nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Firearms background checks

rossie1977

Republicans are never going to vote on even allowing background checks it seems. 188 no's for this bill https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8/text obviously going to fail in Senate

The nra control the Republican party considering 85% of Republican voters want background checks https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article206965864.html

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Irish Praetorian

Manic Moran wrote: »

The problem with the 2A historical argument is that there is something of a bit of overlap between the whole "rebelling against the government" thing and the whole "military protection thing". And, unfortunately, almost nobody really has it right.

2A was not, contrary to a lot of opinion in the pro-gun side, put in as a sort of 'failsafe' against the government (though I would observe that folks with nothing more lethal than an AK-47 and a Kawasaki have been giving the US military quite a bit of trouble for the last two decades or so, so I'm sure a few million folks with rifles would be quite a problem for the US government), it was put in as a protection for the ability of local governments to basically create posses to put down uprisings and the like.

I might be inclined to go along with all of this, although I'm not certain I would venture to categorize the various insurgencies the US (and friends) have been fighting over recent years as few guys with rifles and motorbikes. Surely such insurgency requires some level of infrastructure to support it - supply lines to secure munitions, popular support to secure new recruits and safe houses, potentially foreign support to obtain intelligence and protection. I mean if guerilla warfare was simply a case of a few disgruntled guys with a gun, surely Idaho would resemble early 2010s Somalia?

A lot of folks forget this detail of US law, but when the 2A was created, the concept of "incorporation" had not yet been invented, and it would not be for some 100 years. This was a time that "The United States" was very definitely a "them", not an "it". It said so in law. Federal law quite literally only affected what the Feds did, and just because you had the right to free speech in the federal Constitution did not mean that it had any effect at all on what the State or City ordinances said. Instead, your "first amendment rights" were guaranteed by your State Constitution, whatever paragraph that happened to be. For example, the Pennsylvania Constitution (where Congress was before they invented Washington DC) protects the freedom of speech in Article 1 section 7. (The printing press shall be free to every person who may undertake to examine the proceedings of the Legislature or any branch of government, and no law shall ever by made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. No conviction shall be had in any prosecution for the publication of papers relating to the official conduct of officers or men in public capacity, or to any other matter proper for public investigation or information, where the fact that such publication was not maliciously or negligently made shall be established to the satisfaction of the jury; and in all indictments for libels the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.. The right to bear arms would be found in Art. 1 Sec 21 of the State Constitution. The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. . The idea of 2A applying to any individual against all takers only really came up after the Civil War with the incorporation doctrine. (And it was a known concern: If 2A, which was not limited to who 'the people' are like some southern states did, were to apply to all the States, then black men could be armed. This was observed in the Supreme Court at the time.). Note that to this date, some 44 States have a right to bear arms in their Constitutions, some of which are extremely explicit. So, in, say, Pennsylvania in 1840, you wouldn't be talking about your 2nd Amendment Right, you'd be talking about your Section 21 Right, which is just as strong.

At the time that the Bill of Rights was being written, a couple of rather nasty rebellions had just been put down by the States. Two notable ones are the North Carolina Regulators of 1771 or so, and particularly relevant to the framing of the Bill of Rights, Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts 1786-7. The States wanted to ensure that they were capable of calling up a militia to deal with rebellions. To that end, they wanted 2A to prohibit the Federal Government from banning State militias. Insofar as it goes, the "Collective interpretation" people have a point.

Consider me sold so far, although I would shudder to imagine how far a gun control advocate would get if they made the case that the right to bear arms referred to a collective right of the people to be armed when such circumstances demand it. Now this seems to be indicative of the increased polarization that I observe between the two sides of the debate; gun control advocates increasingly seem to be turning to the view that the army/police/national guard represent 'the people armed' and that no other armament ought to be necessary, whilst the gun rights advocates seem to be increasingly expounding that view that the right of the individual to single-handled arm themselves for personal defence (et al.) is what is articulated. Now none of this is particularly at odds with anything that you say its just been my observation of recent developments, perhaps it has been yours also.

However, what 2A was not intended to address, because nobody seemed to think it was needed for two reasons, was anything to do with individual firearms. Firstly, since it was basically a given that everybody had access to guns, and there was little thought given to the concept of not having them, and secondly, because the Federal Constitution had no particular authority over law enforcement within the States anyway. After all, the state militias which the States wanted to protect were quite simply bodies of men called to the colors, bringing along the weapons which they already owned for their various lawful purposes: Generally hunting, varminting, protection, and mass uprisings of the people against the government, such as that of King George III. (The devil is kindof in the details between a rebellion such as that which created the US, and that which was put down by the States, I guess). Thus, to that end, the 'defense against tyranny' argument does have merit, though not at the 2A level. Indeed, it was such a given that some States don't seem to have considered that there was even a need to put in a provision protecting personal firearms ownership. For example, Delaware's constitution was entirely silent on the matter until 1987 (Art 1 s 20). After all, who on Earth might restrict an individual's right to arms? And Delaware didn't muck about when the voters made their position clear with the text.

Thus, 2A is a bit weird: It is being applied, post facto, to a situation which was never anticipated when it was written: The concept of it being a late 18th century provision applied as a result of the mid-19th century concept of the Federal constitution applying directly through the States to affect the individuals in an environment where the Commerce Clause interpretation of the early/mid 20th century allowed the Federal Government to basically legislate directly in what was previously a State matter. When the Bill of Rights was created, it was not so much a case of granting rights, but is a list of limitatons on what the Federal Government can do. Hence you have the difference of opinion in the interpretation. As a result, there is logic behind the majority's reasoning in Heller of the right to bear arms being a pre-existing right unconnected with militia service: The predecessor Constitutional provisions which had been the final word on the matter before incorporation such as the aforementioned Pennsylvania's Art1 S21 or Vermont's Chapter 1 article 15 certainly said so. But the dissent's reasoning also has some logic, that 2A was never intended to protect individual firearms ownership as far as the 2A goes.

I appreciate the overview of the jungle of legalese surrounding the 2A from its original inception as a limitation on Federal power to the modern interpretation as a guarantee of individual rights. I'm sometimes surprised at the (in my view) outmoded loyalty that many institutions in the US seem to obtain, from things likes like state borders or even the existence of states themselves, to things like the electoral college or senate, when a society/country starting from scratch might look to such institutions as an example what not to do. Now granted this may sound the like of casual anti-US snobbery that pervades much of Europe, and to be frank I suspect in part it is, but I find it inexplicable that a society should be unable to reach a reasonably settled consensus on such a significant issue and I would submit the inability to reach a consensus is what is causing such lingering polarization and bitterness in politics. Now its not the only issue like this, abortion and (to a far lesser degree) migration seem to be other contenders, but I suppose this issue might be unique due to its position within the Constitution.

You refer to the Miller case of 1934. There are a couple of problems with it, the first being that Mr Miller was dead, and he didn't have a lawyer arguing his case. The second, that such an argument might observe that shotguns were commonly issued to US troops in WW1. And the third, which is its own interesting one... If 2A only protects military grade weapons, a lot of folks will be very happy to get full-on assault rifles back in circulation. So, yes, the court refused to consider the case because there was no evidence that shotguns were militarily useful. (see point 1 nobody actually making the case). However, the court refused to consider the case so said nothing on the merits of what 2A was supposed to mean, which is why Heller is considered to be the first time in 200 years+ that the court had actually specifically addressed the meaning of 2A.

