Gun Violence and how to address it

Leroy42 wrote: »

As always Manic you are great are pointing at what cannot be done. You are one of those that simply accept the situation for what it is and seem to suggest that nothing can be done. But let us look at some of your 'rebuttals' (and I point out that my list was simply some ideas not meant as the only complete solution)

I am pointing out what can’t be done in response to your list of.. things that can’t be done. It’s politician’s syllogism.

No, not a tax. But if you are out hunting and shoot someone by mistake then your insurance should pay out. If the firearm gets discharged by accident then insurance pays out. Kinda like motor insurance. You know, insurance against something out of the ordinary happens.

Ah.. general and personal liability insurance. Already have it, not related to owning a gun. Or a knife. Or kicking a brick. Comes as part of my homeowner’s policy. I think renter’s insurance does something similar. It’s a good idea to have whether you own a gun or not. I don’t need to shoot someone to hurt them.

A tax on ownership? Do you consider the price of a gun to be a tax on ownership? Should every citizen be entitled to free guns. What a ridiculous notion. Gun lovers love bringing the word tax into the debate because it plays to peoples basest hatred of tax.

Well, the reason I use it is that it’s the position of the courts in the US. It doesn’t matter if it’s not a tax, the government cannot regulate by fee or penalty what it cannot regulate by tax, and Constitutional rights cannot be regulated by tax. It’s not that you can’t tax them, you can get sales tax on a gun, newspaper etc, but it cannot be done to a regulatory purpose. Additional expenses such as fees may be levied only to the extent that they are reasonable to the costs incurred in the processing.

The matter of minimum pricing for guns has been a bit controversial, given that laws to prevent “Saturday night specials” (I.e. cheap guns often used in criminal activity) also place firearms out of the reach of those often most in need of them, the poor who live in high crime areas. So, no, I don’t think I would advocate for a free gun to everyone, but neither would I support additional financial barriers to ownership.

So, bring in another ban without the laws. Trump got knocked back a few times on his Muslim ban so he simply rewrote it a bit.

Whilst still remaining within the Constitutional limits and being enforceable.

Cigarette advertising is limited, so under what logic would guns not be?

According to the judge in the linked case, the difference is that cigarette smoking is not a Constituionally protected activity.

No advertising in places where kids are, before the watershed etc.

OK. I’ll stipulate that that is likely feasible. Given, however, I don’t see gun advertising on TV anyway except on specialist channels, or by schools, it strikes me as a feel good law with little practical benefit.

Then over time increase it. Gun stores to only have a name sign at the front etc.

Such a limit is explicitly prohibited by the court. Tracy Rifle and Pistol was a gun shop which wanted to put signs out front saying they sold pistols. Court did not limit its ruling to the premises and similarly said billboard advertising elsewhere was also protected.

What if there isn't a football stadium, or horseriding facilities or swimming pool or hospital? Seriously, either open up a gun club or move. Where in the constitution does it state that the person must live within a certain distance of anything?

The Seventh Circuit court of Appeals would have a word with you, see Ezell vs a City of Chicago where the matter of reasonable access to a firearms range was discussed. Membership of a club is not a pre-requisite to engage in target practice. (The N.Y. Rifle and Pistol Case which was argued in front of SCOTUS last month also touches upon the matter of proximity, though that is not the root matter). Neither, in the US, is it necessary to practice on a public range. You can shoot in your back yard if the local ordinances (and safety) permit it. You may also create a club without a range.

Of course it will be questionable, unless a standard is agreed. Let's say 10 bullets. If you need more than 10 bullets to defend yourself you are either a terrible shot or the trouble is far more than a simple robbery. Firefights? This is supposed to be about defence. Scare off would be attackers until you can get away.

I would restate to the honorable gentleman my earlier comment about not having a clue about how firefights work, and the counter-examples mentioned by the court in its ruling. One round makes a firefight, and your object is not to scare off attackers, it is to ensure your safety.

But it would limit the vast majority of "I just want something for defence of my home' types to buy standard and thus reduce the problem. Over time it becomes the norm.

An impractical norm. Yes, I own 5, 6, or 7 magazines. However, I don’t go around with them. I don’t sleep with a bandolier of magazines in the safe next to my bed. The one magazine which is in my pistol is all I get to last however long it takes.

Of course, there is nothing to stop me from going in to multiple shops, or stockpiling. But most people simply don't bother. They buy when they need it, maybe a box just in case, but thats it.

