Gun Violence and how to address it

Manic Moran · 04-06-2022 2:37pm

Well, if the definition of “well regulated” means that there are lots of regulations, every state has a military code (I.e. legislation) which more or less matches the federal military code. It’s required for the operation of the National Guard, but applies to state militias as well.

Back to the matter of legislation, if you want to pass something, this is an old-fashioned idea, but how about “give and take”? Pick something which may be passed and with some good chance of legality. Maybe a red flag law, but one which requires a couple of checks and balances (so not California’s, for example). If you want that, offer in trade something that the pro-gun sides wants, like concealed carry reciprocity or remove the 1986 import ban. More chance of passing something that way than just trying to repeatedly slam one’s head into a brick wall.

Leroy42 · 04-06-2022 3:00pm

Or the pro gun crowd need to accept their wants are not more valuable that people's lives.

Stop the fake concern, stop the thoughts and prayers. The NRA and gun owners should at least be honest and admit that their right and desire to own guns is worth the price of slain school children.

Because that is what it boils down to. Their is a choice. And consistently the pro gun crowd hide behind A2 and state laws, as if they are some immovable eternal item written into the laws of the universe.

They could be changed, if the will existed. But pro gun advocates don't want to see their enjoyment and fun taken away just to save a few hundred school kids a year.

AbusesToilets · 04-06-2022 3:47pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119157704#Comment_119157704

I'd be quite happy if they changed the classification of suppressors from the NFA.

Christy42 · 04-06-2022 4:55pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119157704#Comment_119157704

Honest to F this opinion is mindblowing. Absolutely off the wall that this can be the opinion. The point of the gun laws isn't that people hate the concept of guns. The point is that guns get into the wrong hands and people get killed. However if the reaction to thoughts on not to have more peopled killed is what do I get out of it then it really shows how broken the gun culture in the US has become. It isn't give and take, have they not realised it is their kids attending school as well, their friends and families in hospitals, cemetaries, parties and shopping centers?

If the NRA and those representing the gun lobby had any, and I mean any, sense of shame they would be out in front making "common sense" gun laws for everyone years ago. Instead it is just absolute silence until someone else suggests something gets suggested and they just complain about that. At this point the NRA shouldn't get listened to about gun laws. They should have been the perfect ones to help craft these laws years ago but all they do is wall up and protect their cash when mass shootings happen and keep happening.

Manic Moran · 04-06-2022 6:03pm

Well, what's your objection to Abuses's position that suppressors should be removed from the NFA? It was added due to a total misconception of what the things do. If the answer is 'let's pass laws because it's the right thing to do', why not hold both sides to the concept?

In any case, it's the reality of passing legislation that if one thinks a compromise is "Only some of what I want vs none of what you want", the legislation probably isn't going to pass.

Igotadose · 04-06-2022 6:30pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119152308#Comment_119152308

But he lives in a state controlled by the GOP. None of the things he suggests - the university studies, the investigations into the causes, will be funded. It's only recently the CDC could fund gun violence research. This is a systemic problem in the US, it's a public health crisis, and progress is made at a snails pace.

There is some progress. This blog (good for debunking anti-vax) talks about recent accomplishments in this space, and how gun availability is indeed the public health problem:

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/gun-control-laws-and-firearms-mortality-a-public-health-imperative/

The blogger also addresses issues I don't see in this discussion - gun-relating injuries (an issue especially for children,) suicide by gun (20,000 per year in the US.) Changing the debate from 'pro-gun' vs. 'anti-gun' to one about reducing injury and death from guns would go a huge distance to helping reduce injury and death. This I think is what that officer is after and, in Alabama, he's doing the smart thing and divorcing the issue from black vs. white, something that is inimical to thinking in the South, to 'why the heck is this happening and what can be done about it.'

But again, as long as carefully engineered domination of the issue by a minority of voters wins, nothing will change.

Christy42 · 04-06-2022 7:01pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119158471#Comment_119158471

I am still confused as to why this is an US vs them thing? Do responsible gun owners not want a reduction in deaths by shooting? Are they not willing to trade some extra hoops in buying a gun to save lives?

