Bill Frists thoughts on Gun Control

[arein0 977]

On 5/4/2023 at 9:09 PM, GoAU said:

For example, the CDC under Biden removing the number of defensive uses of firearms from their last study on gun violence.   

15 hours ago, GoAU said:

They didn’t exclude defensive uses, they included them, which is wrong, just like it’s wrong to use justified police shootings and suicides.  

Since you have contradicted yourself, I took the liberty to look up on the CDC website what they actually included and based on your more recent post, you should be able to relax since they do not include defensive shootings in the statistics.

Based on what they are using, the only one I can see an actual case for removal is the legal intervention, as those imo should be viewed similar to defensive shootings.

Not sure why you don't think suicides should be included. From my point of view, guns weren't created for suicides. Yes, there are other ways to commit suicide, but they are being used because they believe that is the easiest, quickest way to commit suicide. Not to mention how easy it is to obtain a gun, based on the state, they could legally buy the gun and commit suicide in under an hour.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html

What are the different types of firearm injuries?

Intentionally self-inflicted

Includes firearm suicide or nonfatal self-harm injury from a firearm

Unintentional

Includes fatal or nonfatal firearm injuries that happen while someone is cleaning or playing with a firearm or other incidents of an accidental firing without evidence of intentional harm

Interpersonal violence

Includes firearm homicide or nonfatal assault injury from a firearm

Legal intervention

Includes firearm injuries inflicted by the police or other law enforcement agents acting in the line of duty

For example, firearm injuries that occur while arresting or attempting to arrest someone, maintaining order, or ensuring safety

The term legal intervention is a commonly used external cause of injury classification. It does not indicate the legality of the circumstances surrounding the death.

Undetermined intent

Includes firearm injuries where there is not enough information to determine whether the injury was intentionally self-inflicted, unintentional, the result of legal intervention, or from an act of interpersonal violence.

[arein0 977]

16 hours ago, GoAU said:

No, they included 18-20 year olds because is significantly inflated the numbers and helped the narrative they intended to push.   We continue to selectively pick and choose what defines and adult and it’s garbage.  Either you are, or you are not an adult.  

We do not live in a black and white world. That is why you see driving age at 16, I think is too early, legally an adult at 18/19 depending on the state, and able to purchase alcohol at 21.

[I_M4_AU 7,957]

Here is a state that is proposing no one under 25 can be charged with Felony Murder and other various felony crimes.

                                                                                                                       Analysis
The bill would prohibit an individual under the age of 25 from being convicted of first-degree murder committed in the perpetration of or an attempt to perpetrate various felonies including carjacking, arson, burglary, rape, and various sex offenses. The current penalty for first-degree murder, including felony murder as described in the bill, is imprisonment for life or life without the possibility of parole. A murder that is not in the first degree is considered second degree under statute, and a person who commits a murder in the second degree is also guilty of a felony and subject to imprisonment for a maximum of 40 years. Accordingly, the bill would reduce the overall sentence length for individuals who committed felony murder prior to turning age 25 that would have been otherwise sentenced to life imprisonment under existing law.

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/Pubs/BudgetFiscal/2023RS-SB0652-REIN.pdf

Well, this is progressive.  Baltimore will become a hellscape.

[arein0 977]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

Here is a state that is proposing no one under 25 can be charged with Felony Murder and other various felony crimes.

                                                                                                                       Analysis
The bill would prohibit an individual under the age of 25 from being convicted of first-degree murder committed in the perpetration of or an attempt to perpetrate various felonies including carjacking, arson, burglary, rape, and various sex offenses. The current penalty for first-degree murder, including felony murder as described in the bill, is imprisonment for life or life without the possibility of parole. A murder that is not in the first degree is considered second degree under statute, and a person who commits a murder in the second degree is also guilty of a felony and subject to imprisonment for a maximum of 40 years. Accordingly, the bill would reduce the overall sentence length for individuals who committed felony murder prior to turning age 25 that would have been otherwise sentenced to life imprisonment under existing law.

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/Pubs/BudgetFiscal/2023RS-SB0652-REIN.pdf

Well, this is progressive.  Baltimore will become a hellscape.

Please stop trying to hijack this thread. You are more than capable of creating your own topic, but this is the 2nd instance where your post is not relevant to the topic being discussed.

[I_M4_AU 7,957]

Just now, arein0 said:

Please stop trying to hijack this thread. You are more than capable of creating your own topic, but this is the 2nd instance where your post is not relevant to the topic being discussed.