Yes it always struck me as a curious oddity that shotguns would not be considered of military grade value, given the amount of protest and anger that had emanated from Germany during the latter parts of the First World War regarding their use. Now perhaps this is strictly a product of the distinction in firearms; the Germans were complaining about a 5 shot pump action trench gun, whilst the Miller case pertained to a simple double barrel design. In either case it does bring us back to the Heller decision which seems to have place the business of any major adjustment in US gun policy back to legislation and constitutional reform rather than the courts. This, to be frank, leaves me with mixed feelings, given the fairly outdated nature of so many US institutions and the inherent difficulty in reforming those structures. I suspect this is at least part of the impetus behind the support for a new Constitutional Convention, which seems like the only way forward at this point - though I doubt it would end up as a simple victory for either side.

Manic Moran

The problem with the 2A historical argument is that there is something of a bit of overlap between the whole "rebelling against the government" thing and the whole "military protection thing". And, unfortunately, almost nobody really has it right.

2A was not, contrary to a lot of opinion in the pro-gun side, put in as a sort of 'failsafe' against the government (though I would observe that folks with nothing more lethal than an AK-47 and a Kawasaki have been giving the US military quite a bit of trouble for the last two decades or so, so I'm sure a few million folks with rifles would be quite a problem for the US government), it was put in as a protection for the ability of local governments to basically create posses to put down uprisings and the like.

A lot of folks forget this detail of US law, but when the 2A was created, the concept of "incorporation" had not yet been invented, and it would not be for some 100 years. This was a time that "The United States" was very definitely a "them", not an "it". It said so in law. Federal law quite literally only affected what the Feds did, and just because you had the right to free speech in the federal Constitution did not mean that it had any effect at all on what the State or City ordinances said. Instead, your "first amendment rights" were guaranteed by your State Constitution, whatever paragraph that happened to be. For example, the Pennsylvania Constitution (where Congress was before they invented Washington DC) protects the freedom of speech in Article 1 section 7. (The printing press shall be free to every person who may undertake to examine the proceedings of the Legislature or any branch of government, and no law shall ever by made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. No conviction shall be had in any prosecution for the publication of papers relating to the official conduct of officers or men in public capacity, or to any other matter proper for public investigation or information, where the fact that such publication was not maliciously or negligently made shall be established to the satisfaction of the jury; and in all indictments for libels the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.. The right to bear arms would be found in Art. 1 Sec 21 of the State Constitution. The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. . The idea of 2A applying to any individual against all takers only really came up after the Civil War with the incorporation doctrine. (And it was a known concern: If 2A, which was not limited to who 'the people' are like some southern states did, were to apply to all the States, then black men could be armed. This was observed in the Supreme Court at the time.). Note that to this date, some 44 States have a right to bear arms in their Constitutions, some of which are extremely explicit. So, in, say, Pennsylvania in 1840, you wouldn't be talking about your 2nd Amendment Right, you'd be talking about your Section 21 Right, which is just as strong.

At the time that the Bill of Rights was being written, a couple of rather nasty rebellions had just been put down by the States. Two notable ones are the North Carolina Regulators of 1771 or so, and particularly relevant to the framing of the Bill of Rights, Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts 1786-7. The States wanted to ensure that they were capable of calling up a militia to deal with rebellions. To that end, they wanted 2A to prohibit the Federal Government from banning State militias. Insofar as it goes, the "Collective interpretation" people have a point.

However, what 2A was not intended to address, because nobody seemed to think it was needed for two reasons, was anything to do with individual firearms. Firstly, since it was basically a given that everybody had access to guns, and there was little thought given to the concept of not having them, and secondly, because the Federal Constitution had no particular authority over law enforcement within the States anyway. After all, the state militias which the States wanted to protect were quite simply bodies of men called to the colors, bringing along the weapons which they already owned for their various lawful purposes: Generally hunting, varminting, protection, and mass uprisings of the people against the government, such as that of King George III. (The devil is kindof in the details between a rebellion such as that which created the US, and that which was put down by the States, I guess). Thus, to that end, the 'defense against tyranny' argument does have merit, though not at the 2A level. Indeed, it was such a given that some States don't seem to have considered that there was even a need to put in a provision protecting personal firearms ownership. For example, Delaware's constitution was entirely silent on the matter until 1987 (Art 1 s 20). After all, who on Earth might restrict an individual's right to arms? And Delaware didn't muck about when the voters made their position clear with the text.

Thus, 2A is a bit weird: It is being applied, post facto, to a situation which was never anticipated when it was written: The concept of it being a late 18th century provision applied as a result of the mid-19th century concept of the Federal constitution applying directly through the States to affect the individuals in an environment where the Commerce Clause interpretation of the early/mid 20th century allowed the Federal Government to basically legislate directly in what was previously a State matter. When the Bill of Rights was created, it was not so much a case of granting rights, but is a list of limitatons on what the Federal Government can do. Hence you have the difference of opinion in the interpretation. As a result, there is logic behind the majority's reasoning in Heller of the right to bear arms being a pre-existing right unconnected with militia service: The predecessor Constitutional provisions which had been the final word on the matter before incorporation such as the aforementioned Pennsylvania's Art1 S21 or Vermont's Chapter 1 article 15 certainly said so. But the dissent's reasoning also has some logic, that 2A was never intended to protect individual firearms ownership as far as the 2A goes.

I seem to recall a case in the US around WW2 where several individuals were found to be in violation of the law for bringing a number of shotguns across state lines, and this act was not protected by the 2nd Amendment as the weapons weren't of military grade.

You refer to the Miller case of 1934. There are a couple of problems with it, the first being that Mr Miller was dead, and he didn't have a lawyer arguing his case. The second, that such an argument might observe that shotguns were commonly issued to US troops in WW1. And the third, which is its own interesting one... If 2A only protects military grade weapons, a lot of folks will be very happy to get full-on assault rifles back in circulation. So, yes, the court refused to consider the case because there was no evidence that shotguns were militarily useful. (see point 1 nobody actually making the case). However, the court refused to consider the case so said nothing on the merits of what 2A was supposed to mean, which is why Heller is considered to be the first time in 200 years+ that the court had actually specifically addressed the meaning of 2A.

Irish Praetorian

Has the question of gun control in the US not foundered simply on the ambiguity surrounding the existence of and purpose of the 2nd Amendment in the United States? Try as I might in other fora, I struggle to get a single answer from proponents of the 2nd Amendment as to what the purpose of the right to bear arms is. Some will give me the answer most easily placed within the text of the Amendment, which is to say that it is for the purpose of maintaining an armed populace in the event that the government devolves into a tyranny (be it foreign or domestic in nature). Now that appears to have been the understanding of the Supreme Court up until the Heller case which now guarantees any 'traditionally lawful purpose', but I can recall that previously the interpretation was purely for military purposes (theoretical or otherwise). I seem to recall a case in the US around WW2 where several individuals were found to be in violation of the law for bringing a number of shotguns across state lines, and this act was not protected by the 2nd Amendment as the weapons weren't of military grade.

Now as I see it, the problem with this argument, specifically that guns might be needed for defence against tyranny, is that it is essentially it predicates itself entirely upon what appears to be an entirely theoretical scenario, wherein a government (foreign or domestic) is intent upon tyrannizing a people, but the people are somehow unable to obtain force of arms to resist. Now to my mind, access to the kind of small arms that come under the remit of the 2nd Amendment, has not exactly been a limiting factor in any resistance to tyranny that I can think of in recent years (I was going to say Bosnia but looking into the matter it appears heavy equipment was their limiting factor). Now I'm aware that will strike people as a broad statement, but I would only submit that when a sizeable group of people are sufficiently aggrieved with a source of authority, access to small arms is not a major obstacle, and the most pressing example I can think of this in recent years is Libya, which appears to have gone from a nation with little tradition of civilian gun ownership, to being a profligate example. Its been a frequent talking point amongst gun-rights activists that 'bad guys' will always get access to guns; I'm not naive enough to believe that enough legal action or 'control' or 'attitude changes' will ever change that, but that also means that the argument of an armed citizenry preventing tyranny is a rather specious one.

