacity to protect themselves and their property is a pretty reasonable concept to my mind.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Good luck getting the Republicans to agree to the latter two, they'll just screech like frogs about socialism/big government.

I don't think it is restricted to just the Republicans. Neither party are willing to tackle the issues in a substantive fashion. It's simply political football, as ever.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The market determines the price for goods. Are you proposing that the government dictate to private businesses what price they should set for their goods? I have to imagine you can see how that would be a non-starter. The government would (rightly) lose the resulting lawsuits.

Have you heard of a concept called retail tax? How do governments get away with imposing import duties on different goods at different rates?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You have a mindset that the government should impose restrictions on people who are otherwise law abiding owners, and that this would curtail gun violence. Any cursory examination of the statistics around firearms related deaths in the US shows the paucity of such arguments.

So you think that all citizens should be treated as law abiding until otherwise? A noble thought but the government doesn't agree. Ever try to board a plan and refuse to go through the scanner/search on the basis that you are law abiding. Lets see how far you get.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

How is making the life of a rifle owner in Maine going to reduce gang killings in Chicago?

The last two have both been white men in Las Vegas and Texas. Gang killings, whilst obviously a major issue, are not normally mass shootings, certainly not the type we are discussing.

But even so, is your point really that we should do nothing as it won't solve all the problems? Surely removing gun from the wider population can only help to reduce the availability of guns to these gangs. Will they still get them, yes, much like will people still defraud their taxes or drink and drive. But the aim is to reduce. It is not realistic to envisage total removal.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Have you heard of a concept called retail tax? How do governments get away with imposing import duties on different goods at different rates?

Not at all the same thing as telling a company that they have to charge an exorbitant price that is likely to drive them out of business.

So you think that all citizens should be treated as law abiding until otherwise? A noble thought but the government doesn't agree. Ever try to board a plan and refuse to go through the scanner/search on the basis that you are law abiding. Lets see how far you get.

Pretty fundamental cornerstone of law there, so yes, I would. Your analogy falls flat, as a person has to submit to the required legal processes to purchase a firearm. Refusing to do so will result in them not acquiring the desired item. Exactly the same tacit acceptance of the law that your scenario of passing through airport security entails.

The last two have both been white men in Las Vegas and Texas. Gang killings, whilst obviously a major issue, are not normally mass shootings, certainly not the type we are discussing.

But even so, is your point really that we should do nothing as it won't solve all the problems? Surely removing gun from the wider population can only help to reduce the availability of guns to these gangs. Will they still get them, yes, much like will people still defraud their taxes or drink and drive. But the aim is to reduce. It is not realistic to envisage total removal.

Sensational shootings, such the last two, account for a fraction of a percentile of the yearly total of firearm related deaths. Legislating in a knee jerk fraction to impose further legal restrictions on already law abiding citizens, does nothing to address the causes of the majority of gun related deaths and injuries.

As I stated in my original post, I would prioritise mental health, education and policing. Such avenues are far more likely to have a fruitful impact than restricting rifles based on a bayonet lug or a pistol grip.

Brian? wrote: »

So why do you think that's what the 2nd amendment means? It doesn't say that.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

To what purpose ought a citizen bear arms, if not to defend themselves?

Brian? wrote: »

I'm not trying to be a smart arse, but it doesn't mention a citizen's right to defend themself. It explicitly mentions the "security of a free state" though.

In my opinion, and I'm not alone, the 2nd amendment was intended to ensure that the fledgling USA was full of well armed citizen militias, which would ensure the state could fight off any reinvasion by the British, fight any Indian uprising or deal with the Spanish and French threat to the south. The early federal government would struggle to put a regular army in the field, so they relied on militias to fight any possible threat.

Ironically the security of the state was severely compromised by the 2nd amendment. The confederacy consolidated the aforementioned militias into the confederate army to fight the Union army.

Unfortunately the SCOTUS doesn't agree with me.