I’m sorry, you were talking about at what point a person became an adult.  The proposed law is about Maryland using 25, which a lot of people believe the age the brain finally matures, and was relevant to the conversation.

Did I misunderstand where this thread was going?

[arein0 977]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Did I misunderstand where this thread was going?

Yes.

[GoAU 1,600]

3 hours ago, arein0 said:

Not sure why you don't think suicides should be included. From my point of view, guns weren't created for suicides. Yes, there are other ways to commit suicide, but they are being used because they believe that is the easiest, quickest way to commit suicide. Not to mention how easy it is to obtain a gun, based on the state, they could legally buy the gun and commit suicide in under an hour.

 

I don’t think they should be included because that statistics are being manipulated to make those deaths appear to be homicides.  
 

Suicides are tragic, but gun control is also not going to move the needle.   Lumping suicides and homicides together to try and push the gun control narrative is intentionally deceptive.

[GoAU 1,600]

3 hours ago, arein0 said:

We do not live in a black and white world. That is why you see driving age at 16, I think is too early, legally an adult at 18/19 depending on the state, and able to purchase alcohol at 21.

The point being is that:

1) Well over 50% of the the fatalities attributed to “firearm violence” are in fact suicides or accidents.  
 

2) The “leading cause of death” storyline  / propaganda has been manipulated to include 18-20 year olds so they can include the gang violence that has run rampant in our cities.  Yet for some reason, we think another law is the answer.   They already aren’t following the laws we already have.  

[arein0 977]

9 minutes ago, GoAU said:

I don’t think they should be included because that statistics are being manipulated to make those deaths appear to be homicides.  
 

Suicides are tragic, but gun control is also not going to move the needle.   Lumping suicides and homicides together to try and push the gun control narrative is intentionally deceptive.

So if gun control isn't going to move the needle on suicides or gun related deaths, explain to me why the US is 5 times likely to have a gun related death than other comparable countries in the same age range. Are we that much more of a broken society? Are guns more easily accessible to the bad guys?

To say there is not a gun problem is blasphemy.

[Leftfield 2,648]

On 5/4/2023 at 9:09 PM, GoAU said:

I'll chime in on this:

1. Enact extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws. - Let's start by calling this what it really is - suspension of Constitutional Rights w/o due process.  There are already several ways to do this, such as getting someone committed or diagnosed as mentally incompetent.   If someone is so dangerous that we feel we need to toss our Constitution to the side - why isn't the person fully committed?  If they are dangerous, why leave them in public at all?   Also, what types of damages are available for people who are the victims of this "process" when it is abused?  I will say I agree with the process of getting the people who are threats away from the public, but the current processes for ERPOs is Constitutionally flawed  and in most cases still leaves the person in the public?  If we are depriving them of Rights, why not detain them as well?

This is why it's going to be so terribly difficult to address gun violence in this country. Plain and simple, I believe that if those who voted to enshrine gun ownership as a right could see the way the 2nd Amendment is being used today, they would be appalled at the horrible mistake they made.

As you said, if someone clearly has issues and can be committed or diagnosed as unstable, it's a simple enough matter to have weapons taken away, but what about those that aren't (which is almost certainly the vast majority)? How many professionals are going to risk taking away a person's basic freedom - as opposed to being committed or confined to home - from someone who may not present clear indications of mental illness or of being an immediate threat, and potentially getting sued for malpractice? Should there not be a middle-ground where a professional can say there are legitimate concerns about a person's mental health, and that without treatment they may become a danger to themselves or others, but can still remain free to get that treatment in the course of their normal lives, with the caveat that they must surrender their firearms? Unfortunately, because gun ownership is given almost a level of reverence, the law can't touch them unless a person is in fact deemed mentally incompetent, which is a step that very few people will ever see, or actually proceed with a violent act.

On 5/4/2023 at 9:09 PM, GoAU said:

2. Implement child-access prevention and safe storage laws. Safes are an option in a car, but if the car itself is locked, that should be secure.  How about we add mandatory sentencing for the thieves that steal guns?  

I agree with you on mandatory sentencing for stealing a gun. Considering that's how many illegal guns hit the streets, the penalty should be severe. However, I don't see how you can say that a locked car should be secure. It literally takes seconds for a thief, especially an experienced one, to break a window or pick a lock, and there aren't very many places to hide a gun in a car.

On 5/4/2023 at 9:09 PM, GoAU said:

3. Expand background checks to all firearm purchases. I could potentially get behind this IF someone can explain how this could be enforced WITHOUT a firearms registry.

I will admit to being ignorant on the mechanics of the process here, but background checks are done in stores currently, are they not? On its own, why would adding mandatory checks change that?