Now naturally, with the advent of the aforementioned Heller case, the answers to 'Why?' for the 2nd Amendment have been expanded to include anything from private recreational use, to hunting and to self defence. Yet I struggle to think of any piece of equipment so destructive that we would permit its free distribution without so much as registration and in cases of necessity; cars and trucks are often brought up as an example yet, our entire existence would simply grind to a halt if we tried to do away with motor vehicles, and even still, access to vehicles is only permitted under set legal conditions. The only argument that really seems to pass muster for me is the one of self defence, which especially in the rural parts of the US where 'johnny law' can be hours away by phone, seems not just advisable but almost practically necessary. Yet even so, I fail to see why a concession to such a need would demand the fairly lax culture that surrounds guns in the US - I'll gladly be corrected by those more knowledgeable on the matter, but does home or self defence really require something more than a .38 or a shotgun, or at most a hunting rifle?

In any case, it's a fairly expansive issue but I think it might be helpful for both sides if they stopped to think for a moment about what they want, what they need, and what the practical implications of policy changes might be. I do not care to be mistaken for a complete 'guns r bad' loon, yet I think a more critical assessment of their role in the US is demanded.

Manic Moran

As for me not being an expert, we are discussion overall policy here, as in any policy the overall aim is decided and then experts come in to discuss the possibilities and limitations.

Are only experts allowed to discuss things then should we follow the same for issues like drugs? Should only drug addicts and drub dealers be allowed to come up with policy?

Any policy must be grounded in what the effect is in the real world. One can 'policy' anything with the expectation that the experts will figure it out, but there are at least three problems. One is that sometimes the policy is just driven by ignorance (The most egregious example I can think of offhand being the aforementioned Colgan Air response legislation which mandates that airline pilots must now fly in circles for 1,500 hours before being allowed fly commercial), is indefineable in practice (eg assault weapons ban), or plain impossible in the real world: California hasn't permitted a new type of pistol to be sold in the State in several years because they have mandated a technology which no manufacturer possesses. (And even if they did possess it, it still wouldn't do what the politicians think it would do, because they seem to get their ideas from watching CSI, not from actually talking to firearms experts).
The perfect case in point is the assault weapons ban. It is a policy decision, but their first problem came up when the experts told them there was no such thing as an assault weapon. So the politicians fudged. The first attempt at implementing policy thus was quite simply politicians going through a picture book of guns, and going, "We'll ban that one.. and that one... and that one..." (Roberti-Roos act, 1989). The second attempt in California, 2000, which attempted to describe certain features was also easily circumvented. The third attempt, effective last year, has also failed to achieve what the politicians want by policy, but cannot be done in practice. Now, if they decided to go on a characteristic which actually exists, such as australia's ban on magazine-fed, semi-automatic, center-fire long rifles, it could technically be done in practice (though there are alternative legal and political hurdles, before one gets to the compliance issue). But that's not what the politicians are trying for, presumably as a result of a policy decision (likely reflective of those hurdles).

So, take your desire for a specific type of ammunition. By ballistics, the absolute worst type of ammunition at any range and in any environment is pistol calibre ammunition. But the quintessential defense weapon in the US is pistol calibre because what suits anyone in practice is more than merely ballistics. That's before you get to the question of doing other things like sports shooting or hunting. What policy guidance would you give the ATF to draw up regulations which would achieve your goal of allowing personal defense ammunition without unwanted secondary consequences such as depriving the US citizenry of the overwhelmingly preferred form of personal protection firearm (Which isn't legal anyway, as Supreme Court has opined).

Are only experts allowed to discuss things then should we follow the same for issues like drugs? Should only drug addicts and drub dealers be allowed to come up with policy?

I suspect that, unlike with firearms, politicians who decide which drugs should be prohibited for recreational use do actually enlist the aid of folks who know very well what they are talking about. They do not, however, attempt to legislate on what sorts of medicinal drugs should be available in the US and which should not, leaving that fully in the hands of the FDA.

I can also see no justification to owning more than one weapon, but I am sure there are cases that require it and they should be looked at and decided upon based on individual case need.

Why not own more than one weapon? How many can you shoot at once? You know what one weapon I would own if I could only have one? An AR-15. It is easily configurable for all roles from personal defense (though concealed carry is tricky, even with the pistol configuration) through hunting, and because of evil features like a collapsible stock, I can shoot it, the wife can shoot it, the daughter can shoot it, despite the great differences in our heights, arm length and so on. What's the one type of weapon anti-gun folks want banned most?

Some 27 million firearms are legally purchased a year in the US, who is going to do the 'standard of need' review for all these on an 'individual case need', and how would it be paid for?

A limit on the number of rounds would be a start

What would be an appropriate limit? As a policy decision, of course. I'll easily blow through a few hundred in an afternoon, for example.

Trump calling of a national emergency for the border opens up the possibility that the next DNC POTUS will use the same justification to call a halt to gun sales in the wake of the next massacre that happens.

The national emergency legislation doesn't work in that way.

AbusesToilets

Leroy42 wrote: »

Punish people? Not being able to own a fire an assault rifle is judged a punishment?

Therein lies the problem, and it stems directly from the 2nd Amendment and how it is interpreted.

Do you feel punished for not being able to own nuclear weapons? What about drugs? Do you think people are being punished by not being allowed to take whatever they want?

You continually point to issues with my ideas, which is great and welcome as that is what we are here for, but on the fundamental issue of limiting gun ownership to handheld, defence targeted rather than killing targeted you have not made any argument against it only that you like hunting.

When people make the argument that limited gun control in certain states hasn't worked it fails to mention that open borders between states means local laws are of limited benefit and the fact the pretty much every other country in the world proves that gun control, along with education, mental health services etc, absolutely do work.

The thinking seems to be that Americans simply cannot ever stop shooting each other.

First off, can you define what an assault weapon is? Probably be useful if you're wanting to ban them. I don't believe people should be criminals for taking drugs and I don't believe they need nuclear weapons. I would feel discriminated against if an attempt was made to prevent me from owning a rifle, yes.

Can specify the differences in your mind between defense targeted and killing targeted? As I've always been taught, if I'm firing my gun at someone, it's because I want to kill them.

Your emotive language, as ever, looks to create an impression that most of the people being killed in the US by guns are murders, when it has been repeatedly shown to you to not be the case.

You want to limit/ eliminate guns because you fear and dislike them. You present ideas framed by that desire. I want to reduce the amount of people dying.

Leroy42

Punish people? Not being able to own a fire an assault rifle is judged a punishment?

Therein lies the problem, and it stems directly from the 2nd Amendment and how it is interpreted.

Do you feel punished for not being able to own nuclear weapons? What about drugs? Do you think people are being punished by not being allowed to take whatever they want?

You continually point to issues with my ideas, which is great and welcome as that is what we are here for, but on the fundamental issue of limiting gun ownership to handheld, defence targeted rather than killing targeted you have not made any argument against it only that you like hunting.

When people make the argument that limited gun control in certain states hasn't worked it fails to mention that open borders between states means local laws are of limited benefit and the fact the pretty much every other country in the world proves that gun control, along with education, mental health services etc, absolutely do work.

The thinking seems to be that Americans simply cannot ever stop shooting each other.

AbusesToilets

Leroy42 wrote: »

Hollow point,not hollow point, it is irrelevant. But it is typical of any discussion about gun control, the gun advocates like to talk details and we end up discussion type of guns rather than the overall policy.