That is your interpretation, fair enough. It's not shared by many, to include multiple generations of the SCOTUS, in varying degrees.

What you've stated is not in any appreciable manner, different from what I laid out, i.e. a citizens right to defend themselves. You and I would likely differ on what is meant by a well regulated militia. However, given the situation in which the Republic arose, where the founders had a real and abiding fear of a tyrannical government, it is not an extreme interpretation to conclude that the 2nd relates to an individuals ability to defend themselves and their property.

Manic Moran wrote: »

The last such attempt to hit the Federal courts was last year, http://www.nmid.uscourts.gov/documents/decisions/1-14-cv-00026-109.pdf where the local government wanted to slap a $1,000 tax on handguns. In a nutshell, it is unconstitutional to place an excessive burden upon the exercise of a constitutional right, be it voting, shooting, or speech. You may want to look up Murdoc v Pennsylvania, SCOTUS 1943 and Texas Monthly v Bullock, SCOTUS 1988.

To quote the judge: “The power to tax is not just the power to fund the government; it is the power to destroy. M’Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 327 (1819). And what the Commonwealth cannot do by ban or regulation, it cannot do by taxation. See Minneapolis Star and Tribune, 460 U.S. at 585. Here, the Commonwealth’s law would come close to destroying the right to keep and bear a handgun for self-defense—particularly for the most vulnerable members of society. See Moore, 702 F.3d at 937 (the need for self-defense is most acute in rough neighborhoods). The government need not arm the poor, but it cannot impose uncommon burdens on their ability to exercise their fundamental constitutional rights. "

That about settles that argument.

Great, at least that is based on fact and case law.

But tax was only one of the potential remedies. What about a register of all guns owned with stiff penalties for being in possession without a licence? Obviously such a scheme would be costly to administer, but that could be recouped by way an annual registration fee, almost like road tax or the like.

Personal insurance must be taken out with each gun owned based on the level of risk of having a high powered weapon on oneself. Again, it is accepted that car insurance is important so why not gun injury insurance. This could be negated by membership of a recognised and regulated gun club.

As AbusesToilets has pointed out there needs to be investment in Mental health, gun education. This could easily be provided if it was paid for by the gun owners. Why should the rest of society have to pay for the problems created by the past-time that you enjoy?

When a mass shooting like Las Vegas or Texas happens, the costs of the police services etc and the civil payouts should be borne by the manufacturers. You wouldn't have to tax anything then, the price would have to go up to cover the costs to the manufacturers.

There could also be a ownership test, again like the car licence. You have to undertake a certain number of hours at a shooting range, undertake a certain number of hours of safety training before you can legally own a gun. Anybody found to be letting others use their gun without them having a licence should be charged.

There are loads of ways that the current death toll can be lowered. But people first need to admit that there is a problem. Which most gun owners simply won't admit. They are too selfish on their own enjoyment to worry about the death and destruction that is being wrought to their fellow citizens.

Is it fair than a minority of people will ruin your fun? No. But society is built on the betterment of the whole taking precedence of the few.

A simply question for anyone who defends gun ownership. Do you think society is well served by the current gun ownership situation?

If you answer no, then the next thing is to try to find a solution.

If you answer yes, then the next question is how far does it go? Are nukes allowed?

The bottom line is that there is a price to be paid for having such liberal gun laws and easy access to fire arms for anyone who wants them. That price is the monthly mass shootings and the 35,000 gun deaths a year and it is a price that Americans are clearly prepared to pay.

If there was a real genuine public drive for proper gun control it would happen, if a majority of people (who surveys claim want more gun control) marched in the streets and contacted their senators and congressmen en masse and made this an issue change would happen. But the reality is there aren't enough Americans who care enough. They might say they care but the reality is the average American does absolutely nothing. They point to gun lobbies and republicans and say it's all their fault and no matter how many mass shootings happen it's only a minute % of Americans who are directly affected and the rest just don't give a sh!t, if they did they'd do something about it.

