Gun control in the USA

MagicMarker · 21-12-2012 03:20PM

Sparks wrote: »

That isn't stating the obvious, because what you meant was that the existing restrictions were not enforced.
And the same end result would have arised if they'd not overridden the recommendation of DS Hughes, who said (this is a quote from the Cullen inquiry:

I agree he should never have had them at all; but we blame different things. I blame the Scottish police who had a falsified application form, a known (and commented on by the police) incident where the Hamilton broke the firearms act to buy a pistol, and recommendations from DS Hughes and the local child protection officer that his firearms cert be pulled. The first two weren't picked up on because of a failure to investigate; the last, well feck that required actual effort to avoid pulling his cert.

I'm not saying the police are not to blame here, of course they are as they clearly didn't do their job properly. But the restrictions weren't enough! Were the police obligated to follow up with the gun club? It seems odd that they just couldn't be arsed to make a simple phone call and decided to put through the application anyway. A simple change in gun control in this case that COULD have prevented this from happening was to make people include a copy of their in date, valid, membership card of the gun club and/or an official document from the gun club confirming membership with their application.

Sparks wrote: »

According to evidence given by psychologists in the Cullen inquiry, that's actually exactly what they would have expected (as opposed to stealing a firearm or obtaining one from "the criminal fraternity" as they call it.

That's good because nobody else thinks that either

Well, if I may make a suggestion, when debating with someone who's only advocating more effective gun control, don't bring up bombs. As one could be forgiven for thinking that you're using the possibility of someone using bombs instead of guns as an argument against tougher gun control.

Sparks wrote: »

Even in this site, there have been many such calls; outside of here, where things are less polite, it's even more prevalent.

Well I don't speak for this site, I speak for myelf, and I'm not calling for a total ban on guns.

Sparks wrote: »

*cough*notheycantevenbyprivatesale*cough*

Yes, they can. There are no federal laws in place to prevent private sales, so long as the buyer and seller are in the same state and the buyer is not mentally ill or a felon.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/unlicensed-persons.html#gca-unlicensed-transfer

Q: To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA?

A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector.

Q: What record-keeping procedures should be followed when two private individuals want to engage in a firearms transaction?

When a transaction takes place between private (unlicensed) persons who reside in the same State, the Gun Control Act (GCA) does not require any record keeping. A private person may sell a firearm to another private individual in his or her State of residence and, similarly, a private individual may buy a firearm from another private person who resides in the same State. It is not necessary under Federal law for a Federal firearms licensee (FFL) to assist in the sale or transfer when the buyer and seller are “same-State” residents. Of course, the transferor/seller may not knowingly transfer a firearm to someone who falls within any of the categories of prohibited persons contained in the GCA. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and (n). However, as stated above, there are no GCA-required records to be completed by either party to the transfer.

There may be state laws governing such a transaction, but unless every single state outlaws it (and I'd imagine most don't), then my point still stands.

Sparks wrote: »

But change doesn't have to mean a change in the law, as Cullen's inquiry shows; it can just mean an increase in resources to the police to enforce the existing laws.

And I'm more than happy with a increase in police resources, that doesn't mean other changes can't be made, like ensuring all private sales are conducted via licensed firearms dealers with mandatory background checks. Would you be against this?

Sparks wrote: »

In Dunblane's case, that would have prevented the atrocity completely.

I thought he was going to build a bomb?

Sparks wrote: »

In this case, maybe, maybe not; but it's hard to tell how you can draft any law that would address the specific issue in this case given the US legal framework.

In this case it's hard to say what could have been done. I'm no expert and I don't have all the answers.

Seeing as I've clarified that I'm not looking for a total ban on guns, can we at at least agree that more effective gun control laws are not a bad thing? For instance, surely we can see the benefit of mandatory background checks for private sales? So long as we can agree on that then I'm bowing out, as I tend to leave these long drawn out multiquote debates to other more patient people than me.

rockonollie · 21-12-2012 03:27PM

seamus wrote: »

Carrying a concealed weapon in public while going about your business would be the considered the actions of a complete nutjob, someone who is so paranoid, unstable and dangerous that they felt the need to carry it.

