Gun Control

Overheal

josephryan1989 wrote: »

That. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.

Correct. It is a strawman argument from the gun lobby, one which has proven sadly effective at diverting real energy at addressing the violence problems that we have.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Then we need to agree to disagree, and nothing more.

No, we don't. You didn't answer the questions asked because the answers were too uncomfortable.

The vast majority of guns held illegally were bought legally and either sold privately or stolen.

Registering all firearms would stem this flow. It won't reduce the number of guns held illegally right now, but it will stop the number increasing. What's the objection to a federally administered firearms register?

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

The vast majority of guns held illegally were bought legally and either sold privately or stolen.

That's what I said, and selling privately to a criminal is not legal, and no amount of additional gun control will change that.

josephryan1989

Overheal wrote: »

Correct. It is a strawman argument from the gun lobby, one which has proven sadly effective at diverting real energy at addressing the violence problems that we have.

Sorry you misunderstand.

There is not going to be any gun control because:

1) There are already hundreds of millions of guns in circulation.

2) If gun control laws were passed they would be unenforceable without massive bloodshed as the only way to do so would going be door to door with armed cops and soldiers.

3) Crazies and criminals don't obey gun laws because only law abiding people do.

4) Because every sane person in the US knows (1) (2) and (3) this means gun laws are not going to change.

Overheal

josephryan1989 wrote: »

Sorry you misunderstand.



There is not going to be any gun control because:



1) There are already hundreds of millions of guns in circulation.



2) If gun control laws were passed they would be unenforceable without massive bloodshed as the only way to do so would going be door to door with armed cops and soldiers.



3) Crazies and criminals don't obey gun laws because only law abiding people do.



4) Because every sane person in the US knows (1) (2) and (3) this means gun laws are not going to change.

That's horrible, fallible reasoning.


You may as well argue we should have no more immigration controls because illegal immigrants are already here.

In fact each of your 3 points could easily be replaced with immigration/illegal-immigration.

We can say that gun confiscation will not happen because the 2nd amendment would trump it. That does not preclude the ability to enact more gun regulation and oversight, in such ways as firearm registration for instance. That we might not be able to guarantee 100% registration doesn't to me seem like sound enough reasoning not to begin the process of ensuring that all future firearms and as many existing firearms as is feasible get registered.

josephryan1989

Overheal wrote: »

That's horrible, fallible reasoning.


You may as well argue we should have no more immigration controls because illegal immigrants are already here.

Facts don't change because they aren't palatable.

There is literally no way in hell hundreds of millions of people are going to hand in all their hundreds of millions of firearms.
They know there are not enough police or military to enforce the law and they knew there are not enough prisons to hold them if they refuse.
They know public officials, cops and military who own guns themselves are not going to enforce these laws.
They know politicians are not going to risk political suicide by voting in laws that control guns.
They know criminals are not going to obey any law that restricts guns leaving them unarmed and helpless if they are stupid enough to.

Laws that control guns are as useless as laws that prohibit homosexuality, abortion or drugs.

Overheal

You're still arguing a strawman argument.

Nobody has introduced a proposal to confiscate firearms, much less from law abiding owners. But as far as that strawman goes let's just get this out of the way: YOU ARE A WINNER!!!! You're absolutely right, taking away guns would be an unviable solution.

Fortunately, nobody is talking about doing that.

josephryan1989

Overheal wrote: »

You're still arguing a strawman argument.

Nobody has introduced a proposal to confiscate firearms, much less from law abiding owners. But as far as that strawman goes let's just get this out of the way: YOU ARE A WINNER!!!! You're absolutely right, taking away guns would be an unviable solution.

Fortunately, nobody is talking about doing that.

Laws to restrict crazies from getting guns will not do anything to stop them getting their hands on guns.

Overheal

I see you're clearly not interested in having an actual discussion about this.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

That's what I said, and selling privately to a criminal is not legal, and no amount of additional gun control will change that.

All firearms being registered would. A gun turns up in the hands of a criminal and the registered owner is criminally liable.

Overheal

Even if they aren't criminally liable (and maybe they could be on a case by case basis?) I'd still too like to know the paper trail of a weapon involved in a crime, as it would hopefully lead us to some revelations about how these guns are getting around.

josephryan1989

Overheal wrote: »

I see you're clearly not interested in having an actual discussion about this.