You replied to arein0 that registries have led to gun confiscation many times in history. Can you please give examples? This is something else I'm ignorant of. I can understand the concern, but would like to see the circumstances in which the confiscations were issued.

On 5/4/2023 at 9:09 PM, GoAU said:

5. Expand who is restricted from purchasing or owning firearms.   As for the Terrorist Watchlist - we have a LOT of work to do there.  First, people are placed on that list without their knowledge and the ability to defend themselves.  Then, they incur legal costs to try and clear their names, in many cases without even knowing how they got on the list.  If some due process was in place, this would make sense.

Very good points on this. This is one place where the fear from September 11 swung us too far. 

On 5/4/2023 at 9:09 PM, GoAU said:

6. Enhance school safety, including placing a school resource officer (SRO) at every school.  Agree with this, 100%.  Some schools, based on size and maybe even crime rates in the area, I would even say more than 1.

I don't mind the idea of a School Resource Officer, depending on the exact roles that person is supposed to play. If they're seen mainly as a security guard, and it's required that they are armed, I have a big problem with it. I simply can't fathom a country that feels having an armed guard at a school should be an expected part of the staff. Certainly they should be allowed to be armed, due to, as you mentioned, some of the areas where schools operate, but that should be left to the discretion of the school and parents. However, for the vast majority of schools in this country this should not be seen as necessary, and it's sad to me that we've gotten to the point where many do.

On 5/4/2023 at 9:09 PM, GoAU said:

I7. Ban high-capacity magazines and/or assault-style weapons. Completely disagree, non-negotiable.

Another reason addressing gun violence will be difficult. Banning assault weapons is not just about the weapons themselves, but also the type of culture they encourage. I think we all agree that there is an enormous number of people out there who are simply not responsible (not just as gun owners, but in general), and those people only feel emboldened by the power of holding this type of weapon in their hands. They encouraging violence, whether it be implicitly or openly, and many point to the 2nd Amendment as an absolute.

Many people want these weapons, but there are exceedingly few that have an actual "need" for them. 

It will of course not be a surprise that I support limiting magazine sizes. Not sure what the exact number should be, but I certainly don't see a need for something like a 30-round magazine.

On 5/4/2023 at 9:09 PM, GoAU said:

8. Fund research to better understand the drivers of gun violence. - Not sure how I feel about this as so many of these "studies" are complete garbage and just use cherry-picked data and have predetermined outcomes.  For example, the CDC under Biden removing the number of defensive uses of firearms from their last study on gun violence.   This video is pretty insightful, and surprisingly non-partisan.  It shows how studies have been abused by both sides.  Does Gun Control Work?

11. Fund mental health.  Agree with funding mental health, but this also can tie into ERPOs.  The author mentions only 4% of "community violence" is tied to mental health, but what percentage of mass shootings, if that is in fact the problem we're trying to solve for?

These pretty much go hand-in-hand. Probably everyone here agrees that we as a country need to improve focus and ability to treat mental illness in any regards, not just violence. I don't think anyone here thinks that the target should only be to reduce mass shootings.

On 5/4/2023 at 9:09 PM, GoAU said:

9. Raise the legal purchasing age.  If, under the premise that brains aren't fully developed until age 25, then how about we raise the voting age, age for alcohol, tobacco and pot (where legal), and driving licenses?  I'll settle for the age being 21 for firearms (all) and the voting age, with exceptions made for those in the military - deal? 

Absolutely agree that 21 should be the minimum age, not just to purchase, but to "own." I'm a bit on the fence about voting age. True, brains aren't fully developed, but that plays more into impulsive behavior and ability to understand long-term effects of decisions, not necessarily logical reasoning.

I do think that the goal long-term for the military should be to keep those 18-21 in support roles and out of combat, but that's completely impractical right now with recruiting numbers where they are. 

On 5/4/2023 at 9:09 PM, GoAU said:

10. Make gunmakers liable for harm caused by their products and improve product safety. This is complete garbage.  Gun makers are liable for defects in their products.  As to misuse of their products, are alcohol companies liable for drunk driving?  Car makers for auto deaths?  How about we hold junk food companies liable for obesity?  This is nothing more than a backdoor method to sue firearms companies into oblivion.  

To an extent I agree, but I think much depends on the conduct of the company. Responsible companies will promote the safety aspect of shooting and the use of guns against people as a last resort, but if they encourage the "yahoo" side of gun culture and the "wink, wink" about weapon modification, I absolutely think suing that company into oblivion is fair game.