But it's not the actions of a complete nutjob, when it's in a country when every would-be mugger and pickpocket has a weapon. It's extremely rare in a robbery situation in Ireland that a gun is produced (muggings not bank/shop robberies) But in the US, almost all of them involve a gun.

rockonollie · 21-12-2012 03:29PM

It's sad that the events in Newtown and the ensuing gun control debate have gun sales at record highs. The AR-15 and other assault style rifles, as well as high capacity magazines have sold out in stores across the country because of fear that they will be banned. Gun stores are selling their stock and refusing to put things on back order because they are almost certain that the guns won't be available in the new year.

joseph brand · 21-12-2012 03:33PM

Sparks wrote: »

wouldn't you prefer everyone in the US who was worried about gun violence to buy body armour instead of a gun?

There would be no need for body armour, (like here in Ireland) if there were no weapon supermarkets.

Are you saying, that the solution is for everyone to dress like a SWAT team member, instead of just losing this silly idea that guns are necessary for normal life in a civilised country?

The pro-gun side is made up of vested interests (gun manufacturers and sellers) and scared citizens.

Every country has people who have mental health issues. I wonder what happens when a country is flooded with handguns, shotguns, rifles, semi and fully automatics? It's not rocket science.

rockonollie · 21-12-2012 03:34PM

Well some are now sending their kids to school with bulletproof disney pirncess backpacks.

http://now.msn.com/bulletproof-backpacks-increase-in-sales-after-newtown-shootings?ocid=ansnow11

joseph brand · 21-12-2012 03:40PM

Here's a douchebag pastor talking about gun control.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufn_IqjVb7U

“We get all up in arms about 20 children being shot in a day care but we don’t give one good-glory rip about the 4,000 that were removed violently from the wombs of their mothers [in abortion procedures] the same day,” he explained. “I believe they use children and Christmas and all that to pull on our heart strings about gun control. That’s what it’s all about.”

Morris asserted that equal rights was a “sham” because it’s “equal immorality” and that authorities should take the body of the suspected shooter, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, “and string him up in public and set his body on fire and leave it out there to let the birds pick his bones.”

Story here:

There's nobody understands 'control' like a baptist pastor with his own 'flock'.

Jesus was all about guns.

Can I get an "AMEN?"

Sycopat · 21-12-2012 03:42PM

It'd be interesting to know the thoughts of the no-action-required people on these.

The last one actually gives me some hope though.:)

quick link to source

rockonollie · 21-12-2012 03:46PM

Sycopat wrote: »

It'd be interesting to know the thoughts of the no-action-required people on these.

The last one actually gives me some hope though.:)

quick link to source

And it will only get worse now that people are stockpiling the weapons that are expected to be banned......our local news yesterday found someone who had bought 8 AR-15s......surely he and others who bought like him, intend to sell them at a profit if/when they are banned.

Manic Moran · 21-12-2012 05:50PM

Because, by choosing to own and keep such a weapon, you become part of a culture of gun approval, which legitimizes and normalizes the use of such weapons. So, yes, keeping such a weapon means that you have done something wrong.

With respect, you missed out a few qualifiers. I am a part of a culture of responsible gun approval, in that my firearms are used for legal purposes only, and used in accordance with standard best practices of firearm safety. I like a drink as well, but am not responsible for domestic violence caused in drunken stupors, or drink driving accidents.

joseph brand wrote: »

I remember after the Aurora massacre, some idiot had a brain fart on a forum. He wondered why there weren't other 'armed' cinema goers, because, in his mind, they could have stopped the guy, covered head-to-toe in bullet-proof clothing.

Contrary to earlier reports, he was not. Turned out he was wearing a load bearing vest, not an armoured vest.

Yes. Some folks over there believe the solution is more guns. He saw it as a pity, that there wasn't a shoot-out in the cinema

He was incorrect. There was a shootout in the cinema, just the bullets were going one way. Return fire wouldn't have made it any worse for anyone else, they were already in mass panic and whether they lived or died was pretty much up to fate as it was, or at least the choice of an individual trying to kill the patrons and undistracted by another with a means to annoy him.

joseph brand wrote: »

I knew you'd be in this thread somewhere. I suppose it's good to have an NRA spokesperson here to tell the other side. Regardless of how crazy it is.