MadYaker wrote: »

The bottom line is that there is a price to be paid for having such liberal gun laws and easy access to fire arms for anyone who wants them. That price is the monthly mass shootings and the 35,000 gun deaths a year and it is a price that Americans are clearly prepared to pay.

If there was a real genuine public drive for proper gun control it would happen, if a majority of people (who surveys claim want more gun control) marched in the streets and contacted their senators and congressmen en masse and made this an issue change would happen. But the reality is there aren't enough Americans who care enough. They might say they care but the reality is the average American does absolutely nothing. They point to gun lobbies and republicans and say it's all their fault and no matter how many mass shootings happen it's only a minute % of Americans who are directly affected and the rest just don't give a sh!t, if they did they'd do something about it.

100% this. We can put up as many possible 'solutions' that we can think of but unless people are actually prepared to make on stand on this then nothing will happen.

The NRA and the politicians are happy with the status quo. There is a lot of money in the gun trade, both in terms of jobs and votes so there is little incentive to make changes. America is so big that despite the frequency of these events they make no real dent in most peoples lives.

The NRA is actually quite a small group, in relative terms compared to those what say they want more gun control. The difference being that the NRA is active whilst the gun control gets caught up (as I did yesterday) in debating the specifics of proposals rather than simply focusing on the overall need for changes.

Many polls show that the majority of Americans want things to change, but are not really interested in going any further. The NRA is very well versed on what can't be done, but seemingly have little idea of what can.

Palmy wrote: »

It’s too little too late. There are so many guns in circulation it’s almost impossible to regulate. Felons are still willing to carry guns even though they know the consequences of getting caught with one. Simple they don’t care.
It’s the same thing as the US supplying arms to the Taliban against the Russians then getting those same weapons turned on them a decade or so later. How do you think they learnt to make IED’s. The country is so big and diverse with each state having different state laws it’s goong to be impossible.

Not doubt it is a very difficult situation, and I certainly don't see any real movement within the US to tackle it, but it is far from impossible. It suits the NRA and those that wants to continue with their little hobby to portray it as impossible as that lets people off the hook for doing nothing. Look at the automobile situation going back to 1960's etc. Continued increases in safety of vehicles, better testing, stricter enforcement, reduction of speed limits etc have lead to a massive drop in the number of deaths. I bet the auto makers were making the same arguments that the gun manufacturers are making today.

Will it solve it overnight, of course not, but the auto example proves that incremental improvements can lead to a significant change in the outcomes.

For a start all guns should be fitted with personal identification protection (fingerprint scanners etc) so that only the registered user can use it. That would immediately stop the kids killing themselves with Daddys gun. It is already in place on the iphone, no reason why it cannot be done on a gun.

In terms of the weapons already in the market, have a buy back scheme. Yes it would cost but what is the annual cost of dealing with gun death at the moment? I read it was $2.8bn. Place a levy on all bullets and guns sold. $100 was knocked down as unfair, but $1 a bullet, $100 per gun? I'm sure something could be got through which would allow a buy back of guns to be financed.

Any gun, used outside your personal property, must be licenced & registered. Insurance must be taken out by the owner to cover potential liabilities should the gun ever be used unlawfully. This could be reduced if the owner can provide evidence of proper access protocols/security etc.

Not sure why you brought felons into it, that it is a separate issue and one that every country has to deal with but seems they can do that without mass shootings. And before bringing felons into it, you need to consider that US has one of the highest prison populations per capita in the world, so citizens having guns doesn't seem to stop crime.

US citizens need to stop worrying that their government is going to attack them. Even if they ever did, the government will be using drones and airstrikes, tanks and missiles, not sending cops in with BB guns. You only have to look at the SWAT teams to see just how heavily armed the government is at a moments notice to realise that domestic guns are useless against them.

They have a totally different attitude to firearms that I've never seen in any other country. They see owning, collecting and shooting guns as a hobby like collecting postage stamps, something a father and son can bond over. And there's a large percentage of the population who just really like shooting things, it's bizarre.