 

A final note: you mentioned that you don't want drug legalization, but a huge problem in this country is mass incarceration, many of them for non-violent drug offenses. Much of that has to due with the drug trade, and would be far less of an issue if they were legal, taxed, and regulated. I understand not wanting to be seen as a country where vice is permissible, but that's cutting off our nose to spite our face. Overall I think it's better for the country to legalize most drugs, not necessarily all. 

 

[Leftfield 2,648]

31 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Suicides are tragic, but gun control is also not going to move the needle.   Lumping suicides and homicides together to try and push the gun control narrative is intentionally deceptive.

Why do you think it would make no difference in the number of suicides? Certainly some will still find a way to go through with it if they can't get a gun, but the fact is that guns present a quick, easy, painless way to commit suicide, which is why it's the most common method: 

 

 

I understand your point about homicides vs suicides, but if they are also broken down into separate numbers for analysis, I see no reason suicides shouldn't be included in total deaths by firearms. 

 

[Leftfield 2,648]

37 minutes ago, GoAU said:

2) The “leading cause of death” storyline  / propaganda has been manipulated to include 18-20 year olds so they can include the gang violence that has run rampant in our cities. 

18-20 year olds are still considered children in terms of pediatrics. 

[GoAU 1,600]

6 hours ago, arein0 said:

So if gun control isn't going to move the needle on suicides or gun related deaths, explain to me why the US is 5 times likely to have a gun related death than other comparable countries in the same age range. Are we that much more of a broken society? Are guns more easily accessible to the bad guys?

To say there is not a gun problem is blasphemy.

Blasphemy?   Need me to show you the definition of that?    Not one gun has ever jumped up and started shooting on its own.  To say you don’t think it’s a societal problem is insane.  

[GoAU 1,600]

7 hours ago, Leftfield said:

18-20 year olds are still considered children in terms of pediatrics. 

Legally they are old enough  to vote, join the military, sign legally binding contracts, get married, etc - right?  
 

I'm not as adamant if we were to raise the age of firearms to 21 however.   I would advocate a waiver for those in the military based on the training they receive.  

Edited May 8, 2023 by GoAU

[GoAU 1,600]

6 hours ago, Leftfield said:

This is why it's going to be so terribly difficult to address gun violence in this country. Plain and simple, I believe that if those who voted to enshrine gun ownership as a right could see the way the 2nd Amendment is being used today, they would be appalled at the horrible mistake they made.

I don't think they'd have any problems with firearms - they'd be much more dismayed at our failure to enforce laws and the state of our society.   They were fresh off having to fight off an oppressive government.  Their views on firearms are well documented.

As you said, if someone clearly has issues and can be committed or diagnosed as unstable, it's a simple enough matter to have weapons taken away, but what about those that aren't (which is almost certainly the vast majority)? How many professionals are going to risk taking away a person's basic freedom - as opposed to being committed or confined to home - from someone who may not present clear indications of mental illness or of being an immediate threat, and potentially getting sued for malpractice? Should there not be a middle-ground where a professional can say there are legitimate concerns about a person's mental health, and that without treatment they may become a danger to themselves or others, but can still remain free to get that treatment in the course of their normal lives, with the caveat that they must surrender their firearms? Unfortunately, because gun ownership is given almost a level of reverence, the law can't touch them unless a person is in fact deemed mentally incompetent, which is a step that very few people will ever see, or actually proceed with a violent act.

If that middle ground included due process, facing your accuser and having the chance to defend yourself (free of charge), and liability for unsubstantiated accusations I'd be willing to listen to a proposal, but current Red Flag laws don't do any of those things and people have to spend (a lot) of their own money just to have their rights restored.

I agree with you on mandatory sentencing for stealing a gun. Considering that's how many illegal guns hit the streets, the penalty should be severe. However, I don't see how you can say that a locked car should be secure. It literally takes seconds for a thief, especially an experienced one, to break a window or pick a lock, and there aren't very many places to hide a gun in a car.

How would you propose this is resolved?  For people who commute, should employers be forced to allow employees to bring their guns inside?  I absolutely hate people that leave guns in cars overnight and think it's incredibly irresponsible, but when someone is out running errands and sees a business with a "No Firearms" sign - there aren't too many options.

I will admit to being ignorant on the mechanics of the process here, but background checks are done in stores currently, are they not? On its own, why would adding mandatory checks change that?