I haven't gone through the thread, but I'm going to wager that you've already mentioned how you need handguns, rifles, shotguns and M16's to protect your home. (their must be an invading army of zombies or something?)

If you are not prepared for the zombie apocalypse,well, it's your brains.... Even the CDC has suggested making such preparations.
http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/zombies.htm

MadsL · 21-12-2012 06:24PM

Just a few comments on the infographic.

Here is the source for fact 1
Table 10 of http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf

Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms .....11,493 or 31.5 a day.

This would include justifiable homicide (shootings by police) and self defence, as the codings used are ICD–10, a standard medical coding system for healthcare that wil become mandatory in 2013.

To put that figure in context:
67 people die in the US every day through alcohol related causes.

A 2000 Institute of Medicine report estimated that medical errors are estimated to result in about between 44,000 and 98,000 preventable deaths. Or between 120 and 268 a day preventable deaths.

Texting whist driving is estimated to cause 69 deaths per day.

Fact 2
46,000 deaths over four years.
In the same period, 29,856 will die of Clostridium difficile a hospital superbug. Largely preventable by medical staff washing their hands

Fact 3, Fact 4
Misquotes the source https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221074.pdf
30%-40% are private sales.
Private sellers are not required by federal law to conduct background checks, they are still barred from selling guns to any person they know to be, or
have reason to believe may be, a prohibited purchaser.

The American public overwhelmingly supports universal background checks. According to a January 2011 poll commissioned by the Mayors Against Illegal Guns, 86 percent of Americans – and 81 percent of gun owners – support requiring all gun buyers to pass a background check, no matter where they buy the gun and no matter who they buy it from.

One of the recommended actions in the source is "SOLUTION TWO: THE ATF SHOULD ENFORCE EXISTING GUN LAWS" Well, duh.

Fact 5
The source of half of those illegally obtained weapons was a family member of friend. Whilst still technically illegal to supply a family member, the infographic misrepresents the scale of the criminal "underground" market by 100%.

Fact 6
Trafficking livestock is a serious crime in America (if you consider its history you will understand why). Introducing mad cow disease to stocks through Criminal Mischief (rustling) in Texas is a first degree felony.

If the penalty is the same then you are looking at 5-10 years inside.
http://www.justice.gov/usao/ut/psn/documents/guncard.pdf

STATUTE-
Whoever transports in interstate or foreign commerce any
livestock, knowing the same to have been stolen, shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C113.txt

Fact 7
and 38 of the 61 mass shooters in the past three decades “displayed signs of mental health problems prior to the killings.”

Fact 8
The very title of this statistic includes suicides and accidental deaths "Homicide, suicide, and unintentional firearm fatality".

Fact 9
The non-firearm homicide rate is also five times the European level. Could it be that Americans are simply more violent?

Fact 10
Was this ever an argument. Of course responsible gun owners support background checks. They also presumably want law enforcement to enforce the law.

robindch · 21-12-2012 06:36PM

The New York Times on The NRA Protection Racket:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/the-nra-protection-racket.html

New York Times wrote:

FOR years, protection rackets dominated dangerous urban neighborhoods. Shop owners and residents lived in relative security only by paying off or paying homage to organized criminals or corrupt cops. Anyone who dared to stand up to these “protectors” would not be around for long.

The Republican Party — once a proud bastion of civic and business leaders who battled Southern racism, Northern corruption and the evils of big government — has for the past several decades been itself the victim of political protection rackets. These rackets are orchestrated by fringe groups with extremist views on social issues, which Republican politicians are forced to support even if they are unpopular with intelligent, economically successful and especially female voters. Their influence was already clear by the time I joined the Bush White House staff in 2005, and it has only increased in the years since.

The most blatant protection racket is orchestrated by the National Rifle Association, which is ruthless against candidates who are tempted to stray from its view that all gun regulations are pure evil. Debra Maggart, a Republican leader in the Tennessee House of Representatives, was one of its most recent victims. The N.R.A. spent around $100,000 to defeat her in the primary, because she would not support a bill that would have allowed people to keep guns locked in their cars on private property without the property owner’s consent.