I mean you can argue some laws are written by those with little knowledge of guns but that should simply encourage gun owners and their representatives to push forward their own ideas for laws instead of simply saying no all the time.

I am confused as to how you can say some of what we want vs none of what they want when surely everyone wants less dead people so it is something of what everyone wants.

If gun owners want to add in some non gun protections vs shootings then go ahead. Add in money for mental health services, put in money to reduce doors in schools or whatever the latest talking point is. However nothing that isn't aimed at reducing the number of shootings should be included. Anyone looking at measures designed to reduce the number of shootings and wonder well what do I get out of it should be ostracised from society. They are heartless scum who don't deserve the time of day.(note this is not all gun owners, just those that look at legislation designed to protect and wonder what they can get out of it instead of wondering how it can improved)

Manic Moran · 04-06-2022 10:07pm

I think the difference is that the pro-gun control side comes up with an idea, and sees it as an overall positive, not so much for the opposition.

For example, look at "Must be 21 to buy a firearm". There is little net downside seen to this by the gun control side. It's inherently an overall good thing. The opposition doesn't view it as inherently an overall good thing. It will have some good effects that the gun-control side focuses on, yes, but it will equally have some poor effects, notably making it more difficult for a 21-year-old to carry out certain activities such as self defense. There is bad to counteract the good, there is no net positive, there's no incentive to go along with it. Same with "must have a waiting period". Little discussion on the downsides in the gun control camp, the pro-gun camp are going "Umm.. What if someone decides they need a gun right now because they feel threatened?"

Such is the reverse as well. Why should the gun control crowd allow the legalisation of suppressors? What's in it for them to allow CCW reciprocity? For the pro-gun side, there are no notable downsides and plenty of good sides, the perspective of the gun control side, however, may not be the same. So why not use these things as bargaining counters to get legislation passed?

It's not as if solutions aren't being proposed for things by the pro-gun side, but the opposition is just as entrenched. Brady says that there nearly 3,000 under-18s shot accidentally by the family firearm every year. A proposed solution is basic firearm safety training, age-appropriate, in schools, just like one would find sex ed or driver's ed. It's a simple win, such training is freely provided, costs the school district nothing. Haven't exactly seen many school districts in California or New Jersey leaping at this. The attitude seems to be sortof the reverse of the conservative view of sex education. "Don't talk about it, we'll pretend the problem doesn't exist, and that kids won't encounter this outside of school.

The bottom line is that there is currently an impasse. Legislators can continue to beat their heads against a wall, or they can negotiate.

looksee · 04-06-2022 10:46pm

If an under 21 person says they need a firearm because they feel threatened, and the conclusion is that, well of course an under 21 should have a firearm to protect themself (does this include under 21 Black kids also?), and furthermore they should have it now, because they are being threatened now, then there is so much more wrong with American society than the issues over guns.

What this suggests is a legalised version of gang warfare. Arm the kids and let them fight it out. Yes that's a great idea. How about legislating for properly trained police? So that a young person who feels threatened to the extent of needing a firearm to sort their problems can instead report their concerns and get some protection? How come young people in every other developed country in the world manage to get to 21 without feeling the need to shoot someone in self defence? Its all so pathetic I am beyond arguing about it.

Christy42 · 06-06-2022 12:19am

Disagreeing with what measures to take to reduce deaths and looking at the deaths as a way to get new toys are two very different things. They are not the same at all. If the NRA and its ilk want their toys they can suggest sensible legislation to bring down gun deaths. When the gun deaths go down it seems like a good idea to pair down on legislation that isn't as effective.

Fine stick in the gun training into the bill, it should be done for all gun owners in any case. You could also add in training for the parents so the kids don't get their hands on the gun in the first place. Likening it to sex ed is weird though. I suspect the idea is to work as advertisements for gun companies but in any case as you say we can have ideas from both sides to try and fix this. Honestly though a 21 year old needing to defend themselves is more evidence that stringent measures need to be taken.