You aren't engaging with the obvious fact that homicidal crazies and criminals seek to circumvent laws designed to prevent them getting their hands on guns. The laws will be easily circumvented because of the present ubiquity of firearms in the US and the fact that laws on guns are impossible to enforce for the reasons I already outlined.

josephryan1989

Overheal wrote: »

Even if they aren't criminally liable (and maybe they could be on a case by case basis?) I'd still too like to know the paper trail of a weapon involved in a crime, as it would hopefully lead us to some revelations about how these guns are getting around.

How could they be criminally liable?
How is anyone to blame for the shooting except the shooter himself?
And what would the paper trail reveal?
If the guns were bought from a legal gun dealer or bought second hand from the trunk of a car it tells you nothing.

Overheal

josephryan1989 wrote: »

You aren't engaging with the obvious fact that homicidal crazies and criminals will seek to circumvent laws designed to prevent them getting their hands on guns. The laws will be easily circumvented because of the ubiquity of firearms in the US and the fact that laws on guns are impossible to enforce.

Which for no other category of law has ever served as a justification for not legislating: illegal immigration will still occur in spite of immigration laws. Drunk driving will still occur in the face of DUI laws. Murder will still happen in the face of murder laws. Abortions still happen in areas with restrictions on abortions. Robberies; Rapes; Incest; Hate speech; Acts of terrorism; etcetera etcetera etcetera.

The fact is that mental illness is a diversion: the vast majority of mass killings in the US are not perpetrated by the mentally ill. The mentally ill are more likely to be the victims of violence than the cause of violence.

The ubiquity of firearms is a state of affairs, not an impossible monolith to overcome. For a start, we can begin the process of registering firearms, even if 100% of firearms do not get registered. This is like having processes in place to fingerprint people who are arrested: you would have to also argue that because we can't guarantee 100% of people will ever be fingerprinted, and people who don't have registered prints will commit crimes, or use things like gloves, that we should not be fingerprinting; yet in fact the fingerprint databases are useful tools for law enforcement, I don't think anyone is going to disagree?

And what would the paper trail reveal?
If the guns were bought from a legal gun dealer or bought second hand from the trunk of a car it tells you nothing.

For instance, if guns used in violent crimes are coming disproportionately from specific channels of sale, which could in turn signal the need to review the situation at the point of sale.

how could they be criminally liable?

In the same exact manner as criminal liability for lending out your vehicle: http://thegarage.jalopnik.com/why-you-should-think-twice-before-lending-your-car-to-s-1684911505

josephryan1989

Overheal wrote: »

Which for no other category of law has ever served as a justification for not legislating: illegal immigration will still occur in spite of immigration laws. Drunk driving will still occur in the face of DUI laws. Murder will still happen in the face of murder laws. Abortions still happen in areas with restrictions on abortions. Robberies; Rapes; Incest; Hate speech; Acts of terrorism; etcetera etcetera etcetera.

You are comparing apples with oranges. We need to discuss why some laws work and others do not.

Illegal immigration laws are failing for a number of reasons - the demand for cheap labor, the ideological refusal of many cities authorities in the US to enforce the law against illegal immigration and the complicity of officials and police in ignoring the problem and not enforcing the law. A large proportion of the US population are also opposed to these laws.

Drink driving laws work because police and officialdom are incentivized to enforce the law and drink driving is socially stigmatized. Drink driving laws have the support of the vast majority of the population who obey the law.

The reason abortion laws will not work and never be implemented any time soon is because a large proportion of the population will always support abortion and practice abortion irrespective of the law. To enforce the law would require literally the mass incarceration of millions and since abortion according to the Christian right is murder, the mass execution of millions of people for first degree murder.

Laws against robberies, rapes, incest, hate speech and acts of terrorism will always be illegal because they create universal revulsion and fear.

Laws against guns will not be enforced for the reasons I have already outlined at length in my previous posts.

The fact is that mental illness is a diversion: the vast majority of mass killings in the US are not perpetrated by the mentally ill.

Mental illness is universal to mass shootings which were perpetrated by misfits and outcasts and losers who have mental problems that create their manic isolation, obsession with imagined wrongs and desire for revenge against innocents who are unaware of their paranoid anger.

The ubiquity of firearms is a state of affairs, not an impossible monolith to overcome.

It would be physically impossible to police up hundreds of millions of guns.

For a start, we can begin the process of registering firearms, even if 100% of firearms do not get registered.

You are not living in the real world if you think that millions of Americans will sheepishly register their firearms. There would be mass resistance.