The message to Republicans is clear: “We will help you get elected and protect your seat from Democrats. We will spend millions on ads that make your opponent look worse than the average holdup man robbing a liquor store. In return, we expect you to oppose any laws that regulate guns. These include laws requiring handgun registration, meaningful background checks on purchasers, limiting the right to carry concealed weapons, limiting access to semiautomatic weapons or anything else that would diminish the firepower available to anybody who wants it. And if you don’t comply, we will load our weapons and direct everything in our arsenal at you in the next Republican primary.”

For decades, Republican politicians have gone along with this racket, some willingly and others because they know that resisting would be pointless. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the N.R.A. spent almost $19 million in the last federal election cycle. This money is not just spent to beat Democrats but also to beat Republicans who don’t toe the line.

But the last election showed the costs to Republicans of succumbing to the N.R.A. and to other groups with extremist views on issues like homosexuality and stem cell research. The fringe groups, drenched with money and the “free speech” that comes with it, have stood firm, and become even more radical, as the population as a whole — including many traditional Republican voters — has moved in the opposite direction.

Gun violence in particular frightens voters in middle- and upper-income suburbs across the country, places like my hometown, Edina, Minn. These areas, once Republican strongholds, still have many voters who are sympathetic to the economic platform of the Republican Party but are increasingly worried about their own safety in a country with millions of unregistered and unregulated guns. Some suburban voters may keep a hunting rifle locked away in a safe place, but few want people bringing semiautomatic weapons into their neighborhoods. They also believe that insane people should not have access to guns.

A few clicks on the N.R.A. Web site lead you to the type of weapons the group wants to protect from regulation. Many are not needed for hunting pheasants or deer. They are used for hunting people. They have firepower unimaginable to the founding fathers who drafted the Second Amendment, firepower that could wipe out an entire kindergarten classroom in a few minutes, as we saw so tragically last week.

This is not the vision of sportsmanship that soccer moms and dads want or will vote for, and they will turn against Republicans because of it. Who worries about the inheritance tax when gun violence may kill off one’s heirs in the second grade?

Republican politicians must free themselves from the N.R.A. protection racket and others like it. For starters, the party establishment should refuse to endorse anyone who runs in a primary with N.R.A. money against a sitting Republican. If the establishment refuses to support Republicans using other Republicans for target practice, the N.R.A. will take its shooting game somewhere else.

Reasonable gun control legislation will then be able to pass Congress and the state legislatures. Next, Republicans should embrace legislation like the proposed American Anti-Corruption Act, which would rid both parties of their dependence on big money from groups like the N.R.A. The Republican Party will once again be proud to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. And voters will go back to feeling that their children are safe, their democracy works, and they will once again consider voting Republican.

MadsL · 21-12-2012 06:44PM

Let me just put this here so we don't make the silly error of equating the NRA with 100% of gun owners.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/national-rifle-association-nra-statistics/

4.3m members of NRA

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_owners_are_there_in_the_United_States_of_America

43-55 million gun owning households.

The NRA does not represent the majority of the gun-owning population by any stretch, at best 10%.

robindch · 21-12-2012 07:05PM

MadsL wrote: »

The NRA does not represent the majority of the gun-owning population by any stretch, at best 10%.

According to the NRA, there's around 300m guns held by around 80m citizens, with the NRA membership at 4m, so the NRA membership is perhaps 5% of gun-owners and around 1% of the nation at large.

However, I've yet to hear any gun owner voice an opinion which is different in any significant way from NRA policy.

Do any of the gun-owners here have opinions that do differ in any significant way? I'd be intrigued to hear.

MadsL · 21-12-2012 07:14PM

robindch wrote: »

According to the NRA, there's around 300m guns held by around 80m citizens, with the NRA membership at 4m, so the NRA membership is perhaps 5% of gun-owners and around 1% of the nation at large.

However, I've yet to hear any gun owner voice an opinion which is different in any significant way from NRA policy.

Do any of the gun-owners here have opinions that do differ in any significant way? I'd be intrigued to hear.

