Gun Violence and how to address it

Leroy42

Yes, a typical retort from the gun lobby is that if a particular law doesn't solve the entire problem then it isn't worth doing. While at the same time complaining that anything that even hints at curtailing their freedom to own guns is the start of a slippery slope.

So no way a complete ban can ever happen, but no way we can even start with a step-by-step approach to see can at least some improvement be made.

Put on the onus on the gun manufacturers to make the guns as safe as possible, with massive liability if their gun is used to illegally kill another person.

Have liabilities on the gun sellers for selling the gun.

If a person uses the guns of someone else to kill, then the owner should be held liable for not adequately safeguarding the weapon.

Put those sorts of things in place and you can bet they would demand sticker controls, as otherwise, they face massive consequences.

None of it involves removing anyone's constitutional right to bear arms, but introduces responsibility beyond just the shooter who in many cases ends up dead anyway.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120409309#Comment_120409309

The "right to a certain calibre" currently falls under the "common use" test. .50 BMG is not commonly used anywhere, in the US or not so the bans on it have not been successfully challenged.. 5.56 on the other hand...

Is there not an element of "chicken and egg" to that argument? I suspect if any calibre or weapon was deregulated it would soon end up in "common use" by a certain sector of society in America.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120412558#Comment_120412558

There is, and it is a question which has been asked by at least the 9th Circuit in oral argument. For example, let's say someone develops a laser gun. Can the government immediately ban it for civilian purchase before it has time to become a weapon in 'common use'? No court has as yet had to answer the question, however, so officially the question remains unanswered. However, given that Constitutional protections have been held to cover new technological developments (eg Internet for free speech, telephone lines for unreasonable search) so I suspect some interpolation will be required based off of adoption outside of the US civilian environment.

The question is most likely going to be addressed in upcoming litigation regarding the 1934 NFA. Ultimately with regards to machineguns, but more likely to start with matters such as suppressors which are in common civilian use outside of the US and are not as common domestically because of the restrictions.

For the record, https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna38238685

Put on the onus on the gun manufacturers to make the guns as safe as possible, with massive liability if their gun is used to illegally kill another person

They are as safe as possible. Product liability laws already cover shoddy manufacturing. Some states such as California even require safety tests such as a drop test before they are authorised for sale.

I am sure that car manufacturers will be thrilled at the idea that a manufacturer can be held liable for the misuse of their correctly functioning product by third parties.

I agree, certainly, that some incremental steps can be made. Here are two from my side.

Bring firearms training back into schools. It was very common before the 1990s and caused no particular trouble at all. We do sex ed, we do driver's ed. In a society where firearms are common, people should be taught responsible and safe firearm use. Refusing to accept this is about the same level as conservatives preaching abstinence instead of sex ed.

Give every household a free lockbox. The one I keep my carry pistol in was about $30 delivered on Amazon, I'm sure the government can get a bulk discount. Folks are more likely to use something they already have instead of something they have to go out and buy, and it should keep more pistols out of the hands of kids who find their mom's gun and bring it to school. It may even reduce some of the theft of firearms by burglars. If you're one of the 55% who don't have a pistol, congratulations, you've got something to keep your jewelry in. Storage/child endangerment laws are fine, though admittedly very difficult to effectively enforce. By the time it's known that something's gone wrong, the damage is done. But there's little harm in enacting them.

If you need a sledgehammer for the issue of gun violence you take a god damn sledgehammer and if someone has their hobby become more awkward then they will get over it a lot quicker than a lot of kids and parents will be getting over yesterday.

Though shooting is a hobby for many people, it is not the only use for firearms in the US, particularly not for the pistols which cause the overwhelming majority of problems. Firearms also provide the overwhelming majority of the solutions for the practical problems for which they are suited.

lawrencesummers

If sandy hook didnt change anything then this wont either.

And if sandy hook wasn't enough for anything proper to change then imagine how bad it would actually have to be for change to come about.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120412739#Comment_120412739

Sandy Hook? How about Columbine, and all the shootings in-between?

This is who Nashville sends to DC.

https://twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

https://twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514384735739904

There's your answer. Schools bad. Let the shootings continue.

lawrencesummers

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120414943#Comment_120414943

As bad as columbine was Sandy hook and the age of the victims should have immediately led to change.

It didnt so ultimately nothing will.

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120414943#Comment_120414943

I thought the best quote was "We're not going to fix it.". I mean I get it is a tough issue to solve in the US but if you aren't going to try get out and let someone else at least try.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120415678#Comment_120415678

But, that's the cultural problem. "We're not going to fix it" is o.k. with enough voters that this guy gets elected. His answer to school shootings is, homeschool your kids. Great.

Trump's election was a cultural event more than anything. He was o.k. to just enough voters in just the right places to get elected. School shootings are o.k. for the same reason - gays/crt/drag shows bad. Guns? Uvalde went GOP after the bigger massacre there with the police standing around on their phones. S'ok because, you know, can't criticize the police.

The Nashville shooter had maybe 7 guns according to reports, all bought legally including the AR-15s because, what better weapon for shooting a bunch of other people quickly? Based on the body cam footage it seems she shot-out the doors and stormed in in full automatic mode, which no doubt is illegal but, as Manic points out the restrictions on automatic weapons are going to be addressed too as the NRA still makes money on going after a nearly 90 year old piece of legislation. Automatic weapons will make school massacres that much more efficient.

One other thing I saw pointed out online is that from the moment the Nashville shooting was reported to the police, to the time the shooter was dealt with was something like 13-14 minutes. That's all it took and that was pretty damn fast. Could another force do better the next time? The sad thing is, wait a bit and we'll find out.

BTW, apparently there's been some sideband discussion on what the Nashville PD did and how it wasn't 'perfect' police procedure, but they did the right thing. Uvalde? Well, they did fire the chief, but so what. Whole force should've been disbanded and their pensions revoked.

Manic Moran

Resurrecting this thread (Has it really been six months?) to avoid a new thread/derailing another. Here's an example of how not to address gun violence. This has been making some waves on this side of the water.

The Governor of New Mexico (Democrat) decided last week to announce a "Public Health State of Emergency", and forbid the carrying of firearms in Albuquerque and its county, Bernalillo for the next thirty days.

The Constitution of New Mexico states: "No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms"

The District Attorney (appointed by her) has refused to prosecute violations. The City Chief of Police (Appointed by the Democrat-majority city) has refused to arrest violators. The County Sheriff (an elected Democrat) has also refused to enforce it saying that not only is it unconstitutional, it wasn't going to help anyway.

https://apnews.com/article/albuquerque-guns-governor-concealed-carry-firearms-reject-ec5e8d57abc15687dd1b39d8cc197d96

Apparently understanding that the locals wouldn't do anything, in her press conference making the announcement, she announced that the State Police would do so. Over the weekend, armed protestors had a rally in front of the government buildings, and the State Police did not arrest or cite them.

The ACLU has joined with the NRA in objecting. So have some Democrats, like this one who managed to get a Red Flag law passed in NM.

https://twitter.com/SenJoeCervantes/status/1701277377035378771