Gun Control

Manic Moran · 10-10-2014 1:49am

sin_city wrote: »

How many people own guns there?

Nobody knows, as they're not registered. However, they are the highest per capita for concealed weapons permits, and 7th per capita for new firearm background checks.

sin_city · 10-10-2014 2:31am

Manic Moran wrote: »

Nobody knows, as they're not registered. However, they are the highest per capita for concealed weapons permits, and 7th per capita for new firearm background checks.

And no mass shootings? I guess anyone thinking about doing a mass shooting would think twice there?

Maybe it's the answer??

Black Swan · 10-10-2014 3:39am

Manic Moran wrote: »

Who's been teaching you these things? It, unfortunately, probably wasn't me.

I have many anteater friends that whisper in my ear.

sin_city wrote: »

And no mass shootings? I guess anyone thinking about doing a mass shooting would think twice there?

Maybe it's the answer??

Not sure that arming the population as if it's the old wild west is the solution to mass shootings; rather a serious implementation of the community policing model may work to deter such shootings, and more importantly, crime in general. If community policing was seriously implemented throughout the US, we might not be having this discussion about gun control. It might be moot.

sin_city · 10-10-2014 4:07am

Black Swan wrote: »

Not sure that arming the population as if it's the old wild west is the solution to mass shootings;

Well that's the thing...No one is sure.

Black Swan wrote: »

rather a serious implementation of the community policing model may work to deter such shootings, and more importantly, crime in general.

Well that's the word isn't it "may". What is the crime like in South Dakota for example?

Black Swan wrote: »

If community policing was seriously implemented throughout the US, we might not be having this discussion about gun control. It might be moot.

Might not...then again, we still might be having it.

If guns only were the problem then you'd expect a pretty high number of gun related deaths in Switzerland and Serbia.

Brian? · 10-10-2014 4:15pm

sin_city wrote: »

If guns only were the problem then you'd expect a pretty high number of gun related deaths in Switzerland and Serbia.

Who's saying guns are the only problem? It's too simplistic to say that.

Responsible gun ownership and tighter regulation are part of the solution IMO.

Brian? · 10-10-2014 4:15pm

sin_city wrote: »

And no mass shootings? I guess anyone thinking about doing a mass shooting would think twice there?

Maybe it's the answer??

That's a logical leap too far.

Black Swan · 11-10-2014 3:00am

sin_city wrote: »

Well that's the thing...No one is sure.

"The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people."

I do not believe that guns are the answer, or returning to the old wild west days when almost everyone carried. Given that the US is already the leader in the world for gun ownership, and they still have serious problems, there must be several other viable alternatives (e.g., community policing model, etc., etc.) that would contribute to the solution of this complex problem besides arming every man, woman, and child that could carry of their 300 million plus population.

FISMA · 14-10-2014 10:44pm

Black Swan wrote: »

"The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world

I was under the impression that per capita, Finland and Switzerland have more guns than the US.

I think your stat is taking the total number of guns and dividing by the total number of people which is misleading when quoted as above.

Black Swan wrote: »

... the old wild west days when almost everyone carried.

I think you have fallen to a myth perpetrated by too many Hollywood Westerns. A lot like the myth that the white man killed off all of the Buffalo because he wanted to decimate Indians. Do the math on the buffalo myth, another statistical impossibility.

Guns were not easily affordable in those days and most definitely, the percentage of the population that carried them was not close to a majority.

Manic Moran · 18-10-2014 2:31pm

On CNN today, a ten year old girl who is partaking in a contest involving the top 200 competitive female shooters in the US. Started competition aged 7.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/17/living/10-year-old-competitive-shooter-irpt/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

Black Swan · 19-10-2014 3:47am

The point I was attempting to make was that arming more citizens in the US is probably not the best approach to reducing gun related crime (or crime in general), rather there are other alternatives that may be more effective and efficient if implemented throughout the US. These alternatives may indirectly affect the gun control issue, if they do result in reducing gun related crimes, without impacting on law abiding citizenship rights. Granted, there is no quick fix or silver bullet to the complex problem of gun related crime, but there must be better alternatives than increasing firearms carry (either open or concealed); i.e, more guns in the US is not the answer.

InTheTrees · 19-10-2014 4:42am

Black Swan wrote: »

Granted, there is no quick fix or silver bullet to the complex problem of gun related crime, but there must be better alternatives than increasing firearms carry (either open or concealed); i.e, more guns in the US is not the answer.

Politically americans dont want gun control. They just dont vote for it.