The millions of gun owners that didn't vote for Romney perhaps?

robindch · 21-12-2012 07:15PM

robindch wrote: »

I look forward to the NRA's news event tomorrow and the nature of their contribution intended to "help make sure this never happens again".

Ah, here we go. The NRA wants lethal weapons to be deployed at every school in the country.

http://www.thejournal.ie/nra-the-only-thing-that-stops-a-bad-guy-with-a-gun-is-a-good-guy-with-a-gun-726956-Dec2012/

TheJournal wrote:

THE UNITED STATES’ powerful pro-gun lobbying group, the National Rifle Association, has called for armed police or security guards to be deployed to every school in the country.

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” declared NRA vice-president Wayne LaPierre, in the group’s first public reaction since last week’s massacre of 26 children and staff in an elementary school.

In a combative statement that was briefly disrupted by two protesters bearing banners accusing the group of having blood on its hands, senior NRA leaders made no concession to calls for greater gun control.

Instead, they demanded that schools be immediately given armed protection.
“I call on Congress today to act immediately to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every single school in this nation,” LaPierre said, in a lengthy statement. He took no questions from reporters.

He said the NRA was ready to help train security teams for schools and work with teachers and parents to improve security measures, and attacked the media and the political class for demonising gun owners.

robindch · 21-12-2012 07:17PM

MadsL wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

Do any of the gun-owners here have opinions that do differ in any significant way (from the NRA)?

The millions of gun owners that didn't vote for Romney perhaps?

Should I take that as a "No"?

The Black Oil · 21-12-2012 07:23PM

That's their meaningful contribution...OK.

MadsL · 21-12-2012 07:25PM

Jesus. Over-reaction much.

My wife met with a security team at a major hospital (half million urban area) with the 8th highest crime rate in the country. The team had 8 injuries last year. Twisted ankles, twists and falls durin patient takedowns.

The team is unarmed because they are physical restraining team for the hospital.

You asked for a point of difference with the NRA, looks like we found one.

Armed security guards in schools is a massive waste of resources.

MadsL · 21-12-2012 07:28PM

robindch wrote: »

Should I take that as a "No"?

More of your logic fails.

The NRA do not speak for the majority of gunowners because the overwhelming majority of gunowners do not belong to the NRA. Do you dispute that?

Or do all farmers wives have the same views as the ICWA in your mind?

robindch · 21-12-2012 07:35PM

MadsL wrote: »

More of your logic fails.

MadsL wrote: »

The NRA do not speak for the majority of gunowners because the overwhelming majority of gunowners do not belong to the NRA. Do you dispute that?

Nope. If you read my post, you'll see that I clarified your figures and agreed with your conclusion.

What I am trying to find out is whether your opinion differs in any significant way from NRA policy.

You don't need to be a member of the NRA to agree with them in general terms.

MadsL · 21-12-2012 07:39PM

robindch wrote: »

:)Nope. If you read my post, you'll see that I clarified your figures and agreed with your conclusion.

What I am trying to find out is whether your opinion differs in any significant way from NRA policy.

You don't need to be a member of the NRA to agree with them in general terms.

I'm not going to trawl through lengthy NRA policy documents in order to satisfy your curiosity. If you would like to post a set of NRA policy positions, I'll tell you if I agree with them or not.

I've already made it clear I would not join the NRA with a gun to my head (pardon the pun)

Sycopat · 21-12-2012 07:42PM

Cheers MadsL, thanks for your comments.

MadsL wrote: »

Just a few comments on the infographic.

Here is the source for fact 1
Table 10 of http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf

Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms .....11,493 or 31.5 a day.

This would include justifiable homicide (shootings by police) and self defence, as the codings used are ICD–10, a standard medical coding system for healthcare that wil become mandatory in 2013.

It's still a lot isn't it? Homicide of any type is generally not a common cause of death outside of war.

To put that figure in context:
67 people die in the US every day through alcohol related causes.

A 2000 Institute of Medicine report estimated that medical errors are estimated to result in about between 44,000 and 98,000 preventable deaths. Or between 120 and 268 a day preventable deaths.

Texting whist driving is estimated to cause 69 deaths per day.