As for me not being an expert, we are discussion overall policy here, as in any policy the overall aim is decided and then experts come in to discuss the possibilities and limitations.

Are only experts allowed to discuss things then should we follow the same for issues like drugs? Should only drug addicts and drub dealers be allowed to come up with policy?

And what about abortion? Surely these means that only women should be allowed to make any decisions.

There is a clear issue with gun deaths in the US. That is undisputed. What can be done in short/medium and long term so that this doesn't continue? Clearly limiting the availability of guns will have an effect, the argument that Manic and others use is that the effect is not big enough to justify them losing the ability to play with guns.

I don't agree, anymore than I agree with letting people drive whatever way they want and without insurance.

So if, as I suspect, a full rule out of all firearms is never going to fly, what can be done to limit the damage that is being caused. I have yet to see an justification that the general population need access to firearms at all, but certainly not anything bigger than a handheld weapon.

A limit on the number of rounds would be a start, a limit on the type of reloaders, a limit on the type of ammunition. I can also see no justification to owning more than one weapon, but I am sure there are cases that require it and they should be looked at and decided upon based on individual case need.

But the problem won't be solved because people in he US, or at least the people making the decisions don't think there is a problem, not one that can't be solved with thoughts and prayers. Until the mindset changes then nothing will change.

But based on the polls, there is clearly a movement towards something happening. Trump calling of a national emergency for the border opens up the possibility that the next DNC POTUS will use the same justification to call a halt to gun sales in the wake of the next massacre that happens.

The problem with these discussions is that folks on your side of the issue want to ignore the details and operate on an emotionally driven fashion. The result being poorly thought put initiatives that have little to no chance of success legislatively and unlikely to accomplish anything positive at all.

No doubt you're in favor of reinstating something akin to the previous assault weapons ban, however I doubt you could articulate what the criteria would be in deciding what to ban, or why, nevermind what would be accomplished by that.

Details matter, the alternative is poorly thought out laws that only punish people who've done nothing illegal.

Leroy42

Hollow point,not hollow point, it is irrelevant. But it is typical of any discussion about gun control, the gun advocates like to talk details and we end up discussion type of guns rather than the overall policy.

As for me not being an expert, we are discussion overall policy here, as in any policy the overall aim is decided and then experts come in to discuss the possibilities and limitations.

Are only experts allowed to discuss things then should we follow the same for issues like drugs? Should only drug addicts and drub dealers be allowed to come up with policy?

And what about abortion? Surely these means that only women should be allowed to make any decisions.

There is a clear issue with gun deaths in the US. That is undisputed. What can be done in short/medium and long term so that this doesn't continue? Clearly limiting the availability of guns will have an effect, the argument that Manic and others use is that the effect is not big enough to justify them losing the ability to play with guns.

I don't agree, anymore than I agree with letting people drive whatever way they want and without insurance.

So if, as I suspect, a full rule out of all firearms is never going to fly, what can be done to limit the damage that is being caused. I have yet to see an justification that the general population need access to firearms at all, but certainly not anything bigger than a handheld weapon.

A limit on the number of rounds would be a start, a limit on the type of reloaders, a limit on the type of ammunition. I can also see no justification to owning more than one weapon, but I am sure there are cases that require it and they should be looked at and decided upon based on individual case need.

But the problem won't be solved because people in he US, or at least the people making the decisions don't think there is a problem, not one that can't be solved with thoughts and prayers. Until the mindset changes then nothing will change.

But based on the polls, there is clearly a movement towards something happening. Trump calling of a national emergency for the border opens up the possibility that the next DNC POTUS will use the same justification to call a halt to gun sales in the wake of the next massacre that happens.

Manic Moran

listermint wrote: »

But your brilliantly emotive post about intrusion in your liberties and some 'third parties' and extra cost to you... Was what ?

I didn't use the word 'liberties', so stop projecting. The involvement of third parties and additional investiture of time and money are not 'emotive', they are actual, measurable effects. Further, the more obstacles and hoops there are for someone to follow a process, the more likely people are in the real world to simply not follow it in the first place.

Thus it is perfectly good sense to pick the least intrusive mechanic to achieve the desired effect.

To be frank you are no different to the rest of the gun folks . You will put as many blockers in the way to stifle any checks on guns until it becomes unstoppable. Years of the same years of death.

You have this entirely reversed. I'd like to make it -easier- to do checks, not put blockers onto it.

You have answered your own question. A round that is designed to kill a person from short range. So do away with the other types (hollow points etc). Again, I am not gun expert, so would leave the details to experts.

Your last line rather highlights the problem. Hollow-points are the preferred short range pistol ammunition because they have high effectiveness, at the cost of long-range capability. It's what you'd find in your typical police sidearm, and what is in my own personal defense pistol. And, unfortunately, the politicians who are anti-gun are, almost invariably by default, not gun experts either. (Not that this is unique to firearms. Ask the health industry about health legislation, the aviation industry about aviation legislation (Particularly the act passed after the Colgan Air crash) and so on.

For example, have you noticed that SWAT teams have moved from low-velocity pistol calibre weapons like the MP-5 of the 1980s to high-velocity assault rifles like the AR15 in the 2000s? The reason being that the latter are actually safer in urban environments, because the faster the round is going, the better it fragments in obstacles like walls (or people). This particularly so if using frangible ammuntion. It may be counter-intuitive, but that doesn't make it incorrect.

The idea of stored weapons at clubs is inherently a bad one, even the Gardai aren't fans of it in Ireland. It tends to tell folks where to go find guns to steal.

Maybe too simplistic an idea, I know they have this right to bare arms in their constitution, so how about no background checks for your weapons, but all you want, but ammunition is vetted.

Already been addressed in the courts. It's like saying you have the right to publish anything you want due to free speech, but you won't be allowed to own a pen to write it with. It's called "ancillary rights". The Appeals Courts have already ruled, for example, that the Constitutional right to a firearm confers a constitutional right to a place to shoot it. Supreme Court will be addressing a similar one this term.

Since I now no longer live in California, I have de-Californiaised my first rifle. Note the length of the video below, about two minutes. You will recognise the rifle, the Irish Army uses basically the same thing (except they have a full-auto selector, I don't). California has had an assault weapons ban for decades, it is more strict than the now-defunct Federal ban, much loved by anti-gun folks, because it supposedly achieves something.

https://youtu.be/UblBGVNLfZ4

Watch the de-californiasation process, and explain to me how this legislation is supposed to help anything. After all, California has a ban and is safer as a result, right? But the folks advocating the legislation don't actually understand how a gun is built, so no wonder the law is pointless.

screamer

Maybe too simplistic an idea, I know they have this right to bare arms in their constitution, so how about no background checks for your weapons, but all you want, but ammunition is vetted.

AbusesToilets

Leroy42 wrote: »

What is the difference is spend? I absolutely agree that more should be done on mental health issues, and luckily we are constantly getting better in that regard with issues such as PTS and the like now being taken seriously. But given that it can never be eradicated, and the fact that in many cases on mass shootings they was no prior reason to incarcerate the individual, then taking away the ability to carry out lethal violence is a good step. It is not the only step, it is one of the measures.

Hunting - We leave in a world of industrialised farming. Very few people need guns in which to hunt other than sport. So that fits in with the selfish tag. But I am not advocating that this be stopped. But that is is managed and licenced and clubs that the liability for their members. If you are into hunting then surely a hunting club where you can avail of a range of weapons is a good thing?

Sport - OK, again this can all be done in clubs.

Personal Self defence - there is little evidence that this makes any difference but again, this can be far more controlled than it is now and should be subject to far stricter controls and limits on number and type of weapons.