This is like having processes in place to fingerprint people who are arrested:you would have to also argue that because we can't guarantee 100% of people will ever be fingerprinted, and people who don't have registered prints will commit crimes, or use things like gloves, that we should not be fingerprinting; yet in fact the fingerprint databases are useful tools for law enforcement, I don't think anyone is going to disagree?

People who are fingerprinted still commit crimes.
So how would registering guns stop them from being used in crimes?

In the same exact manner as criminal liability for lending out your vehicle: http://thegarage.jalopnik.com/why-you-should-think-twice-before-lending-your-car-to-s-1684911505

In a recent case the parents of a victim of mass shooting in a movie theatre took the gun and ammo dealers to court and lost.

Overheal

josephryan1989 wrote: »

You are comparing apples with oranges. We need to discuss why some laws work and others do not.



Illegal immigration laws are failing for a number of reasons - the demand for cheap labor, the ideological refusal of many cities authorities in the US to enforce the law against illegal immigration and the complicity of officials and police in ignoring the problem and not enforcing the law. A large proportion of the US population are also opposed to these laws.



Drink driving laws work because police and officialdom are incentivized to enforce the law and drink driving is socially stigmatized. Drink driving laws have the support of the vast majority of the population who obey the law.



The reason abortion laws will not work and never be implemented any time soon is because a large proportion of the population will always support abortion and practice abortion irrespective of the law. To enforce the law would require literally the mass incarceration of millions and since abortion according to the Christian right is murder, the mass execution of millions of people for first degree murder.



Laws against robberies, rapes, incest, hate speech and acts of terrorism will always be illegal because they create universal revulsion and fear.



Laws against guns will not be enforced for the reasons I have already outlined at length in my previous posts.

Not following your logic here at all I'm afraid, so I will just leave it at that.

Mental illness is universal to mass shootings which were perpetrated by misfits and outcasts and losers who have mental problems that create their manic isolation, obsession with imagined wrongs and desire for revenge against innocents who are unaware of their paranoid anger.

Mental illness is categorically NOT related to mass shootings, given our criteria for mental illness - in particular, many mass shooters have no documented histories of mental illness; nothing for a 'mental illness background check' to catch. There are other avenues to explore however in our long road to mitigating the frequency and severity of mass shootings. This includes data collection over time that can help us make better projections about future gun crimes, eg. "38% of guns owned/registered to males over 40 will be used in self defense, while guns registered to black women between the ages of 18-30 will only be found in less than 2% of all crimes" etc. without collecting the data though we have no way of knowing, more information never hurt anyone - at least that's what the NSA keeps telling me.

It would be physically impossible to police up hundreds of millions of guns.

As I'm continually saying ad nauseum, nobody is suggesting this at all. Why are you still fighting a strawman?

You are not living in the real world if you think that millions of Americans will sheepishly register their firearms. There would be mass resistance.

We register our cars. We register a lot of our things. I even register my headphones with the manufacturer so I can avail of the warranty. New guns would be registered by default, all guns used in crimes or booked into inventory during arrests would also have their serials identified. Over time, a high percentage of guns would become registered. Not all guns used in all mass killings are illegally obtained, many are lawfully obtained.

People who are fingerprinted still commit crimes.

So how would registering guns stop them from being used in crimes?

Fingerprinting still continues to mitigate the number of crimes that occur, by deterring those who would commit crimes or try to cover something up. Similarly, the introduction of DNA evidence would have had a direct impact on the number of people who thought 'I can get away with murder'. Same for ballistics.

In a recent case the parents of a victim of mass shooting in a movie theatre took the gun and ammo dealers to court and lost.

If we're still equivocating this with cars, that would be like suing the gas station for your car wreck. That is not to say taking a suit against a gun vendor is always going to be fruitless, it just means that in that situation the vendor was found to be not at fault/within the law.

Manic Moran

Brian? wrote: »

All firearms being registered would. A gun turns up in the hands of a criminal and the registered owner is criminally liable.

Given that the only time such a thing has ever been attempted at the national level in North America was Canada, requiring registration of entire classes of weapon starting 1995, and the registry was killed off as a useless waste of money in 2012, what gives you the impression that such a registry would be any more successful in the US?

At the lower level, California mandated registration of all 'assault weapons' in 2000. Of the estimated 3/4 million or so in the State, 27,000 were actually registered.

More recently, in the laws requiring registration in Connecticut and New York after Sandy Hook, about 50,000 registrations were received in CT for an estimated 340,000 weapons. New York fared even worse, 45,000 registrations over over 1 million estimated weapons.