Fact 2
46,000 deaths over four years.
In the same period, 29,856 will die of Clostridium difficile a hospital superbug. Largely preventable by medical staff washing their hands

I don't know what it's like in the US, but there are constant awareness campaigns in europe against all of these example risk factors, as well as ever increasing legislation.

I would assume there is the same in the US, but may be wrong. My point is that in each of these example area's: hospital hygiene, texting while driving, I'm assuming drunk driver fatalities are included in the alcohol stat (may be wrong, but responsible drinking is also a common public awareness theme so it doesn't make a difference) there are attempts being made to reduce the amount of deaths caused by these risk factors.

Why is it suggesting the similar increases in controls and personal responsibility with guns and we get pages of hyperbole about trying to ban guns?

Fact 3, Fact 4
Misquotes the source https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221074.pdf
30%-40% are private sales.
Private sellers are not required by federal law to conduct background checks, they are still barred from selling guns to any person they know to be, or
have reason to believe may be, a prohibited purchaser.

That's just fact 3, and it's not actually wrong is it? So it's not a misquote. Up to 40% of sales are not required to conduct background checks. Seems straightforward.

The American public overwhelmingly supports universal background checks. According to a January 2011 poll commissioned by the Mayors Against Illegal Guns, 86 percent of Americans – and 81 percent of gun owners – support requiring all gun buyers to pass a background check, no matter where they buy the gun and no matter who they buy it from.

All this tells me is that private internet gun sellers have a different opinion to that of the average gun owner. I would have suspected that anyway.

Fact 5
The source of half of those illegally obtained weapons was a family member of friend. Whilst still technically illegal to supply a family member, the infographic misrepresents the scale of the criminal "underground" market by 100%.

I honestly didn't know you needed a licence to be a secondary market seller.

Also, and more importantly, why do you think getting something from a family member or friend makes it less wrong? Most people I know who do drugs get theirs from family members or friends.

Fact 6
Trafficking livestock is a serious crime in America (if you consider its history you will understand why). Introducing mad cow disease to stocks through Criminal Mischief (rustling) in Texas is a first degree felony.

If the penalty is the same then you are looking at 5-10 years inside.
http://www.justice.gov/usao/ut/psn/documents/guncard.pdf

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C113.txt

That's quite good to know thank you.

Fact 7
and 38 of the 61 mass shooters in the past three decades “displayed signs of mental health problems prior to the killings.”

I'm not sure what your point is here. The US approach of restricting health care to the poor, but allowing them guns is working as intended? Or it's also a savage indictment of the US' shi*e public mental health care?

I'll assume the second one on that. But if you've got too many crazy people to deal with, shouldn't you be trying to keep them away from guns?

And the US does not have a monopoly on crazy.

Fact 8
The very title of this statistic includes suicides and accidental deaths "Homicide, suicide, and unintentional firearm fatality".

And that makes it okay that the US is so much worse than the rest of them that it leaves them with an average of less than 1% of the total each?

Fact 9
The non-firearm homicide rate is also five times the European level. Could it be that Americans are simply more violent?

I think it's fair to say americans are more violent, but if they are five times more violent than Europeans, why do guns make them four times more violent again?

Fact 10
Was this ever an argument. Of course responsible gun owners support background checks. They also presumably want law enforcement to enforce the law.

Are they willing to pay for it? Law enforcement isn't cheap and americans are notoriously shy of paying taxes.

And using this as the criteria to decide on the rate of 'responsible gun ownership' as you've just done would indicate that roughly 1 in 5 american gun owners are irresponsible.

That's actually a scarily high number.

Sparks · 21-12-2012 08:12PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

I'm not saying the police are not to blame here, of course they are as they clearly didn't do their job properly. But the restrictions weren't enough! Were the police obligated to follow up with the gun club?

As far as I know, yes.
I know that the Gardai follow up on the details in our firearms applications (there are a lot of similarities between the UK and Irish systems).
Not just the following up though - they had an officer investigate complaints against Hamilton in '95 and he recommended taking away Hamilton's firearms certificate. As did the local Child Protection Officer.
At some point you have to say that the laws are not the problem... and in Hamilton's case I think we went way past that point.