Defense against Tyranny - when was this last required? And who will decide? There are a large amount of people in the US that think Trump is showing such signs - should they be allowed to start attacking the state? (that goes for any POTUS, Major, Governor, Senator Congressperson that they happen to disagree with). Should those that are against abortion be allowed to kill doctors or the legislature?

Crime rates - are these different in the US than in other countries without the same access to guns? Are they different in the states with tougher/easier gun access? But on the statistics, the very powerful nature of guns, the fact they are touted as not only a deterrent but a necessity for personal safety, wouldn't you think people would have pretty good evidence to back up the claim?

Self defence is pretty well established in law. Short range should mean why you are in physical danger. Why would it be seen to be excessive for me to run across a street to punch someone but you deem it necessary to be able to kill someone from a hundred yards? Sure at 100 yards you may feel intimidated, but there are plenty of options other than killing the person. Short range should mean why you are in physical danger.

And there are restrictions on knives. People are not allowed carry around samurai swords and use them in a bar fight.

In terms of the ammunition, I have already said I am not an expert. Simply change Hollow point for whatever type of round you like. The point being that a standard should be agreed upon and all ammunition restricted to that standard.

I am making the case and your response so far has been to point out I used the wrong type of ammunition and that you like hunting. You have failed to address the issue of gun control in any way. The constitution won't change on its own. Its up to the people of the US to decide what they want there country to be. At the present time selfishness and fear are the overriding factors. I don't see that changing any time soon.

And that is totally wrong. But that is an abuse of the text, not the core part of it. A gun is designed to kill. That is its purpose. Used correctly. There is a world of difference.

Restrict, restrict, restrict. At the core of the matter for you, is the desire to be rid of guns. That's a mindset shared by many who wish to implement gun legislation. I look at the situation from a markedly different perspective. Your sentiments with respect to hunting, shooting, defense etc are to me poorly thought out and a product of ignorance and fear. Your desire to improve public safety and health is admirable and one I share.much could be accomplished without taking away freedoms from people who are responsible, in response to those who are not and unlikely to be so, regardless of the law.

Would those who support common sense reform, such as improved background checks, also support other common sense ideas, such as removing suppressors and short barrelled rifles from the restricted purchase classification they have currently?

Leroy42

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You again fail to address the salient point. The level of mental health issues might be statistically similar in say Canada, as in the US. I would wager that the resources available for treatment are markedly poorer in the US. That is where I would start, if I was looking to reduce deaths, as suicide is the highest contributor by far.

What is the difference is spend? I absolutely agree that more should be done on mental health issues, and luckily we are constantly getting better in that regard with issues such as PTS and the like now being taken seriously. But given that it can never be eradicated, and the fact that in many cases on mass shootings they was no prior reason to incarcerate the individual, then taking away the ability to carry out lethal violence is a good step. It is not the only step, it is one of the measures.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

As to you second part, there multiple benefits to gun ownership. Hunting, sport, personal self defense, defense against tyranny (which you and others are always quick to rubbish). Crime rates have been falling in general for decades, which includes periods of harsher restrictions on ownership (Assault Weapons Ban) and periods of looser restrictions. I haven't seen any statistics one way or another.

Hunting - We leave in a world of industrialised farming. Very few people need guns in which to hunt other than sport. So that fits in with the selfish tag. But I am not advocating that this be stopped. But that is is managed and licenced and clubs that the liability for their members. If you are into hunting then surely a hunting club where you can avail of a range of weapons is a good thing?

Sport - OK, again this can all be done in clubs.

Personal Self defence - there is little evidence that this makes any difference but again, this can be far more controlled than it is now and should be subject to far stricter controls and limits on number and type of weapons.

Defense against Tyranny - when was this last required? And who will decide? There are a large amount of people in the US that think Trump is showing such signs - should they be allowed to start attacking the state? (that goes for any POTUS, Major, Governor, Senator Congressperson that they happen to disagree with). Should those that are against abortion be allowed to kill doctors or the legislature?

Crime rates - are these different in the US than in other countries without the same access to guns? Are they different in the states with tougher/easier gun access? But on the statistics, the very powerful nature of guns, the fact they are touted as not only a deterrent but a necessity for personal safety, wouldn't you think people would have pretty good evidence to back up the claim?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Define short range. Why place any impediment on someone's ability to defend themselves. Your scenario accepts the reality of a person owning and employing a firearm in a lethal fashion, what is the purpose of reducing calibers etc. Should all knives be restricted in blade length so as to prevent excess penetration of the human body? You also somewhat ironically say hollow points should be banned, when they are the type of round most apt to fit the confines of your scenario.

Self defence is pretty well established in law. Short range should mean why you are in physical danger. Why would it be seen to be excessive for me to run across a street to punch someone but you deem it necessary to be able to kill someone from a hundred yards? Sure at 100 yards you may feel intimidated, but there are plenty of options other than killing the person. Short range should mean why you are in physical danger.

And there are restrictions on knives. People are not allowed carry around samurai swords and use them in a bar fight.

In terms of the ammunition, I have already said I am not an expert. Simply change Hollow point for whatever type of round you like. The point being that a standard should be agreed upon and all ammunition restricted to that standard.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

By all means, start a movement, make your case. As it stands, firearm ownership is a right, unlike car ownership. If the Constitution changes then that's the law folks ought to abide by.

I am making the case and your response so far has been to point out I used the wrong type of ammunition and that you like hunting. You have failed to address the issue of gun control in any way. The constitution won't change on its own. Its up to the people of the US to decide what they want there country to be. At the present time selfishness and fear are the overriding factors. I don't see that changing any time soon.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Do you feel the same way about other guaranteed rights? How many people have been driven to kill by the words of others or a religious text?

And that is totally wrong. But that is an abuse of the text, not the core part of it. A gun is designed to kill. That is its purpose. Used correctly. There is a world of difference.

AbusesToilets

I did. Other countries which much striker gun laws but the same other issues have significantly less gun deaths than the US. But you're argument is the wrong way around. We know the possible negatives to gun ownership, but what are the positives? Is there any evidence that this massive freedom to own guns in the US has any material reduction effect on crime?

You again fail to address the salient point. The level of mental health issues might be statistically similar in say Canada, as in the US. I would wager that the resources available for treatment are markedly poorer in the US. That is where I would start, if I was looking to reduce deaths, as suicide is the highest contributor by far.

As to you second part, there multiple benefits to gun ownership. Hunting, sport, personal self defense, defense against tyranny (which you and others are always quick to rubbish). Crime rates have been falling in general for decades, which includes periods of harsher restrictions on ownership (Assault Weapons Ban) and periods of looser restrictions. I haven't seen any statistics one way or another.

I am no gun expert, but I would wager that there is a caliber of bullet that is capable of stopping an attacker within short range but would only cause minor (as in less than death) injury from further out.

You have answered your own question. A round that is designed to kill a person from short range. So do away with the other types (hollow points etc). Again, I am not gun expert, so would leave the details to experts. If you are hunting then the club controls the ammo and if certain ammo is required it is counted out and accounted for.

Define short range. Why place any impediment on someone's ability to defend themselves. Your scenario accepts the reality of a person owning and employing a firearm in a lethal fashion, what is the purpose of reducing calibers etc. Should all knives be restricted in blade length so as to prevent excess penetration of the human body? You also somewhat ironically say hollow points should be banned, when they are the type of round most apt to fit the confines of your scenario.

Ever hear of an Amendment? The 2nd Amendment is exactly that. So why should we simply stop making amendments now? Change the constitution. The idea is to reduce the gun related deaths.