Currently all sales in guns stores and on line purchases (not what you think it is if you're not familiar with how this works) require background checks.  Private (individual to individual sales in many states ) don't require background checks.  The "gun show" loophole is where an individual gets a booth at a gun show and sells for their "private collection"  I'm not a fan of this, and it can (and should be prosecuted), similar to straw purchases. The government really does need to clarify and objective number of sales however, as this is currently a huge gray area.

You replied to arein0 that registries have led to gun confiscation many times in history. Can you please give examples? This is something else I'm ignorant of. I can understand the concern, but would like to see the circumstances in which the confiscations were issued.

The easiest and most obvious example happened in Germany right after the Nazis took control in 1938 (I believe), but other examples happened in Russia, China, and Cambodia.  Registration is in the process of leading to confiscation in Canada (just look at what Trudeau has done in the last 5 or so years).

Very good points on this. This is one place where the fear from September 11 swung us too far. 

I don't mind the idea of a School Resource Officer, depending on the exact roles that person is supposed to play. If they're seen mainly as a security guard, and it's required that they are armed, I have a big problem with it. I simply can't fathom a country that feels having an armed guard at a school should be an expected part of the staff. Certainly they should be allowed to be armed, due to, as you mentioned, some of the areas where schools operate, but that should be left to the discretion of the school and parents. However, for the vast majority of schools in this country this should not be seen as necessary, and it's sad to me that we've gotten to the point where many do.

I think the security aspect is just one of many roles SROs should play.   Counseling and interacting with children (so they aren't raised to be afraid of the police), looking out for child abuse, helping counter drugs in our schools, etc are all important. 

Another reason addressing gun violence will be difficult. Banning assault weapons is not just about the weapons themselves, but also the type of culture they encourage. I think we all agree that there is an enormous number of people out there who are simply not responsible (not just as gun owners, but in general), and those people only feel emboldened by the power of holding this type of weapon in their hands. They encouraging violence, whether it be implicitly or openly, and many point to the 2nd Amendment as an absolute.

Firearms don't "encourage" or "embolden" people - our culture does.  Movies, music, video games do more to shape behavior and attitude than an inanimate object.  I would love to find a way to remove firearms from irresponsible people without infringing on responsible people's rights - but I can't think of how you'd do that.  Much like I'd love to remove the ability of bad drivers from driving on public roads.  All I can say here is to prosecute people who violate the law.   

Many people want these weapons, but there are exceedingly few that have an actual "need" for them.

It's a "right" - you don't (and shouldn't have to) justify a need.  If you wait until you "need" it to get a firearm, it's usually too late.

It will of course not be a surprise that I support limiting magazine sizes. Not sure what the exact number should be, but I certainly don't see a need for something like a 30-round magazine.

This won't have any measurable effect, and is just a "feel good" but ineffective gesture.

These pretty much go hand-in-hand. Probably everyone here agrees that we as a country need to improve focus and ability to treat mental illness in any regards, not just violence. I don't think anyone here thinks that the target should only be to reduce mass shootings.

Absolutely agree that 21 should be the minimum age, not just to purchase, but to "own." I'm a bit on the fence about voting age. True, brains aren't fully developed, but that plays more into impulsive behavior and ability to understand long-term effects of decisions, not necessarily logical reasoning.

I do think that the goal long-term for the military should be to keep those 18-21 in support roles and out of combat, but that's completely impractical right now with recruiting numbers where they are. 

Unfortunately this is impossible.  The rank structure alone would prevent it.  In addition, modern warfare doesn't really have well defined "front lines" any more.  I enlisted into the Infantry at age 18 and of all the people I knew, not a single one felt like we were too young or immature to do what we did.

To an extent I agree, but I think much depends on the conduct of the company. Responsible companies will promote the safety aspect of shooting and the use of guns against people as a last resort, but if they encourage the "yahoo" side of gun culture and the "wink, wink" about weapon modification, I absolutely think suing that company into oblivion is fair game.  

I've been shooting for the better part of half a century (recreationally and competitively) and  can't think of a single company that doesn't actively promote gun safety and responsible shooting.  Hollywood and some genres of music are much more egregious about unsafe gun use than anyone in the industry could ever be.

 

A final note: you mentioned that you don't want drug legalization, but a huge problem in this country is mass incarceration, many of them for non-violent drug offenses. Much of that has to due with the drug trade, and would be far less of an issue if they were legal, taxed, and regulated. I understand not wanting to be seen as a country where vice is permissible, but that's cutting off our nose to spite our face. Overall I think it's better for the country to legalize most drugs, not necessarily all. 