A simple change in gun control in this case that COULD have prevented this from happening was to make people include a copy of their in date, valid, membership card of the gun club and/or an official document from the gun club confirming membership with their application.

Somehow I don't think so.
Seriously, do you know how fast you'd lose your licence in Ireland if a DS was to strongly recommend that you shouldn't have firearms? You'd have the ERU on your doorstep before you could think about it.
But here, they ignored the recommendations. I just don't see how more law would fix this when the existing law would have done exactly what was needed to be done, on three seperate grounds.
Would it matter if it had been five seperate grounds? Ten? Twenty? If the police had followed the law as written, one would have been sufficient.

Yes, they can. There are no federal laws in place to prevent private sales, so long as the buyer and seller are in the same state and the buyer is not mentally ill or a felon.

You're saying they don't both need title III licences?
I doubt that...

And I'm more than happy with a increase in police resources, that doesn't mean other changes can't be made, like ensuring all private sales are conducted via licensed firearms dealers with mandatory background checks. Would you be against this?

In principle no; in practice, it would depend on the details; and in reality I'm Irish and have no voice nor vote in US domestic policy...

I thought he was going to build a bomb?

That's what the psychologists said; Cullen was considering what would have happened had his licence been pulled.

Seeing as I've clarified that I'm not looking for a total ban on guns, can we at at least agree that more effective gun control laws are not a bad thing?

They're not a bad thing; but it's not obvious that we don't have them (as to the US, that's another thing, but if all it would have taken to prevent Sandy Hook was a combination gunsafe being used, I'm not sure that legal reform is going to cut it. How would you enforce that gunsafe being used? You might be able to do what we do in Ireland and arrange for mandatory purchase and initial inspection and subsequent random inspections (but the legal changes needed for that are going to be huge) -- but all it takes is for one person to say "ah, who cares" and you've got a problem and you won't know it, you'll be thinking you're safe because of the changes.

For instance, surely we can see the benefit of mandatory background checks for private sales?

Yup, but how you do them would take some thought. Are you giving a random stranger access to your background check? Or are you talking about a service where you ring up, give a name and get a yes/no answer? (And how do you appeal that if you think your record is unfairly incorrect?)

It's a nice idea; making it work would probably be more work than you'd think.

Sparks · 21-12-2012 08:15PM

joseph brand wrote: »

Are you saying, that the solution is for everyone to dress like a SWAT team member, instead of just losing this silly idea that guns are necessary for normal life in a civilised country?

So... not going to answer the question then?

MadsL · 21-12-2012 08:15PM

Sycopat wrote: »

Cheers MadsL, thanks for your comments.

Thank you for your response - very even-handed

It's still a lot isn't it? Homicide of any type is generally not a common cause of death outside of war.

It is never going to be zero, Scotland runs a 2.6 per 100,000 thousand homicide rate. Incidentally 42% of Irish homicides involve a firearm.

I don't know what it's like in the US, but there are constant awareness campaigns in europe against all of these example risk factors, as well as ever increasing legislation.

And we could do with some better awareness campaigns on gun safety. Accidental deaths are far too high, and preventable.

I would assume there is the same in the US, but may be wrong. My point is that in each of these example area's: hospital hygiene, texting while driving, I'm assuming drunk driver fatalities are included in the alcohol stat (may be wrong, but responsible drinking is also a common public awareness theme so it doesn't make a difference) there are attempts being made to reduce the amount of deaths caused by these risk factors.

I'm yet to see a 'lock up your guns' campaign or reinforcement of gun safety rules on TV. Pity, as the texting campaigns do seem to be working.

Why is it suggesting the similar increases in controls and personal responsibility with guns and we get pages of hyperbole about trying to ban guns?

Probably because argument tend to polarise. You saw similar hyperbole when the lower drink drive limit was introduced and the smoking ban was going to close every pub in Ireland.

That's just fact 3, and it's not actually wrong is it? So it's not a misquote. Up to 40% of sales are not required to conduct background checks. Seems straightforward.

A minor thing, but selecting the higher figure shows the bias.

All this tells me is that private internet gun sellers have a different opinion to that of the average gun owner. I would have suspected that anyway.

And all of this could be prevented by enforcing existing laws.