As I said in any other country my ideas would be perfectly reasonable but in the US they are seen as an outright attack. But people accept the exact same provisions in order areas. People need a licence to drive a car. They need to be a certain age. You can't simply buy whatever chemicals you want. you are not allowed own nuclear weapons. The solution to the problem is on one hand rather simple, but unfortunately on the other it is very difficult and many Americans value their own rights own the security and lives of others.

By all means, start a movement, make your case. As it stands, firearm ownership is a right, unlike car ownership. If the Constitution changes then that's the law folks ought to abide by.

'I want my toy and if that means others will die then that is a price worth paying'. You can dress up with in terms of the constitution but it all boils down to that.

Do you feel the same way about other guaranteed rights? How many people have been driven to kill by the words of others or a religious text?

TeaBagMania

its ok, in a few decades the snowflake generation will be steering the ship and you can wave goodbye to the second amendment

Leroy42

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You have failed to articulate how your proposals would effectively reduce gun related deaths. Simply comparing rates of mental health issues and gun ownership to other countries ignores the vast differences in available treatments or the nature of crime.

I did. Other countries which much striker gun laws but the same other issues have significantly less gun deaths than the US. But you're argument is the wrong way around. We know the possible negatives to gun ownership, but what are the positives? Is there any evidence that this massive freedom to own guns in the US has any material reduction effect on crime?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You are a self described advocate against gun ownership in general and from the ideas you put forward above, you don't take into account some fundamental facts.

Restricting calibers is a meaningless concept in the scenario you've outlined. If I am keeping a firearm with a view to self defense, the implicit assumption is that it is inherently lethal. To what purpose should I look to decrease the potential efficacy of my response, when my life or that of a loved one is in danger? What's the goal there?

I am no gun expert, but I would wager that there is a caliber of bullet that is capable of stopping an attacker within short range but would only cause minor (as in less than death) injury from further out.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Can you define a non-standard round for me? For example, if I am into long distance shooting, I want a bullet with a specific shape and contour, to achieve maximum aerodynamic efficiency. If I am a hunter, I may want a bullet that will deform or tumble, to allow me to kill my prey in the most immediate fashion. If I am carrying a pistol, I want to use a round that can quickly kill a person without over-penetrating their body or the surroundings. A round designed to deform upon impact likely best accomplishes that.

You have answered your own question. A round that is designed to kill a person from short range. So do away with the other types (hollow points etc). Again, I am not gun expert, so would leave the details to experts. If you are hunting then the club controls the ammo and if certain ammo is required it is counted out and accounted for.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

As to your talk about requiring club memberships, I think you know well enough that that would be unconstitutional, right off the bat.

Ever hear of an Amendment? The 2nd Amendment is exactly that. So why should we simply stop making amendments now? Change the constitution. The idea is to reduce the gun related deaths.

As I said in any other country my ideas would be perfectly reasonable but in the US they are seen as an outright attack. But people accept the exact same provisions in other areas. People need a licence to drive a car. They need to be a certain age. You can't simply buy whatever chemicals you want. you are not allowed own nuclear weapons. The solution to the problem is on one hand rather simple, but unfortunately on the other it is very difficult and many Americans value their own rights own the security and lives of others.

'I want my toy and if that means others will die then that is a price worth paying'. You can dress up with in terms of the constitution but it all boils down to that.

AbusesToilets

listermint wrote: »

In summation. Its mostly people shooting themselves (thats grand)
The rest of that are criminals shooting each other (thats grand)

And only 300 or so people per year are killed in a mass murder attack.

All acceptable figures so that i can have the fascade of safety in my home when all statistics show that those with guns are no more safe because they are not generally 'ready' for an attack on them nor trained to deal with it rationally.

Superb!

Do nothing then.

Ah, the old veer to raw emotion and straw manning turn, sadly predictable. Congrats on not addressing my points in any constructive manner.

I laid out a general concept for how to actually have a positive impact. You are following in the well trod path of those against gun ownership by ignoring those in favor of emotion and functionally useless proposals.

listermint

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Your boiling frog approach is exactly why the NRA and other Pro 2nd Amendment groups virulently oppose any legislation. I am not a member of, nor in favor of the NRA as it exists currently.

There is an absence of good faith on both sides of the issue. Those on the anti-gun side are clear on their desire for ever harsher restrictions on legal firearm ownership. They are happy to chip away, piece by piece, with "common sense" laws, which are nothing of the sort. Coupled with their general ignorance of basic facts surrounded firearms and ballistics, I have little to no time for their efforts.

They try to frame their arguments under the guise of reducing deaths, yet the ideas put forward do not address the various causes in any substantive fashion. The desire to ban "assault weapons", which in itself is a term without meaning, has already been tried. It didn't do anything to affect a reduction in crime or deaths.

This issue has been argued on here, many times previously, and the facts remain unchanged.

Approx 30,000 people a year die due to firearm related deaths. Roughly 2/3s of those are from suicides. The remainder are from a combination of accidents and murders, with approx 20/80 split. Of that murder number, the majority would be those committed during other criminal activities, i.e. gang violence, and often against other criminals. These figures are backed up by FBI criminal statistics, easily searchable.

Spree killings, such as school shootings account for a fraction of 1% annually. Semi-auto rifles (not assualt weapons) are another tiny fraction per annum.

If society was serious about the goal of reducing DEATHS from firearms, the best way to accomplish that is through a combination of improved mental health care, education on firearms safety and training, and improved policing. Improving background checks, done sensibly and not in a fashion that punishes already law abiding gun owners are a good idea.

All the above requires a long term investment and doesn't lend itself to a nice headline. So instead you have people like Fenstein, who come out with their typically ill informed ideas for magazine restrictions and assault weapons bans, based on cosmetic features, that accomplish nothing except to make life more difficult for gun owners.

In summation. Its mostly people shooting themselves (thats grand)
The rest of that are criminals shooting each other (thats grand)

And only 300 or so people per year are killed in a mass murder attack.

All acceptable figures so that i can have the fascade of safety in my home when all statistics show that those with guns are no more safe because they are not generally 'ready' for an attack on them nor trained to deal with it rationally.

Superb!

Do nothing then.

AbusesToilets

Leroy42 wrote: »

So the fact that the US has the highest gun related deaths of any country in the world, whilst other countries suffer from the same levels of mental health problems, education and policing and the one major difference is peoples attitude to guns means nothing?

There can be no argument that restricting the availability and access to guns would not reduce gun related deaths. The only argument is where is the line between personal right and public harm.

IMO, personal firearm for use in home protection seems a decent starting point, on the basis that they are never going to get full restriction. A 6 shooter, low caliber weapon should be enough in all but the worst cases. And in those cases no amount of weapons is probably going to be enough.

If hunting/competitions is your thing, then you should be a member of a club, affiliated and licenced by the state and all weapons stored by that club with sign-off by two people before taking the gun. And a limit to 'borrowing' only one weapon at a time. Clubs could then be liable for any shootings carried out by a person using their registered guns if the policies were not fully followed.

Make all the non standard bullets illegal. Make all but a standard handheld, low caliber gun illegal. Cops are sent out daily with a sidearm and face dangers of all kinds, yet people think they require a machine gun in their house? It makes no sense.

None of the above should be even remotely controversial. But in the US the above would be torn apart. My constitutional rights, don't take my guns, its not too many school shootings, the guy was crazy anyway, people kill people not guns etc etc etc. Its selfishness and fear. That is the only thing that stops the US from becoming a normal society with a normal relationship to guns.

You have failed to articulate how your proposals would effectively reduce gun related deaths. Simply comparing rates of mental health issues and gun ownership to other countries ignores the vast differences in available treatments or the nature of crime.