I understand the premise of your argument above, but I don't think the problem is mass incarceration - the issue is the mass disregard of the law.  You're stating that the result is the problem, not the cause. I don't see any benefit to legalizing drugs and the numerous negative effects that come from that.  Earlier in you post you mention mental health, but here talk about legalizing drugs which have been shown to have negative effects on mental health...

 

I do appreciate the dialogue!

 

[Leftfield 2,648]

1 hour ago, GoAU said:

Legally they enough judgement to vote, hoping the military, sign legally binding contracts, get married, etc - right?  

True, and we do need to figure out if there is a certain age to legally call a person an adult for all matters. Can't say I have a solution here, though I did mention my thoughts on military service in the other post, impractical though it may be right now. Perhaps an interstitial category for those 18-21 who have certain rights. I do know that the rate of divorce of those who marry before the age of 20 is quite high - almost 50% - so I wouldn't be completely opposed to raising that age. There are exceptions, but honestly, how many 18 year olds have you looked at and thought, "yep, they're good." 😆

Interestingly, the rate of divorce is even higher for those 20-25, though I don't see how we could move the required age to 25.

1 hour ago, GoAU said:

Im not as adamant if we were to raise the age of firearms to 21 however.   I would advocate a waiver for those in the military based on the training they receive.  

Agree on the waiver for military.

[Leftfield 2,648]

27 minutes ago, GoAU said:

I do appreciate the dialogue!

 

Much appreciation to you, as well. I agree with some of the additional points you made. Will respond to a few others later, but I was working in the yard most of the day and then stupidly went for a run, so I'm knackered. Enjoy the rest of your evening!

[arein0 977]

1 hour ago, GoAU said:

To say you don’t think it’s a societal problem is insane.  

It is both. It is societal in that people believe they need a gun and are irresponsible with their gun, leaving it in their car in plain sight, not having it stored properly at home, etc. It is also a gun issue as they are accessible to pretty much everyone. With the gun laws we currently have, the bad guys are able to easily purchase a gun legally and shoot up a bank, mall, school, etc. And the sad thing is that people are becoming desensitized to them because they are happening so frequently.

[GoAU 1,600]

1 minute ago, arein0 said:

It is both. It is societal in that people believe they need a gun and are irresponsible with their gun, leaving it in their car in plain sight, not having it stored properly at home, etc. It is also a gun issue as they are accessible to pretty much everyone. With the gun laws we currently have, the bad guys are able to easily purchase a gun legally and shoot up a bank, mall, school, etc. And the sad thing is that people are becoming desensitized to them because they are happening so frequently.

When you say that the bad guys are easily able to purchase on legally, I don’t think it’s as easy as you think.   However, I’m assuming by “bad guys” you are referring to people with criminal records - if they haven’t been convicted of a crime, then I guess yes, it is easy.  

But, there are also several cases of shooters that should have not been able to buy firearms legally, but did because their offenses were not loaded into the NICS system by law enforcement- which is tragic.  

When it comes to societal issues, the worst part is how much violent crime has surged.  The individuals committing gun related homicides have an AVERAGE of 4 prior felony offenses.  Why are they still on the streets?   

 

[arein0 977]

12 hours ago, GoAU said:

When you say that the bad guys are easily able to purchase on legally, I don’t think it’s as easy as you think.   However, I’m assuming by “bad guys” you are referring to people with criminal records - if they haven’t been convicted of a crime, then I guess yes, it is easy.  

But, there are also several cases of shooters that should have not been able to buy firearms legally, but did because their offenses were not loaded into the NICS system by law enforcement- which is tragic.  

When it comes to societal issues, the worst part is how much violent crime has surged.  The individuals committing gun related homicides have an AVERAGE of 4 prior felony offenses.  Why are they still on the streets?   

 

When I say "bad guys" I really just mean people that shouldn't have a gun, mentally unstable, criminals, alcoholics, etc. It's just a term that I've had to use on here for others to understand.

If we are able to put restrictions to buy a gun in place, we should see the number of mass shootings go down.

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/public-mass-shootings-database-amasses-details-half-century-us-mass-shootings#note1

Firearms
Notably, most individuals who engaged in mass shootings used handguns (77.2%), and 25.1% used assault rifles in the commission of their crimes. Of the known mass shooting cases (32.5% of cases could not be confirmed), 77% of those who engaged in mass shootings purchased at least some of their guns legally, while illegal purchases were made by 13% of those committing mass shootings. In cases involving K-12 school shootings, over 80% of individuals who engaged in shootings stole guns from family members.

The findings support safe storage of guns. Yet, the researchers noted that there are no federal laws requiring safe storage of guns, and no federal standards for firearm locks. The data also support “red flag” laws permitting law enforcement or family members to petition a state court to order temporary removal of a firearm from a person who presents a danger.