So you can make the recommendation, but it'll have a hard time actually proving useful, on past experience.

New guns would be registered by default, all guns used in crimes or booked into inventory during arrests would also have their serials identified.

Maryland tried something like that. After fifteen years, it was abandoned earlier this year as it solved all but no crimes, at a ridiculous cost.

walshyn93

The threat of gun control is just causing people to buy more and more guns because with that threat looming they can only appreciate in value. Obama's bluster without any bite is a gift to the weapons industry.

walshyn93

Overheal wrote: »

Correct. It is a strawman argument from the gun lobby, one which has proven sadly effective at diverting real energy at addressing the violence problems that we have.

Where's the real energy being diverted if your plan is to ban guns but not to remove any from circulation? The fact that no one can come up with a credible plan that doesn't involve seizure is the reason why many people believe the plan is seizure. All of the plans thus far have been vague and vague plans are untrustworthy. It makes people think the anti-gunners are hiding something.

josephryan1989

Overheal wrote: »

Not following your logic here at all I'm afraid, so I will just leave it at that.

You can't follow logic obviously.

Mental illness is categorically NOT related to mass shootings, given our criteria for mental illness - in particular, many mass shooters have no documented histories of mental illness; nothing for a 'mental illness background check' to catch. There are other avenues to explore however in our long road to mitigating the frequency and severity of mass shootings. This includes data collection over time that can help us make better projections about future gun crimes, eg. "38% of guns owned/registered to males over 40 will be used in self defense, while guns registered to black women between the ages of 18-30 will only be found in less than 2% of all crimes" etc. without collecting the data though we have no way of knowing, more information never hurt anyone - at least that's what the NSA keeps telling me.

It doesn't take a genius to work out that a guy like Harper, the prepetrator of the Oregon shooting, who apparently drew skulls instead of doing his college work, who hoarded guns, who wrote blog posts praising another mass shooter, who was a washout when he joined the military, had no friends, no girlfriends or relationships of any kind, was clearly desperately unhappy and angry and mentally ill.

When you see a pattern of young men with no friends, no relationships, chaotic working or studying lives, odd behavior and bizarre religious/political beliefs, who hoard firearms and follow through on a plan to commit mass murder then clearly you don't need a qualification in psychology or psychiatry to conclude that mental illness is a major cause of these tragedies.

As I'm continually saying ad nauseum, nobody is suggesting this at all. Why are you still fighting a strawman?

For changes in the law to have any effect you would have to confiscate the guns of millions of people who would NOT co-operate. That would require massive police and military force. Guns shoot bullets and the best way to stop someone from taking your gun if you don't them to is to fire bullets out of it at them. Do you get it yet?

We register our cars. We register a lot of our things. I even register my headphones with the manufacturer so I can avail of the warranty. New guns would be registered by default, all guns used in crimes or booked into inventory during arrests would also have their serials identified. Over time, a high percentage of guns would become registered. Not all guns used in all mass killings are illegally obtained, many are lawfully obtained.

There would be mass disobedience to gun registration. The law would be unenforceable because of the simple fact it is lethally dangerous to try and take a gun off a person who prepared to use it to stop you from taking it.

Fingerprinting still continues to mitigate the number of crimes that occur, by deterring those who would commit crimes or try to cover something up.

Let's knock two CSI myths on the head.

It is extremely hard to obtain fingerprints from crime scenes.
It is also notoriously hard to obtain fingerprints from firearms.

Similarly, the introduction of DNA evidence would have had a direct impact on the number of people who thought 'I can get away with murder'.

DNA evidence is also highly problematic and not despite the pretenses of TV indicate guilt.

Same for ballistics.

Again criminals rarely use legally purchased guns to commit crimes.

If we're still equivocating this with cars, that would be like suing the gas station for your car wreck. That is not to say taking a suit against a gun vendor is always going to be fruitless, it just means that in that situation the vendor was found to be not at fault/within the law.

A manufacturer or retailer of a knife, car, legal drug or gun is not responsible if they are used to kill by a crazy or criminal.

MadYaker

Manic Moran wrote: »

Given that the only time such a thing has ever been attempted at the national level in North America was Canada, requiring registration of entire classes of weapon starting 1995, and the registry was killed off as a useless waste of money in 2012, what gives you the impression that such a registry would be any more successful in the US?

At the lower level, California mandated registration of all 'assault weapons' in 2000. Of the estimated 3/4 million or so in the State, 27,000 were actually registered.