Sure, its probably the massive gun industry lobby groups but it doesn't alter the fact that a politican who campaigns on gun control will lose.

Manic Moran · 19-10-2014 5:00am

Black Swan wrote: »

The point I was attempting to make was that arming more citizens in the US is probably not the best approach to reducing gun related crime (or crime in general), rather there are other alternatives that may be more effective and efficient if implemented throughout the US. These alternatives may indirectly affect the gun control issue, if they do result in reducing gun related crimes, without impacting on law abiding citizenship rights. Granted, there is no quick fix or silver bullet to the complex problem of gun related crime, but there must be better alternatives than increasing firearms carry (either open or concealed); i.e, more guns in the US is not the answer.

It is certainly not the answer for society as a whole, though there is absolutely not a shred of evidence to indicate that it makes matters worse (As the 7th Circuit observed last year when it struck down the last holdout State: If there were any such evidence from the other 49 States, Counsel for Illinois would probably have presented it).

That said, until (if) the monumental, and let's not kid ourselves, here, we're talking about a multi-generational process, change in US values, individual status, etc takes effect to reduce the crime rate, gun related or otherwise, the firearm is merely a tool, the ability of an individual to take care of himself will be very likely to bear upon the answer of 'if it's better to have a firearm carried or not' when that individual is faced, himself, with the crime in question, and not merely as a statistic.

Black Swan · 19-10-2014 3:21pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

It is certainly not the answer for society as a whole...

Exactly my point.

Manic Moran · 19-10-2014 9:15pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Exactly my point.

I would submit that many things are not the answer for society as a whole. For example, we could always try reducing the amount of butter found on cinema popcorn. There's about as much proven correlation between that and crime rate as there is between legalized firearms carriage and crime rate. But you can't defend yourself with popcorn very well while you wait for the successful methods to take effect

Brian? · 20-10-2014 2:40pm

Brian? wrote: »

A register for all owners.
A tracking system for purchasing ammunition.
No concealed carry allowed.
No assault rifles.
Nothing over a .44 caliber unless you are hunting bison/Grizzley bears and have a permit to do so.
All owners must possess a relevant permit. Full FBI background checks for permits at owners cost.

This was my first proposal for a sensible shift in gun control. I'm striking off assault rifles, the debates been done to death here, what harm would any of the rest do to law abiding citizens?

I'm wavering on concealed carry, I'd happily give it up if it got the others through. My gut feeling is that open carry should be a credible alternative.

Manic Moran · 20-10-2014 6:48pm

Register: 1) Not going to happen. Witness previous examples of Canada and California. There will be mass non-compliance, from both criminals, and a significant portion of otherwise law-abiding types. 2) what is the purpose of such a registry? Knowing who has firearms doesn't do much to prevent their misuse even in the unlikely event that a registered firearm is used.
Ammo tracking: Similar question. For all the money and hassle that such a system will take to implement and use, what is the expected benefit? So I go to the range a lot. I buy a thousand rounds of ammo at a time, several times a year. This makes me more or less dangerous than someone who once bought a couple of boxes of fifty a year ago? What are you going to do with this information?
What is the purpose of the calibre limit? If you want to stop people from sniping at extreme range, you want to look at things like .338, which leads to its own problems. And it's not as if $6,000 rifles like the 5-foot-long .50 cal are commonly used in criminal violence, they're a tad impractical.

I'm wavering on concealed carry, I'd happily give it up if it got the others through. My gut feeling is that open carry should be a credible alternative.

This seems to be the route being taken by the courts. Some form of carriage must be permitted, but it is up to the State legislatures to decide if open or concealed is more appropriate for their area. As a general rule, open seems to be more acceptable in rural areas, concealed for urban.

Brian? · 20-10-2014 10:18pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Register: 1) Not going to happen. Witness previous examples of Canada and California. There will be mass non-compliance, from both criminals, and a significant portion of otherwise law-abiding types. 2) what is the purpose of such a registry? Knowing who has firearms doesn't do much to prevent their misuse even in the unlikely event that a registered firearm is used.
Ammo tracking: Similar question. For all the money and hassle that such a system will take to implement and use, what is the expected benefit? So I go to the range a lot. I buy a thousand rounds of ammo at a time, several times a year. This makes me more or less dangerous than someone who once bought a couple of boxes of fifty a year ago? What are you going to do with this information?
What is the purpose of the calibre limit? If you want to stop people from sniping at extreme range, you want to look at things like .338, which leads to its own problems. And it's not as if $6,000 rifles like the 5-foot-long .50 cal are commonly used in criminal violence, they're a tad impractical.