Sam Russell · 06-06-2022 11:49am

If one were to cast one's mind to the first 70 years of this state where men in dresses, sworn to celibacy, dictated the sexual mores that the rest of society had to live to, and that society accepted that young girls who fell short of such standards and fell pregnant would be imprisoned in laundries, washing the dirty linen of society, while being forced to give up their babies, then ask why did society allow themselves to be convinced of the righteousness of such action.

It took many referendums to unravel the most egregious of the constitutional Gordian knots that were preventing a just resolution.

However, after one hundred years, we are nearly there - just a few more to go.

So, I hope it will not take the USA that long to solve the gun issue, or rather the constitutional right to kill one's fellow Americans with one's own gun.

Leroy42 · 06-06-2022 1:22pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119159475#Comment_119159475

Upsides? A week after the shooting dead of 19 school children and you are struggling to find upsides to gun control?

As I said in an earlier post, at some stage all the gun advocates arguments fall into the basic line that their enjoyment of guns out-weights the lives of people killed by them. It could be started tomorrow, if the will was there.

looksee · 06-06-2022 2:37pm

I wonder why having to have a drivers licence in order to drive a car is not an infringement of people's liberty?

Igotadose · 06-06-2022 3:18pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119165425#Comment_119165425

It's not in the US Constitution

bad2thebone · 06-06-2022 3:53pm

I'm old school myself and probably as thick as a brick. But if a young man came into my shop looking with the looks and demeanor of a psychopath or had incel like attributes I wouldn't sell him a gun, I'd tell him to get fcked. That's the problem nowadays any weirdo in America can buy arms, because the law will state you're being discriminatory if you say no.

Most of the psychopaths are unhinged and just looking at them you can see they're odd balls. And they're young white men who were probably weirdos in school.

I remember them in school, they stand out and there was a vibe off them that was lurky, despondent and not really there. Unfriendly and just souless. Eyes like a white shark dead inside.

It's easy enough to difrenciate between someone who's having an off day depressed, shy or a bit quite. But the psychopath or sociopath has that dead look about them, it's hard to describe. But even how they hold themselves.

I've a friend who has a son and he'd look at you as if you're on his list, myself and the lads sometimes say we're only waiting for the day he burns the house down or harms the whole family. He's just absolute evil, there's nothing there. Comes from a respectable middle class background.

As a kid he'd hide behind his mum, and if he looked at you he'd have eye's of a predator peep out at you for a split second as if he's going to hunt you down when he's older. My son never liked him, he gave him the creeps.

This kid is a young man now and hides away in his room, his mum is running out of excuses for him and getting worried now.

Year's ago kids like that were either sent to the priesthood or the parents couldn't cope with having a headcase in the house and made him get his or her own flat.

It's controversial nowadays to judge people by their looks, personalities or demeanor. But some of us can spot an evil person quite easily but we can't make any assumptions about our observation.

Eyes like a white shark and nothing inside, souless and a danger to society.

Like I said there's a difference between someone who's off, depressed, has social anxiety or overtly shy. These psychopaths are like this since the day they're born. Just pure evil.

Manic Moran · 06-06-2022 3:59pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119165142#Comment_119165142

I didn't say there were no upsides. I did, however, say that there were also downsides to be considered as well.

We talk about spree shootings because they make the global news. We don't talk about defensive use as much because they don't make the global news. When the 'good gal with the gun' stopped the spree shooting in West Virginia last week, I saw it on BBC. I then checked CNN, and it wasn't covered. (Indeed, as I type this, and type into Google "Dennis Butler West Virginia Shooting" CNN still doesn't have an article on it, though other news agencies have picked it up). That doesn't mean that they don't happen, or that they aren't important including up to to the level of life-saving to the individuals in question. If you take all factors into account, what is the net effect? The refusal to even consider that a net effect can result in addition to the 'positives' is part of the reason for the current political entrenchment.

I wonder why having to have a drivers licence in order to drive a car is not an infringement of people's liberty?

Well, the obvious legal reason being that the Constitutions (Federal or State) are somewhat silent on the matter of transportation.