More recently, in the laws requiring registration in Connecticut and New York after Sandy Hook, about 50,000 registrations were received in CT for an estimated 340,000 weapons. New York fared even worse, 45,000 registrations over over 1 million estimated weapons.

So you can make the recommendation, but it'll have a hard time actually proving useful, on past experience.



Maryland tried something like that. After fifteen years, it was abandoned earlier this year as it solved all but no crimes, at a ridiculous cost.

Do you have any ideas as to what can be done to combat this type of violence? You live in the USA, you own guns and your posts on this topic are well informed and logical but all you do is pick apart other people's suggestions. I'm not having a go at you I'm just wondering if you have any ideas yourself?

Manic Moran

I put a few ideas here.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97275238&postcount=622

Interesting idea over on CNN today as well. http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/05/health/gupta-stopping-violence/index.html

Zascar

walshyn93

Zascar wrote: »

Are you trying to call your opposition stupid while getting your talking points in meme form?

That first one works both ways. Same people who want to legalise drugs want to ban guns.

AbusesToilets

There would be significant opposition against introducing mental health checks as a precursor to firearm purchases. In addition to the points made by others, re: liability of practitioners, there would be a high level of suspicion that such measures would be used to target specific demographics. For example, many military personnel deal with issues relating to trauma incurred in the line of duty. The majority of these problems are treatable and "short term" in nature, yet could be construed as a justification to deny them from purchasing firearms. Similar actions occur already for veterans, where the Veteran Affair's office has the ability in certain circumstances to deny someone the ability to administer their own financial affairs under the pretext of mental issues.

To those arguing for expanding registration databases for gun purchases; currently there are significant sales registries. Manufacturers serial number guns, they get sold to dealers, who record the sales. Any such system is going to stop at the last legal purchaser noted in it. It will do nothing to improve law enforcement's ability to track it once they are in a criminal's hands.

Overheal

walshyn93 wrote: »

Same people who want to legalise drugs want to ban guns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle

@Zascar as much as John Oliver might have a point at the legislative level, it's also misleading given that there also was not legislation that was passed that said 'you have to take your shoes off at an airport' it just became adopted as part of security procedures. Similarly, Columbine saw many schools revise their security situations to include things like bag checks and metal detection checkpoints, and school resource officers as previously mentioned. Like I said, there are lots of possible things to look at, none of which may be legislative or involve 'gun confiscation'

Manic Moran wrote: »

I put a few ideas here.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97275238&postcount=622

Interesting idea over on CNN today as well. http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/05/health/gupta-stopping-violence/index.html

I have, in the past on these threads, made certain proposals (some of which might even be enacted upon in my lifetime). They are routinely, however, disregarded as the rantings of a gun fetishist or some such.

However, to recap.

1) Cease this 'gun free zone' rubbish.
Reason: They don't work. The photo of the bullet-ridden door with the 'Firearms prohibited' sign from the Chatanooga shootings a month or two ago should be all the evidence of effectiveness one needs. A disproportionate amount of these successful mass shootings seem to be where nobody is permitted to respond with equal force unless they're police (Even military facilities.) Yet, there are certainly cases of people stopping shooters when armed.
Method: Repeal the restrictions. Have exactly the same law in force on one side of the street as exists on the other side of the street. People don't suddenly become more dangerous because they go up a driveway.

2) Mandate background checks for all purchases, including private party
Reason: Self-explanatory. Criminals and those deemed mentally incompetent can currently 'legally' buy weapons.
Method: Enable access by private citizens selling their firearms to the same NICS telephone system that firearms dealers do. Enforce with sting operations. This was a proposal made by one Congresscritter after Sandy Hook. It was rejected in favour of an attempt to pass a far more inconvenient and disliked system, which then failed.

3) Properly fund the application of the current laws on the books.
Reason: Even this many years after the problem was brought to note after Virginia Tech, not all the database systems currently talk to each other. There are other funding problems as well for enforcement. The current legal structure is of tens of thousands of firearms laws. It is unlikely that they will ever be reduced back to a sensible number that people can keep track of, but you can imagine that all those laws take effort and time and money to enforce.

4) Education and de-stigmatisation.
Reason: Too many people are managing to shoot themselves because of an unfamiliarity with firearms.
Method: Reintroduce 'shooters' ed' courses, in a manner similar to Driver's Ed or Sex Ed. Such programs currently exist, but are not taken up by many schools because 'eeew, guns.' Firearms are as much a fact of life in the US as cars and STDs.