You are a self described advocate against gun ownership in general and from the ideas you put forward above, you don't take into account some fundamental facts.

Restricting calibers is a meaningless concept in the scenario you've outlined. If I am keeping a firearm with a view to self defense, the implicit assumption is that it is inherently lethal. To what purpose should I look to decrease the potential efficacy of my response, when my life or that of a loved one is in danger? What's the goal there?

Can you define a non-standard round for me? For example, if I am into long distance shooting, I want a bullet with a specific shape and contour, to achieve maximum aerodynamic efficiency. If I am a hunter, I may want a bullet that will deform or tumble, to allow me to kill my prey in the most immediate fashion. If I am carrying a pistol, I want to use a round that can quickly kill a person without over-penetrating their body or the surroundings. A round designed to deform upon impact likely best accomplishes that.

As to your talk about requiring club memberships, I think you know well enough that that would be unconstitutional, right off the bat.

Leroy42

mrbrianj wrote: »

You are for calibre restrictions and and major controls on hunters and target shooters, but want to allow people have "6 shooters" to defend their homes?

Pretty much the exact opposite of the system in place here, which imo works well.

Just to clarify, no I am not advocating for any firearm ownership. However, I appreciate that people will never fully give up their guns in the US, and that fear is a major factor over there despite the evidence that guns makes no appreciable difference to crime rates.

I am trying to put forward a solution based on the realities. As Seamus pointed out, the US have a completely different POV on firearms than we have. It is somewhat similar to what we have in terms of alcohol. Seems we get very upset if anybody tries to tell us about the dangers or attempt to reduce our access (BTW I am not saying alcohol and forearms are the same, merely talking from a physiological POV).

FatherTed

Personally I think guns need to be registered and insured the way cars are. I cannot own and drive a car without my state giving me a driving permit, a registration certificate proof of insurance for the car. Why not the same for guns?

1. Your state must approve you and provide a gun permit after all necessary education, deep background and mental checks are completed. Valid for 4-5 years and then must renew like driving license.
2. Each gun should have a VIN-like number and be registered with the state.
3. Each gun must be insured. Of course the cost of insurance could be prohibitive for some. The Second Amendmenters will complain but that's the cost of the destruction of life by whakos. It's not my fault there are so many bad drivers around me and I have to pay higher premiums but so it. The insurance would help pay for the cost of #1.

mrbrianj

Leroy42 wrote: »

So the fact that the US has the highest gun related deaths of any country in the world, whilst other countries suffer from the same levels of mental health problems, education and policing and the one major difference is peoples attitude to guns means nothing?

There can be no argument that restricting the availability and access to guns would not reduce gun related deaths. The only argument is where is the line between personal right and public harm.

IMO, personal firearm for use in home protection seems a decent starting point, on the basis that they are never going to get full restriction. A 6 shooter, low caliber weapon should be enough in all but the worst cases. And in those cases no amount of weapons is probably going to be enough.

If hunting/competitions is your thing, then you should be a member of a club, affiliated and licenced by the state and all weapons stored by that club with sign-off by two people before taking the gun. And a limit to 'borrowing' only one weapon at a time. Clubs could then be liable for any shootings carried out by a person using their registered guns if the policies were not fully followed.

Make all the non standard bullets illegal. Make all but a standard handheld, low caliber gun illegal. Cops are sent out daily with a sidearm and face dangers of all kinds, yet people think they require a machine gun in their house? It makes no sense.

None of the above should be even remotely controversial. But in the US the above would be torn apart. My constitutional rights, don't take my guns, its not too many school shootings, the guy was crazy anyway, people kill people not guns etc etc etc. Its selfishness and fear. That is the only thing that stops the US from becoming a normal society with a normal relationship to guns.

You are for calibre restrictions and and major controls on hunters and target shooters, but want to allow people have "6 shooters" to defend their homes?

Pretty much the exact opposite of the system in place here, which imo works well.

FatherTed

Usually these guys who do the mass killing sprees own the gun(s) legally. For example Robert Bowers, the guy from the Pittsburgh synagogue spree last October. He owned 21 guns legally. Neighbors said he was a quiet guy, kept to himself. No obvious mental issues other than his anti-Jewish ramblings on Gab. How would improved mental health care, education on firearms safety and training, background checks at gun shows prevented this?
NRA says arm the synagogue, arm the teachers, everybody have guns! Adding an armed security guard at the synagogue is not correct either. Imagine an armed security guard at every church/school/cinema in Ireland? Why should we have to do the same in the US?

Leroy42

So the fact that the US has the highest gun related deaths of any country in the world, whilst other countries suffer from the same levels of mental health problems, education and policing and the one major difference is peoples attitude to guns means nothing?

There can be no argument that restricting the availability and access to guns would not reduce gun related deaths. The only argument is where is the line between personal right and public harm.

IMO, personal firearm for use in home protection seems a decent starting point, on the basis that they are never going to get full restriction. A 6 shooter, low caliber weapon should be enough in all but the worst cases. And in those cases no amount of weapons is probably going to be enough.

If hunting/competitions is your thing, then you should be a member of a club, affiliated and licenced by the state and all weapons stored by that club with sign-off by two people before taking the gun. And a limit to 'borrowing' only one weapon at a time. Clubs could then be liable for any shootings carried out by a person using their registered guns if the policies were not fully followed.

Make all the non standard bullets illegal. Make all but a standard handheld, low caliber gun illegal. Cops are sent out daily with a sidearm and face dangers of all kinds, yet people think they require a machine gun in their house? It makes no sense.

None of the above should be even remotely controversial. But in the US the above would be torn apart. My constitutional rights, don't take my guns, its not too many school shootings, the guy was crazy anyway, people kill people not guns etc etc etc. Its selfishness and fear. That is the only thing that stops the US from becoming a normal society with a normal relationship to guns.

Igotadose

FatherTed wrote: »

So maybe the real problem is the poor policing resources in your area? If you had better response time from your local police department would you feel safer? Thankfully in the 26 years I've been living in the US, I've never had any reason to call the police but I'm friends with some local police officers and I would say the response time would be under 10 minutes.

This was a wealthy Seattle suburb, where houses regularly sell in excess of $500,000 and about a 20 minute drive to a high-end employer (Microsoft.) The Western US, especially, is *huge*. It really is impossible to have enough policing resources.

Had the area in question become even more high crime, perhaps that would've changed, but not in the 10 years we lived there. And, we moved from there to NYC, where there's an excess of police presence and security cameras and so on. Without question, felt *much* safer in our Seattle suburb and wouldn't dream of owning a firearm in NYC.

I think responsible gun ownership has its place in society. Handing all my safety over to the authorities isn't something I'd be comfortable with, living in Ireland we do enjoy knowing that the average person down the street isn't carrying a weapon and we feel pretty safe here.

As for background checks, I really don't comprehend what the resistance is. I had to have a license for my car. I had to be fingerprinted and have a check run by the police to obtain my concealed carry permit. When I purchased my firearms, I would've had to go through a background check but the CCP was sufficient proof for the gun shop. I wholeheartedly support a standard background check across the country, it's crazy what little is required to obtain a firearm in some states.

AbusesToilets

Leroy42 wrote: »

Because we know that the NRA will never move willingly to the endstate, they will try to block at every turn. Therefore, it is necessary to take a longer, more complicated, and ultimately a waste of everyones time, route to nudge them gradually.

Like the boiling frog. Make each change so small as to be not worth arguing against on its own but always moving towards the endgame. The clear evidence of how the NRA will block everything shows that this is the only realistic option left.

If even the largest domestic shooting even tin history cannot get the NRA and gun supporters to take the issue seriously then what exactly do you think will? Maybe kids getting shot at school? Nope. Maybe people being killed in a nightclub? Nope. Maybe thousands of deaths a year? Nope.