However, if you really do want to equate a vehicle with a car, I note that generally speaking the idea of having a license to carry your gun around in public much like you need a license to drive a car around in public isn't considered overly controversial, as long as they are issued on a similar "shall issue" basis. It's "may issue" which is causing the legal issues right now, and which we're waiting to see what SCOTUS says in the next couple of weeks.

Still, the idea of treating firearms just like we treat cars may not be particularly objected to by gun owners, I grant you. Think about it.

No minimum age requirement, no background check requirement to purchase a car.

If the car is kept and operated on private property, no need for registration, tax or operator's permit. There are also no inspection requirements, configuration requirements, you can make your own car at home and nobody minds as long as you don't operate it on the public highway. It may be transported from private location to private location on the public highway and used freely at both ends.

May operate a car unsupervised on the public highway at 16. There are no restrictions on the type of vehicle, it may be as powerful or as fast as the owner can afford and thinks appropriate.

A license to operate a car must be recognised by all 50 States and the territories.

Nobody tries to sue car companies if their cars are mis-used.

Who knows. Maybe suggesting legislation which treats firearms just like cars would be accepted by the firearms community.

Meanwhile, across the border.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/canadians-queue-for-guns-ahead-of-proposed-pistol-ban/ar-AAY8BNT?li=BBnbfcL

looksee · 06-06-2022 5:45pm

So if I lived in the US I could just go and buy a car and drive it away, regardless of whether I had a license? My license here specifies that I have to wear glasses for my vision and my license is endorsed because I have a particular condition that could affect my driving. In the event it does not and I can drive, but the government are making sure I am safe to be in control of a vehicle.

If the constitution is unmoveable how come there are so many amendments to it?

Igotadose · 06-06-2022 5:56pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119166102#Comment_119166102

It's not unmoveable as you so rightly point out, but it's been dog's years since the last amendment. The last Amendment was in 1992 so that's 30 years ago and it was kind of a technical issue anyway that went back over 200 years!

Heck, the Equal Rights Amendment has been ratified by the States in terms of number passing it, but it's status is up in the air as it's gone on so long (since 1972) and some States rescinded their support - which is a process that isn't clear per the Constitution.

So, it is feasible to amend the Constitution, but it's a rare thing and the process is cumbersome.

Not saying I'm a big fan of the Irish Constitutional update process either, there's way too much in the Constitution that rightly should be up to the Dail (like the Constitution shouldn't say anything at all about Religion and school funding), but the referendum process might be better than what the US has. I say might, the whole 'states rights' thing comes into play - high population states shouldn't control the Constitution either, but maybe a simple majority of States voting for it in the appropriate cycle like coincident with the POTUS election.

Igotadose · 06-06-2022 6:11pm

Checks out:

Christy42 · 06-06-2022 6:46pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119165721#Comment_119165721

A large chunk of mass shootings in the US don't really make the news as well just due to sheer volume.

Strumms · 06-06-2022 7:07pm

“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

If a dictatorial power takes over the US… what do people think is going to be achieved by having that written in the 2nd amendment ?

Between active duty and reserve personnel there are about 2.2 million military personnel. Who if loyal to a president / regime won’t be beaten. All of those personnel are….Trained, equipped, resourced and experienced…

About 258 million adult citizens in the USA. But against the military they wouldn’t stand a chance…

Manic Moran · 06-06-2022 7:20pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119166102#Comment_119166102

You wouldn't be able to drive it away. You would, however, be able to have it delivered to your door/ranch/farm/private track/wherever. and you could own and use it there. Particularly common for vehicles which are by design not road legal, such as sandrails. The dealer doesn't check your license before delivery in either case, but just looking at 'legality' here.

I never said the Constitution was immovable. I just observe the extreme practical unlikelihood of an amendment which will serve to restrict firearms access.

looksee · 06-06-2022 7:29pm

So I can buy a vehicle, which, while somewhat dangerous if mishandled, but in order to drive it in public I have to do a test to show I am competent. I can use it on my private property (which, unless you have an extensive piece of land is not likely to be a great help) but I am restricted in taking it out into the public. But I or anyone over 18 can walk into a store and buy a gun and with no further questions take it into a public place with no guarantee that I have the first idea how to use it, safely or otherwise. Can you not see the lack of logic here?