5) Mental health issues.
Reason: Self explanatory. We have too many cases of people having guns who are a risk to themselves or others. (The suicide figure has been bandied about in the past). A more robust and accessible mental health system should reduce a lot of these numbers. (As well as being a good thing in general anyway)
Method: Speaking anecdotally with a friend in the business, there is simply a shortage of quality personnel. Incentivise (subsidise, if necessary) the provision of more providers.

6) Reduce Criminal Violence
Reason: In terms of the gun debate, most homicides are related to criminal activity (Beyond being illegal to murder people in the first place)
Method: Long, complicated, and expensive. In addition to better policing, reduce the inclination to turn to crime in the first place. Better education and opportunity. A cultural shift away from the appeal of drug-dealing, gang warfare, or whatever else gets people to turn to such activities in the first place.

7) (Back to mass murders) Stop celebretizing the killers.
Reason: Time and again, we are told that the fame given to the shooters is a large part of the reason whey they're doing it.
Method: I doubt it can be done by fiat due to 1st Amendment concerns (Though I guess one can try). However, it is at least worth trying to see if the news agencies will agree to a pact to keep the killers anonymous.

That should be a good start for focus.

Thank you for amalgamating these. As I've tried to convey here I particularly think 1 and 4 and 6 are things that could readily be done with the required focus. 7 is something I talked about strongly in the wake of Newtown and is the point at which I cut my cable line off. As I recall within a week of the media making a martyr of the shooter, there was another prolific mass killing. #3 falls in line with the same problems as the VA: we really suck at keeping our programs running smoothly. Meanwhile, I'm being lead to believe the NSA has an absurdly large black budget and state of the art capabilities, yet at the same time veterans wait in benefit limbo hell so long that they are falling over dead before receiving any help. Separate issue though.

edit: not all mass killings are preventable, some are

http://www.mediaite.com/online/4-high-school-students-arrested-for-planning-to-kill-as-many-people-as-possible/ which harkens back to your 7th point, more people inspired by the media frenzy.

AbusesToilets

There is a strong case to be made to overhaul a lot of the gun legislation on the books in the US currently, as much of it is out of date and based on reactionary scaremongering. For example the current status of suppressors and short barreled rifles being classified so as to require quite a convoluted process to acquire them.

For many people in the US who would be classified as pro-gun, there is a strong sentiment that any concessions or reexamining of gun law, as proposed by those who champion such, is a means to incrementally infringe upon their right to own any type of firearm. The arguments made against such "common sense" legislation are very similar to those made by pro-choice supporters; to whit, that such legislative efforts are part of a concerted, long term plan to erode these rights. And I can't say that I would disagree to a certain extent.

Overheal

Regarding #5 mental health issues, it turns out the legislation was brought in by JFK but the funding for it never followed through, leading to some pretty awful implementations, including lumping everyone into nursing homes and sending patients away on 1-way bus rides instead of completing treatment:

Just more money that probably is being tied up in an F-22 somewhere.

AbusesToilets

Overheal wrote: »

Just more money that probably is being tied up in an F-22 somewhere.

F-35 actually, the US should have invested in purchasing a lot more F-22s :pac:

Brian?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Given that the only time such a thing has ever been attempted at the national level in North America was Canada, requiring registration of entire classes of weapon starting 1995, and the registry was killed off as a useless waste of money in 2012, what gives you the impression that such a registry would be any more successful in the US?

At the lower level, California mandated registration of all 'assault weapons' in 2000. Of the estimated 3/4 million or so in the State, 27,000 were actually registered.

More recently, in the laws requiring registration in Connecticut and New York after Sandy Hook, about 50,000 registrations were received in CT for an estimated 340,000 weapons. New York fared even worse, 45,000 registrations over over 1 million estimated weapons.

So you can make the recommendation, but it'll have a hard time actually proving useful, on past experience.



Maryland tried something like that. After fifteen years, it was abandoned earlier this year as it solved all but no crimes, at a ridiculous cost.

Ah well if people are going to break a law, it's pointless? The backwards thinking on this is crazy.

What's the penalty for being found in possession of an unregistered firearm in CT? Severe penalties would soon have people registering. Financial penalties for a first offence and escalating afterwards.

walshyn93

Overheal wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle
.

Does nothing to explain away the fact that people argue for banning guns but also believe that drugs shouldn't be banned because people will get them anyway.

Brian?

walshyn93 wrote: »

Does nothing to explain away the fact that people argue for banning guns but also believe that drugs shouldn't be banned because people will get them anyway.