This seems to be the route being taken by the courts. Some form of carriage must be permitted, but it is up to the State legislatures to decide if open or concealed is more appropriate for their area. As a general rule, open seems to be more acceptable in rural areas, concealed for urban.

Any counter proposals? You think the system is fine the way it is?

Manic Moran · 21-10-2014 1:43am

Brian? wrote: »

Any counter proposals? You think the system is fine the way it is?

1) Fund a working (and easily usable) interconnected database system which allows easy entry of information from all competent authorities as regards those who have criminal records and have been judged mentally incompetent to own firearms. Also fund a working and usable method of appealing being on this list. Incorporate into the NICS.

2) Once done, mandate that all sales and transfers outside of intrafamilial ones (eg father-to-son, husband to wife sort of thing) be subjected to an NICS check. Do so by allowing direct access by the transferor to the NICS line. Not by that disaster of a system that was proposed about a year and a half ago which required third parties, record-keeping, et al.

3) Mandatory firearms ed in schools, similar to the way we have mandatory driver's ed and mandatory sex ed. The NRA already offers it for free to any school which requests it, and it's tailored to the various age groups. (So at the youngest level, it's "If you see a gun, don't touch, get an adult").

There are other policy changes I'd make (such as elimination of gun free zones, unless it's enforceable by metal detectors etc. So courthouses, airports et al), but those top three should, I think, go a long way to dealing with the gaps on who gets firearms and how many accidents there are with them.

InTheTrees · 21-10-2014 1:44am

Brian? wrote: »

Any counter proposals? You think the system is fine the way it is?

If you're going to limit the size than a more restricted .38 or 9mm might be better.

Restricting to .44's really only means you'd be banning .45's which isnt much of a difference.

Although all those 1911 owners arent going to give them up so easily.

Black Swan · 21-10-2014 2:26am

InTheTrees wrote: »

If you're going to limit the size than a more restricted .38 or 9mm might be better.

Does this proposed cal/mm size limitation apply to handguns only? If I was hunting a male 680 kg Kodiak bear in Alaska with a bolt action rifle, I would want something with more knockdown power than a small cal/mm. Perhaps a .458 Browning magnum (then again, if he was angry and changing me, I might want to borrow a 120mm from MM

).

All joking aside, I really don't understand how limiting cal/mm size will significantly affect gun related crime in the US. Is there a rigourous empirical study that shows a strong and statistically significant positive relationship between cal/mm size in handguns (and/or larger weapons) and gun related crime?

Brian? · 21-10-2014 2:45pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Does this proposed cal/mm size limitation apply to handguns only? If I was hunting a male 680 kg Kodiak bear in Alaska with a bolt action rifle, I would want something with more knockdown power than a small cal/mm. Perhaps a .458 Browning magnum (then again, if he was angry and changing me, I might want to borrow a 120mm from MM ).

All joking aside, I really don't understand how limiting cal/mm size will significantly affect gun related crime in the US. Is there a rigourous empirical study that shows a strong and statistically significant positive relationship between cal/mm size in handguns (and/or larger weapons) and gun related crime?

As I said, the proposed limitations would have exemptions. To me it's a damage limitation measure, the same way I see assault rifle bans as damage limitation.

If you want to hunt grizzlies, get a licence and off you go.

eire4 · 21-10-2014 8:48pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

1) Fund a working (and easily usable) interconnected database system which allows easy entry of information from all competent authorities as regards those who have criminal records and have been judged mentally incompetent to own firearms. Also fund a working and usable method of appealing being on this list. Incorporate into the NICS.

2) Once done, mandate that all sales and transfers outside of intrafamilial ones (eg father-to-son, husband to wife sort of thing) be subjected to an NICS check. Do so by allowing direct access by the transferor to the NICS line. Not by that disaster of a system that was proposed about a year and a half ago which required third parties, record-keeping, et al.

3) Mandatory firearms ed in schools, similar to the way we have mandatory driver's ed and mandatory sex ed. The NRA already offers it for free to any school which requests it, and it's tailored to the various age groups. (So at the youngest level, it's "If you see a gun, don't touch, get an adult").

There are other policy changes I'd make (such as elimination of gun free zones, unless it's enforceable by metal detectors etc. So courthouses, airports et al), but those top three should, I think, go a long way to dealing with the gaps on who gets firearms and how many accidents there are with them.