Manic Moran · 06-06-2022 8:56pm

I'm just expanding on the comparison made earlier. As I said, some form of permitting for carriage in public seems generally acceptable at least on a "shall issue" basis, but I suspect that the flaw in the comparison isn't so much whether a permit should be required to have a gun in public, but on the premise that someone with mayhem in mind is going to be put off by the idea that his firearm isn't allowed to be used off private property. Strikes me as being one of the least of his (or her) concerns. I hear the "regulate guns like cars" argument often enough, but it falls flat when you dig into the details.

BattleCorp · 06-06-2022 9:22pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119166409#Comment_119166409

If a dictatorial power took over the US, the armed citizens would stand a hell of a lot better chance than if they were unarmed.

Sam Russell · 06-06-2022 9:41pm

When the 6th Jan 2021 attack on the Capitol attempted a coup to put Trump into the Presidency, it was not armed citizens that prevented it. Nor was it the secret service or the military might of the state.

No, it was prevented by Nancy Pelosi and VP Pence who refused to be forced into an illegal act.

So, it was not 'a good guy with a gun' that saved the day (and the USA democracy) but a set of honest politicians acting in concert to 'do the right thing'.

Igotadose · 08-06-2022 6:54pm

I'd forgotten this - Reagan was the Governor who began California's turn to restrictive gun ownership. Seems that the wrong color people showed up in Sacramento open-carrying, causing Reagan and the California legislature to lose their sh1t and pass all kinds of laws that have been built upon to this day.

https://www.salon.com/2022/06/08/when-ronald-reagans-saved-lives-armed-black-men-meant-immediate-control_partner/

NB: Salon is left-wing for the US and tends to be hyperbolic on many issues, but the facts they're reporting here are true.

Manic Moran · 08-06-2022 7:12pm

Pre-dates that. California's "may issue" regimen is about a hundred years old, now. As it was illegal for the State to say "only white people can carry concealed guns", they instead wrote into law "They must have a good reason and be of good character", which basically meant that the local official could declare white folks had a good reason and black and hispanic folks didn't.

As the State turned more anti-gun in general, the newer governments realised that the same laws, if equally applied to everyone, could turn into an overall gun control regime. Well, more or less equally applied to everyone, favoritism amongst the politicians is still a thing. From Silicon Valley:

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/unprecedented-santa-clara-county-da-sounds-off-on-grand-jury-corruption-accusations-against-sheriff/2756876/

“If you want to get a CCW to carry a firearm, you should be treated fairly and equally,” Rosen said. “One of those standards cannot be are you supporting the Sheriff or the Sheriff’s reelection. And that’s what this bribery investigation was about.”

Igotadose · 08-06-2022 8:08pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119175494#Comment_119175494

Also, fwiw, although California has more gun homicides than any state, it's also the largest state and per-100,000 one of the lowest rates (7 per 100,000). The national average is around 14. Texas matches the national average, really it seems like no surprise that a state with an extremely liberal gun culture (Texas) has a much higher rate of gun homicide than California or the other states with more restrictive rules. Occam's razor and all that. And Texas as I recall is the 2d largest state in terms of population in the US, but twice the homicide rate. What else could be the cause but the easy availability of guns? Are the people in California that much more peaceful? Texas also has a much lower population density than California, so that's not the reason the people aren't packed in any tighter pissing each other off.

Manic Moran · 08-06-2022 11:54pm

True, yet on the other hand, it’s worth noting that gun friendly states of Vermont, New Hampshire, Idaho, Utah and Wyoming are in the top ten least murders per capita. California tends to rank 24, Texas 28, so it’s not as if they are that far from each other. CA also has normally a slightly higher violent crime rate, 2020 being the recent exception. The main denominator for murder rate seems to be economic status, more than firearms.

California’s fewer gun owners also seem to be busier. Only 28% of Californians have guns, the National average is 44%. Texas runs at 45%. Top two are Montana and Wyoming, 66%, both of which have lower murder rates per capita than California.

Gun Violence and how to address it

Comments