Who wants to ban guns? I don't think anyone is advocating that. Gun control does not mean banning gums .

josephryan1989

Brian? wrote: »

Ah well if people are going to break a law, it's pointless? The backwards thinking on this is crazy.

What's the penalty for being found in possession of an unregistered firearm in CT? Severe penalties would soon have people registering. Financial penalties for a first offence and escalating afterwards.

When millions of people in the United States refuse to register - don't think they won't since politics is more divided than ever between the left and the right over gun control - and refuse to pay their fines and refuse to give up their guns obediently, what recourse does the government have? There would be armed resistance if they tried to go door to door to take guns away. There aren't enough cops and soldiers who will arrest them nor prisons in the US to hold tens of millions of people.

The US is already saturated with firearms so the herd never mind the horse has well and truly bolted and if ever there was a case of closing the gate after the fact this is it.

Brian?

josephryan1989 wrote: »

When people in the United States refuse to register - don't think they won't since politics is more divided than ever between the left and the right over gun control - and refuse to pay their fines and refuse to give up their guns obediently, what recourse does the government have? There would be armed resistance if they tried to go door to door to take guns away. There aren't enough prisons in the US to hold tens of millions of people.

The US is already saturated with firearms so the herd never mind the horse has well and truly bolted and if ever there was a case of closing the gate after the fact this is it.

So you advocate giving up and leaving the status quo stand? Something has to change, this is why:

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map?page=2

josephryan1989

Brian? wrote: »

So you advocate giving up and leaving the status quo stand? Something has to change, this is why:

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map?page=2

For the reasons I have given in previous posts sadly what choice is there?

Manic Moran

Brian? wrote: »

Ah well if people are going to break a law, it's pointless? The backwards thinking on this is crazy.

Rule #1 of leadership. Never give an order you know won't be followed. (OK, maybe it's not rule #1, but it's up there). Correlated rule: Don't do ineffective things just because they can be done. Or, on a more practical level, if you are trying to solve the problem, and you try to implement a policy which won't take effect, just how much have you done to solve the problem?

What's the penalty for being found in possession of an unregistered firearm in CT? Severe penalties would soon have people registering. Financial penalties for a first offence and escalating afterwards.

In CT, it's up to a year in prison and/or a $2,000 fine for a first offence, if you've never been in trouble with the law before. Escalates from there. CA does not give a 'fine' option at all, it's a prison sentence of up to a year for possession at home. (Transportation of one is 4-8 years. Most don't go to the range as a result) Unsure about New York. Since Canada's law has been repealed it's a bit harder to find, but 'posession of an unauthorised firearm' seems to be up to 6 months and/or a $5,000 fine for a summary proceeding, and up to five years prison if indicted. Australia has tougher penalties on the books, up to five years for a first offence, which may explain why only 2/3 of firearms were not turned in as opposed to the 4/5 in the US.

jank

Brian? wrote: »

Here's a few questions: where do the guns on the black market come from? Where do the guns in cities like Chicago and New York come from?

Where do handguns used by gangs in Dublin and Limerick come from?

jank

I would be interested to find out why these mass shootings appear to be carried out by young angry males who are outcasts of mainstream society.

Overheal

Well here are some numbers,

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/GDContent/mass-killings/index.html

It would be misleading given this to think it was all white outcast males, as you might only be referring to about 15% of mass killings, which are public shooting events like Columbine, Oregon, Virginia Tech, or Newtown, and those in terms of numbers saw the highest casualty counts.

Manic Moran you may appreciate the weapon stats however, I know you get a lot of flak and ignorance about assault rifles

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/GDContent/mass-killings/index.html#weapons

josephryan1989 wrote: »

For the reasons I have given in previous posts sadly what choice is there?

Social reforms, for a start. Safety net failures are implicated in many cases, people feel there is no other way out or recourse than to take their own life or that of others. Because you won't be able to stem the supply of guns, the clear answer seems to be to stem the demand for their misuse.

Manic Moran

Interesting find. (I like the way that page is presented). Curious as to the ratio between legal and illegal as, for example, none of the automatic rifles would have been legally owned. (Since 1934, there have only been two known murders with legally held ones, and one was police issue.)