I agree that the increase in violent crimes is a problem, however I believe that a different solution would be needed to fix that issue. If I'm remembering correctly, most gang related crimes are being done with illegally obtained weapons. This is where being accountable for your gun needs to come into place. You should be practicing safe storage to prevent your gun being stolen. You should not be buying guns and passing them off like how teenagers are able to "buy" alcohol. Right now we have no way of holding those people accountable. The other thing, our prisons should be used to rehabilitate the criminals so they can be helpful members of society rather than keep them as outcasts.

[GoAU 1,600]

Regarding purchasing guns - I’m willing to listen to options as long as they don’t infringe on rights of law abiding citizens and don’t result in a registry.  A big part of getting the most out of our current system is ensure everything is entered in NICS, early crimes are prosecuted (so they are forbidden from buying guns in the future), and moving for adjudication of mental illness as soon as it’s clear.  Many times these things aren’t done, and we always resort to punishing the millions and millions of law abiding citizens as some twisted form of retaliation.  
 

I haven’t heard your thoughts on my comments about Red Flag laws?  Following due process, the right to a FREE trial to face your accuser & defend yourself, and civil / criminal penalties for false claims? 
 

I stated earlier - I am a HUGE support of safe firearm storage.  A lot of gun companies also provide locks with firearms they sell to make this even easier.  In event someone doesn’t have the ability to have a full sized gun safe - but with a little time and even rudimentary tools they can be overcome.  Just as importantly, parents need to “know” their kids, raise them right, and take action when little Johnny is clearly going off the rails.   The problem is these things are incredibly difficult to objectively codify.  And they definitely fall into the realm of state law versus federal.  
 

Regarding your comment of rehabilitation versus punishment - I can see your point on first time offenders and non violent crimes but many of these clowns are habitual, professional felons and we need to remove them from society once they show they are not inclined to live as civilized people do.   I’d love to see something similar to “Escape from New York” for them - if anyone is old enough to remember that old Kurt Russel movie….

[creed 1,645]

2 hours ago, GoAU said:

Regarding purchasing guns - I’m willing to listen to options as long as they don’t infringe on rights of law abiding citizens and don’t result in a registry.  A big part of getting the most out of our current system is ensure everything is entered in NICS, early crimes are prosecuted (so they are forbidden from buying guns in the future), and moving for adjudication of mental illness as soon as it’s clear.  Many times these things aren’t done, and we always resort to punishing the millions and millions of law abiding citizens as some twisted form of retaliation.  
 

I haven’t heard your thoughts on my comments about Red Flag laws?  Following due process, the right to a FREE trial to face your accuser & defend yourself, and civil / criminal penalties for false claims? 
 

I stated earlier - I am a HUGE support of safe firearm storage.  A lot of gun companies also provide locks with firearms they sell to make this even easier.  In event someone doesn’t have the ability to have a full sized gun safe - but with a little time and even rudimentary tools they can be overcome.  Just as importantly, parents need to “know” their kids, raise them right, and take action when little Johnny is clearly going off the rails.   The problem is these things are incredibly difficult to objectively codify.  And they definitely fall into the realm of state law versus federal.  
 

Regarding your comment of rehabilitation versus punishment - I can see your point on first time offenders and non violent crimes but many of these clowns are habitual, professional felons and we need to remove them from society once they show they are not inclined to live as civilized people do.   I’d love to see something similar to “Escape from New York” for them - if anyone is old enough to remember that old Kurt Russel movie….

What's your hesitation about a registry?

[GoAU 1,600]

4 hours ago, creed said:

What's your hesitation about a registry?

We covered that a little earlier in this thread.  
 

First, it’s illegal, per the Firearm Owners Protection Act.  
 

Second it has shown zero evidence of being a deterrent to crime.  
 

Third, historically (although not is the US) it has been the key step to allowing governments the ability to seize / confiscate weapons from it citizenry.   Examples I cited earlier included Nazi Germany (circa 1938), China, Cambodia, and what is currently occurring in Canada.  

[Leftfield 2,648]

21 hours ago, GoAU said:

I don't think they'd have any problems with firearms - they'd be much more dismayed at our failure to enforce laws and the state of our society.   They were fresh off having to fight off an oppressive government.  Their views on firearms are well documented.

Unfortunately there are no easy answers here. Certainly a better job could be done enforcing our laws, but you run into the problem of manpower and funding. Employment levels with the government as a percentage of population has been declining for quite some time. I'd love to see some areas of the government trimmed and resources allocated to others, but I don't have the information to say which and where.