I suspect one would find that a box of 50 paracetamol will last you a tad longer than a box of 50 rounds of 9mm. With one exception (Vegas), no mass shooter has expended more than 200 rounds, (OK, Cho fired 213 or so) and mass shootings are a pretty rare event in the US compared to all other homicides in any case. 200 rounds is barely a fun bit of plinking in the desert. No reasonable artificial limit is going to have an effect on any crimes, and as to said yourself, if someone wants to stockpile, be they of good intent or ill, it won’t stop them either. So why bother adding a law which wont’t do any good?

If you really wanted to keep track, then every box should have a unique serial number, and to buy a box you need to produce your gun licence, with your membership number.

California is doing something like that now. 60,000 people have been denied ammunition due to government error, 100 people legitimately were denied. (And probably just went elsewhere). And then what would you do with a serial number? Solve crimes? History shows that such ideas don’t. Firstly, look at the ballistics database Maryland tried. And subsequently abandoned as a useless waste of money. Then consider the matter of reloading ammunition.

You you rather that people own guns without any need to know how to use them or care for them? Don't you think driving licences are a good idea? You are testing to make sure that if the unfortunate times comes when the gun needs to be used, the owner knows how to do it safely. Not wild shots going everywhere. That they show an understanding of gun safety, gun maintenance etc. Of course it needs to be combined with education, and so we are back to gun clubs!

You seem to have a rather romantic view of either the difficulties on the range, or the applicability of range scores to actual use. Gun safety is basically four rules. To buy a gun in California, you have to demonstrate safe handling practices, basic mechanical knowledge and operation. If you have never handled a firearm before, I’ll give you a 50-50 chance of passing it. They are such simple devices. Then, when it comes to actually shooting at someone, range scores often go out the window where even trained personnel will miss more times than they hit, no matter how they score on paper. (Which goes back to magazine capacity)

What is the purpose for in vehicles? It to create a disincentive. Are you really going to bother buying a mod, attaching and removing it? Of course certain people will, just as certain people derestrict their motorbikes and cars, but the vast majority won't bother. And then where are you going to buy it. Legit shops won't sell them as they are illegal. So now you are forced onto the black market. Are you really going to become a criminal just to get a modification? And you do you tell about your new mod?

Well, if you want the vehicle analogy, you have just changed the parameters from “no mods” to “not certain mods”. It is already illegal for me, for example, to modify one of my rifles to become a machine gun. The parts to do so are strictly regulated and sellers will not sell you one without appropriate paperwork. However, my changing the trigger pull is closer to my changing the handle on a manual transmission. I’m sure nobody minds if you stick a spoiler on your car, change your wheel rims, or upgrade our brakes? Most “mod” prohibitions tend to be related to horsepower and emissions.
So what is an ‘acceptable’ mod to a firearm? Can I repaint it? Convert to left-handed? Replace the muzzle brake with a flash suppressor? What if the gun is inherently modular and designed to be a “snap together to suit” design such as a SIG P320 or an AR-15?

Well we tried your way of just letting whatever happens happen, and the carnage is the result. SO why not try something else? Of course it needs to be done within the confines of the constitution, but there are always ways.

I never said my way was doing nothing. I just pointed out flaws in your proposal.

You want hand-wave realistic options? Here are some simple ones to start with.

-All firearms sales to go through the NICS, just like dealer transactions do. Enforced by sting operations.
-Mandatory firearms safety training in schools. Just like sex ed or driver’s ed. My daughter may well encounter her first gun outside of my supervision before she is old enough to buy one, waiting for her to buy one before being taught is too late. This is easy, the NRA provides such safety courses free of charge to any schools which request it.
-Issuance of a free pistol safe to every household. My daily carry gun is stored in a lockbox I got for under $30 on Amazon, I’m sure the government could get a bulk discount. Compared to the amount of money we’re spending on other issues, that’s not too much. If you don’t have a pistol, keep your jewelry or passport in it. If you do have a pistol, you’re more likely to use a free safe you have than one you have to buy. It will both reduce accidental injury to children who find one, and also is likely to reduce theft from burglary, which is a not uncommon method for guns to end up in illegal hands.

And, most importantly, work to address the causes of most of the firearms violence in the first place. It’s not mental health, it’s not the ‘gun culture’. Look at who is doing the shooting of others and why. They are generally lower class, often urban poor, frequently members of gangs or other criminal fare, where a man’s worth is less than the snazzy shoes he is wearing or the color of the shirt on the block. Provide possibilities for these people, which is something the government should be doing anyway. And if they achieve that, the firearms violence problem reduces as well. Combine these programs with better policing, both in terms of presence and policies. These are issues which require intelligent and complex solutions, not a handy checklist of laws to pass, many of which will do little.

As an aide, I’m currently in Sweden. As I’m browsing around looking for links to post from American sites, I’m coming across a lot saying “can’t show it to anyone in Europe, we are not GDPR compliant”. Is that something you guys come across a lot, or is it just this topic?