Overheal

To that effect yeah i want to see that to, hence i also just stumbled upon a 2013 CDC study. Congress does still block attempts to study guns, but that year after sandy hook, Obama issued an executive order for them to do so. The initial report findings were non-political and some pro-gun articles went so far as to say it 'backfired' on the president - either way, it expands our knowledge of the issue

http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

its written like a research paper (ie. legible, understandable), is hyperlinked well, and at about 110 pages I expect to try and read through the whole thing. However here is the salient finding about legal/illegal ownership though the research does not directly tie it together with a percentage of how many murders were done with illegally obtained weapons and unfortunately much of the cited information would be seemingly dated.

Sources of Guns

To address the criminal misuse of firearms leading to death or injury, it is important to understand how “firearms move from lawful commerce into the hands of criminals” (ATF, 2011, p. i). A survey of gun owners between 2005 and 2010 found that an average of 232,400 guns were stolen each year (Langton, 2012). Although research in the 1980s suggested that criminals acquired guns primarily through theft (Wright and Rossi, 1986), more recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals (Harlow, 2001; Zawitz, 1995). It is, however, unclear whether prisoners are willing to admit to gun thefts in government-conducted surveys. According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possessed by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends,drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market (Harlow, 2001). Another 14 percent of those surveyed bought or traded guns at retail stores, pawnshops, flea markets, or gun shows (Harlow, 2001). However, some experts question the validity of commonly used research methodologies for identifying crime-gun-trafficking prevalence, arguing that trafficking is more closely associated with gun scarcity than inappropriate acquisition from licensed gun dealers (Kleck and Wang, 2009). A better understanding of the validity of different methods to evaluate the sources of crime guns would help inform policies aimed at disrupting the flow of guns to criminals.

Brian?

jank wrote: »

Where do handguns used by gangs in Dublin and Limerick come from?

The Czech Republic.

jank

Brian? wrote: »

The Czech Republic.

Do you have some sort of authority on that? I presume they are legal? :pac:

Brian?

jank wrote: »

Do you have some sort of authority on that? I presume they are legal? :pac:

I do actually. They're perfectly legal in the Czech Republic.

jank

Brian? wrote: »

I do actually. They're perfectly legal in the Czech Republic.

Sigh, hence they would be illegal in Limerick....?
Seem you are deliberately missing the point.

Amerika

So now we have it. The real Barack Obama emerges. A man who wants to forcibly take US Citizen’s rightfully owned firearms, and of which are protected by the US Constitution, away from us.

“We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.”

The actions of Great Britain and Australia weren’t so-called “common-sense” and “modest” laws, as Obama puts it, they were extreme confiscation’s and bans.

AbusesToilets

One of the biggest obstacles to any discussion of legislating new gun laws is the perceived dishonesty of those who want to increase restrictions, by the pro-gun side. If there was a proposal to overhaul the existing NFA to update it, for example removing restrictions on things like suppressors or short barreled firearms, then you would likely have more buy from the pro-gun side to the concept of legislating firearms. The message put forth by those looking to legislate is invariably anti-gun, abet couched in language proclaiming "common sense" or "reasonable".

For as much as each tragedy is used by the gun sellers to ramp up sales for fear of restrictions, the anti-gun lobby is just as prepared to take advantage of these events to push an anti gun platform.

walshyn93

Brian? wrote: »

The Czech Republic.

Hardly. Perhaps for gangsters who have connections and will get them regardless, but not for mass murderers. In Czech Republic is not easy for someone outside of the country to come in and get one. A Norweigian mass murderer travelled 200 miles from his home to Belgium to buy his weapons on the black market rather than travelling 70 miles to Czech.

This all came from 5 minutes of research on wikipedia mind you, as did most of what you see on boards, but take it as you will.

Brian?

jank wrote: »

Sigh, hence they would be illegal in Limerick....?
Seem you are deliberately missing the point.

Don't sigh at me. Ask a straight question if you want something.

You're using the word hence wrong, what are you actually asking here? What point are you trying to make?

Brian?

walshyn93 wrote: »

Hardly. Perhaps for gangsters who have connections and will get them regardless, but not for mass murderers. In Czech Republic is not easy for someone outside of the country to come in and get one. A Norweigian mass murderer travelled 200 miles from his home to Belgium to buy his weapons on the black market rather than travelling 70 miles to Czech.

This all came from 5 minutes of research on wikipedia mind you, as did most of what you see on boards, but take it as you will.

I don't have a quotable source on it, but I've heard it from sources I'd trust. It's pretty irrelevant to the discussion in fairness.

Jank is being purposefully obtuse about making his point, I'm attempting to cut through said obtuseness and get to the point.