And any politician that even raises the prospect of tightening gun control is immediately targeted.

So clearly they need a difference approach as the gun supporters are never going to listen to logic on this, it is emotional to them.

ANd on this specifically, this actually highlights the problem. People accept the need to checks and security, but that is for terrorists. The gun is personal and a right and 'ain't nobody touching my guns'. Your proposal of an app is perfectly reasonable. People need licences for cars, documentation to take out a loan, a passport to leave the country, but have you ever looked at the response when somebody tries to say that gun control should be increased? Remember, Trump got a lot of gun owners on the claim that HC was coming after their guns. He didn't even need to say what he was going to do, the fear of HC was enough.

Your boiling frog approach is exactly why the NRA and other Pro 2nd Amendment groups virulently oppose any legislation. I am not a member of, nor in favor of the NRA as it exists currently.

There is an absence of good faith on both sides of the issue. Those on the anti-gun side are clear on their desire for ever harsher restrictions on legal firearm ownership. They are happy to chip away, piece by piece, with "common sense" laws, which are nothing of the sort. Coupled with their general ignorance of basic facts surrounded firearms and ballistics, I have little to no time for their efforts.

They try to frame their arguments under the guise of reducing deaths, yet the ideas put forward do not address the various causes in any substantive fashion. The desire to ban "assault weapons", which in itself is a term without meaning, has already been tried. It didn't do anything to affect a reduction in crime or deaths.

This issue has been argued on here, many times previously, and the facts remain unchanged.

Approx 30,000 people a year die due to firearm related deaths. Roughly 2/3s of those are from suicides. The remainder are from a combination of accidents and murders, with approx 20/80 split. Of that murder number, the majority would be those committed during other criminal activities, i.e. gang violence, and often against other criminals. These figures are backed up by FBI criminal statistics, easily searchable.

Spree killings, such as school shootings account for a fraction of 1% annually. Semi-auto rifles (not assualt weapons) are another tiny fraction per annum.

If society was serious about the goal of reducing DEATHS from firearms, the best way to accomplish that is through a combination of improved mental health care, education on firearms safety and training, and improved policing. Improving background checks, done sensibly and not in a fashion that punishes already law abiding gun owners are a good idea.

All the above requires a long term investment and doesn't lend itself to a nice headline. So instead you have people like Fenstein, who come out with their typically ill informed ideas for magazine restrictions and assault weapons bans, based on cosmetic features, that accomplish nothing except to make life more difficult for gun owners.

FatherTed

Igotadose wrote: »

No, but time for another story. The neighbor immediately behind us, battered women. He rented out a room in his house, and was aggressive to the other neighbors on a regular basis, especially when he was drunk, which was often enough.

And by battered, I mean broken, bloody noses and choke marks around the throat. He did, in fact, get arrested a couple times while we lived next door, one of the women in question ran across the street to another neighbor who prevented him from following her and they waited the 45-odd minutes for the cops to arrive and arrest him.

My wife, also trained in firearms, and I had an agreement - if that person ever tried to break into our house (and who knows what a belligerent drunk will do,) she would defend herself with a gun. Her life, way more important, than his. Of course the cops would be called.

Fortunately this never happened, eventually the neighbor in question had one too many arrests, got convicted for felonious assault though didn't spend any prison time, sold the house and moved away.

FWIW, and a sad reflection on life, that guy never seemed to have trouble finding female 'tenants.' It's not like he looked like Brad Pitt, either. And, it was an effort on the part of the prosecutor to get one of the tenants to finally bring charges. Other states like California allow the prosecutor to bring charges, since this is a common problem, women desperate for a place to stay, continue staying with abusive men.

So maybe the real problem is the poor policing resources in your area? If you had better response time from your local police department would you feel safer? Thankfully in the 26 years I've been living in the US, I've never had any reason to call the police but I'm friends with some local police officers and I would say the response time would be under 10 minutes.

mrbrianj

I understand what you are saying Igotadose. I too live in an area where night time police response can be 'sporadic', and not a crime free area either!

In both the stories you gave, neither required the use (or treat of use) of a gun. Now this goes back to "reason". I look on guns as tools for hunting or competition, not as an item of self defence / offence against a "bad guy". In fact they are the last thing I would think of a means to defend myself or others.

If you swap the word gun for car and marketed cars as a means of self defence - eventually somebody somewhere would drive over somebody else.

I know its a simple matter of a different point of view, and applied to different countries - I have no real knowledge of crime in the US - but the nuclear option of whipping out a gun seems a bit extreme.

Igotadose

Leroy42 wrote: »

So despite you having a permit, you still encountered crime. And those people chasing you would have been aware that there was a possibility that you had a firearm yet it didn't stop them?

Would you having a firearm have made that situation any better?

No, but time for another story. The neighbor immediately behind us, battered women. He rented out a room in his house, and was aggressive to the other neighbors on a regular basis, especially when he was drunk, which was often enough.

And by battered, I mean broken, bloody noses and choke marks around the throat. He did, in fact, get arrested a couple times while we lived next door, one of the women in question ran across the street to another neighbor who prevented him from following her and they waited the 45-odd minutes for the cops to arrive and arrest him.

My wife, also trained in firearms, and I had an agreement - if that person ever tried to break into our house (and who knows what a belligerent drunk will do,) she would defend herself with a gun. Her life, way more important, than his. Of course the cops would be called.

Fortunately this never happened, eventually the neighbor in question had one too many arrests, got convicted for felonious assault though didn't spend any prison time, sold the house and moved away.

FWIW, and a sad reflection on life, that guy never seemed to have trouble finding female 'tenants.' It's not like he looked like Brad Pitt, either. And, it was an effort on the part of the prosecutor to get one of the tenants to finally bring charges. Other states like California allow the prosecutor to bring charges, since this is a common problem, women desperate for a place to stay, continue staying with abusive men.

Leroy42

Igotadose wrote: »

Full disclosure, at the time of the tweaker incident I had a concealed carry permit, and we owned firearms. Said firearms stayed in safes at home except for the occasional foray to the shooting range for practice.

So despite you having a permit, you still encountered crime. And those people chasing you would have been aware that there was a possibility that you had a firearm yet it didn't stop them?

Would you having a firearm have made that situation any better?

Igotadose

mrbrianj wrote: »

Very good point. "Rights" or "access to" are not the big problem in the US, its Reason. Home defence being one of the biggest wrong reasons!

I grew up in NYC, no one ever considered having a firearm at home, despite living in a poor, high crime area. Nor were they (legally) particularly easy to obtain.

I then moved to the Pacific Northwest, to a suburb of Seattle. On call, the local gendarmerie guaranteed they'd be there in 45 minutes. That's right, 45 minutes.

It was a wealthy suburb, yet, crime wasn't unknown, burglaries were common and personally got chased by a car driven by a tweaker while walking down the road to a local library. Seems Mr. (and Ms.) tweaker in one of their drug-induced fantasies thought we were the people who were shining lights into their yard at night. We called the police while being chased, and that got the tweakers to stop (me shouting "I've got 911 on the line and they have your license number, back off.") We actually walked down to the library and filed a police report, and later learned that this lovely couple had quickly decamped from their (trashed) rental house to other climes. But, no police at all and a high risk situation. Never did hear back from the police about the report I filed.

So, what do you do? Bad people try to do bad things to you, and the police are nowhere near. Just chance it? Hope for the best? Call the police?

Full disclosure, at the time of the tweaker incident I had a concealed carry permit, and we owned firearms. Said firearms stayed in safes at home except for the occasional foray to the shooting range for practice.