I honestly didn't know you needed a licence to be a secondary market seller.

That is not what I'm implying, I'm pointing out that supplying unsuitable persons even if hey are family members is already a crime.

Also, and more importantly, why do you think getting something from a family member or friend makes it less wrong? Most people I know who do drugs get theirs from family members or friends.

Because it overstates the size of a more organised underground market. A bit like quoting the homicide rate including suicide, makes it seem scarier.

That's quite good to know thank you.

*tips Stetson* 'welcome...

I'm not sure what your point is here. The US approach of restricting health care to the poor, but allowing them guns is working as intended? Or it's also a savage indictment of the US' shi*e public mental health care?

Yes it is a savage indictment, and a factor our 'fact' maker chooses to ignore.

I'll assume the second one on that. But if you've got too many crazy people to deal with, shouldn't you be trying to keep them away from guns?

And that is the purpose of the background checks supported by the vast majority of gun owners

And the US does not have a monopoly on crazy.

No, sadly it doesn't. But we do crazy very well here.

And that makes it okay that the US is so much worse than the rest of them that it leaves them with an average of less than 1% of the total each?

Sorry. I'm not sure what you mean by this - could you clarify.

I think it's fair to say americans are more violent, but if they are five times more violent than Europeans, why do guns make them four times more violent again?

Do you think choice of weapon makes you "more violent", once you cross the line and decide to kill someone it is pretty binary on the violent/not violent scale. Do you think homicides with guns are somehow "more violent?"

Are they willing to pay for it? Law enforcement isn't cheap and americans are notoriously shy of paying taxes.

I don't know. Given we are going over a fiscal cliff because of Tea Party asshats at the moment, I doubt it will go without massive scrutiny.

And using this as the criteria to decide on the rate of 'responsible gun ownership' as you've just done would indicate that roughly 1 in 5 american gun owners are irresponsible.

Please. That is a logical sleight of hand, just because 1 in 5 american gun owners do not support private sales background checks does not make them irresponsible. Selling your shotgun to your hunting rifle to your hunting buddy you have know for years would be one of the cases I suspect those owners would not see the need for background checks. There are other concerns about increasing the cost to gun owners of ownership and transfers.

That's actually a scarily high number.

No. It isn't. Like most survey statistics it depends how you phrase the question.

If I were to ask "should we restrict the internet?" You would get one figure.
"should we restrict the internet in order to restrict access to child porn?" would get another.

I am very skeptical of surveys for precisely this reason.

Sparks · 21-12-2012 08:21PM

robindch wrote: »

Do any of the gun-owners here have opinions that do differ in any significant way? I'd be intrigued to hear.

Most of the gun-owners here are probably Irish, which would rather skew the results. Perhaps if you narrowed the pool to American gun-owners here?

MadsL · 21-12-2012 08:22PM

Folks, I'm going to bow out at this point and call it enough. It's the Friday before Christmas ffs...go enjoy your families and friends and be thankful they are safe.

Peace everyone.

Sparks · 21-12-2012 08:25PM

robindch wrote: »

Ah, here we go. The NRA wants lethal weapons to be deployed at every school in the country.

To be honest, if my kid was going to that school and some nutter had just shot the place up and the news networks were glorifying it the way they always do, triggering copycat shootings in the process as psychologists have known for years that they do; I'd want a security guard at the school too. I'd want a fecking army unit there. Screw how it looks. It didn't look good after the place was shot up either.

BTW, is it just me or is nobody saying "I expected them to call for arming teachers. The whole armed security guard thing isn't quite so bad - we have them at banks and malls, why not schools?". I mean, it's not the most wild-assed crazy suggestion we've ever heard...

MagicMarker · 21-12-2012 09:03PM

Sparks wrote: »

You're saying they don't both need title III licences?
I doubt that...

Just on this, no, a class 3 license only concerns NFA Firearms such as machine guns/sound suppressors etc.

In most states you don't need any license to purchase a gun, just a background check, unless you're buying privately.

Sparks · 21-12-2012 09:05PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

Just on this, no, a class 3 license only concerns NFA Firearms such as machine guns/sound suppressors etc.

But isn't that what you were talking about?

Gun control in the USA

Comments