On point 3 would I be correct that if my kid did not want to be involved you would say he should be forced to be in a firearms class? I am just checking as I cannot believe your suggesting that kids be forced to take gun classes in school. Not in my opinion what our schools should be spending our resources and time on educationally.

InTheTrees · 21-10-2014 11:31pm

Black Swan wrote: »

All joking aside, I really don't understand how limiting cal/mm size will significantly affect gun related crime in the US. Is there a rigourous empirical study that shows a strong and statistically significant positive relationship between cal/mm size in handguns (and/or larger weapons) and gun related crime?

I agree. I was just trying to add something to his argument. Give him some ammunition as it were...

You cant get a handgun bigger than a .22 in Ireland can you?

InTheTrees · 21-10-2014 11:38pm

Brian? wrote: »

If you want to hunt grizzlies, get a licence and off you go.

Yikes. No. I dont think you can hunt grizzlies.

Manic Moran · 22-10-2014 1:04am

eire4 wrote: »

On point 3 would I be correct that if my kid did not want to be involved you would say he should be forced to be in a firearms class? I am just checking as I cannot believe your suggesting that kids be forced to take gun classes in school. Not in my opinion what our schools should be spending our resources and time on educationally.

I see no reason it should be taken any differently to the other forms of class. For example, here in California, parents may choose to opt out of their children taking sex ed or HIV/AIDS prevention, but may not opt out of any other course of instruction, such as diversity/tolerance (eg LGBTQ) courses. Each State takes its own position on such matters.

I would not personally mandate that you have your child attend such a course of instruction on firearm safety, though I would strongly encourage you not to opt out on it. This is the US, firearms are not uncommon, and it's better to have some knowledge and respect for the things before their first learning experience is if they happen to come across one at a friend's house.

Black Swan · 22-10-2014 2:07am

Brian? wrote: »

If you want to hunt grizzlies, get a licence and off you go.

InTheTrees wrote: »

Yikes. No. I dont think you can hunt grizzlies.

The Kodiak bear population is managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, it is not an endangered species, and has evidenced population growth recently. ADFG issues about 496 permits and 180 bears are killed per year. If you are not a resident of Alaska, only the rich can afford the required professional guide fee of $10,000 to $21,000 USD per hunt.

Brian? · 22-10-2014 11:20am

Black Swan wrote: »

The Kodiak bear population is managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, it is not an endangered species, and has evidenced population growth recently. ADFG issues about 496 permits and 180 bears are killed per year. If you are not a resident of Alaska, only the rich can afford the required professional guide fee of $10,000 to $21,000 USD per hunt.

I wonder how they taste. Black bear is delicious.

Brian? · 22-10-2014 11:21am

InTheTrees wrote: »

I agree. I was just trying to add something to his argument. Give him some ammunition as it were...

You cant get a handgun bigger than a .22 in Ireland can you?

I think you can get whatever you want, once a Garda Superintendent signs off on it. But I'm not too sure.

Black Swan · 22-10-2014 8:21pm

Brian? wrote: »

To me it's a damage limitation measure, the same way I see assault rifle bans as damage limitation.

Personally, I do not feel that US citizens need assault rifles or fully automatic weapons for hunting or self defense, although there have been arguments for sport that perhaps should be considered. But I find no merit in right-to-bear-arms arguments that are grounded on the possibility of overthrowing a dysfunctional US government someday, and even less merit in using a "Red Dawn" defense argument against invading armies.

The flip side argument suggests that law abiding citizens need less regulation, not more, and gun control is just another way to erode citizenship rights. Why should law abiding citizens lose their rights due to a small minority of criminals? I do see some merit in this argument.

eire4 · 22-10-2014 8:36pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

I see no reason it should be taken any differently to the other forms of class. For example, here in California, parents may choose to opt out of their children taking sex ed or HIV/AIDS prevention, but may not opt out of any other course of instruction, such as diversity/tolerance (eg LGBTQ) courses. Each State takes its own position on such matters.

I would not personally mandate that you have your child attend such a course of instruction on firearm safety, though I would strongly encourage you not to opt out on it. This is the US, firearms are not uncommon, and it's better to have some knowledge and respect for the things before their first learning experience is if they happen to come across one at a friend's house.

So your not saying you would force my kid to undertake a firearms class is that correct? I think that is what your saying but not 100% sure.

You are ok it would seem with spending school time and resources on firearms classes though which I strongly disagree with. If you want to take your kid to some kind of firearms class or course on your own time on your own resources that is up to you. But I think to use the time and resources of our schools for such activity is a poor use of our schools.

Gun Control

Comments