As for society itself, I don't think either of us has the time to devote writing about what we think are the root causes. Certainly poverty, hopelessness, and the cycle of low expectations play a large part. Crime eases when everyone feels they have a voice and a part to play, but there are a lot of barriers and prejudices on all sides that have to be overcome, and that will take decades.

21 hours ago, GoAU said:

However, I don't see how you can say that a locked car should be secure. It literally takes seconds for a thief, especially an experienced one, to break a window or pick a lock, and there aren't very many places to hide a gun in a car.

How would you propose this is resolved?  For people who commute, should employers be forced to allow employees to bring their guns inside?  I absolutely hate people that leave guns in cars overnight and think it's incredibly irresponsible, but when someone is out running errands and sees a business with a "No Firearms" sign - there aren't too many options.

The only way I can think to do it currently is trigger locks or a small safe that bolts to the vehicle. I do understand that those who carry would be very upset with those solutions, though, because it makes getting to them in an urgent situation difficult.  Biometrics could be a solution, but I have no idea how failsafe they are, or how much it would add cost to the weapon.

The biggest deterrent would be manufacturing all guns with RF chips or some other type of locator, but there are understandable concerns about abuse and intrusion there. Perhaps the owner is the only person who is given the code, so they can be the ones to activate it if the gun is stolen?

21 hours ago, GoAU said:

I will admit to being ignorant on the mechanics of the process here, but background checks are done in stores currently, are they not? On its own, why would adding mandatory checks change that?

Currently all sales in guns stores and on line purchases (not what you think it is if you're not familiar with how this works) require background checks.  Private (individual to individual sales in many states ) don't require background checks.  The "gun show" loophole is where an individual gets a booth at a gun show and sells for their "private collection"  I'm not a fan of this, and it can (and should be prosecuted), similar to straw purchases. The government really does need to clarify and objective number of sales however, as this is currently a huge gray area.

Sure, I'm familiar with the loophole. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but I thought your concern was that expanding background checks to all gun purchases would require a gun registry. I just didn't understand why that would be the case.

22 hours ago, GoAU said:

Another reason addressing gun violence will be difficult. Banning assault weapons is not just about the weapons themselves, but also the type of culture they encourage. I think we all agree that there is an enormous number of people out there who are simply not responsible (not just as gun owners, but in general), and those people only feel emboldened by the power of holding this type of weapon in their hands. They encouraging violence, whether it be implicitly or openly, and many point to the 2nd Amendment as an absolute.

Firearms don't "encourage" or "embolden" people - our culture does.  Movies, music, video games do more to shape behavior and attitude than an inanimate object.  I would love to find a way to remove firearms from irresponsible people without infringing on responsible people's rights - but I can't think of how you'd do that.  Much like I'd love to remove the ability of bad drivers from driving on public roads.  All I can say here is to prosecute people who violate the law.   

Not quite sure what you're saying here, but in my view, culture has evolved around firearms. There is of course the inner-city culture, but there is also the culture that has embraced military-style weapons and glorifies the firepower and ability to stand against the government. I don't see many people in that group encouraging safety. 

I don't disagree with you about glorification of violence in popular media. Certainly the action moves of the 80s kicked that into high gear, as did gangsta rap beginning around the same time. I was a gamer, but I never liked the idea about a game like Grand Theft Auto. These industries certainly share some responsibility, but I don't know how we change that other than voting with our wallets. 

The best way to keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible people, in my opinion, is to make it very difficult to obtain them in the first place. To own a weapon like an AR-15, I believe you should have to go through pretty rigorous training and safety courses, and have a sterling background. Many of those who are irresponsible won't have those clean backgrounds, and of those that do, many won't want to go through all that much effort. Primarily, though, and I know we disagree on this, I simply don't think an average person has a "right" to a weapon like that. I also believe we should reword the 2nd Amendment to state, as some other countries do, that the Amendment extends only to weapons not prohibited by law. 

23 hours ago, GoAU said:

It will of course not be a surprise that I support limiting magazine sizes. Not sure what the exact number should be, but I certainly don't see a need for something like a 30-round magazine.

This won't have any measurable effect, and is just a "feel good" but ineffective gesture.

In many cases, sure, but do you not agree that someone having to reload more often in a mass shooting gives more time for potential victims to flee the area, and law enforcement or good samaritans to intervene?

23 hours ago, GoAU said:

I do think that the goal long-term for the military should be to keep those 18-21 in support roles and out of combat, but that's completely impractical right now with recruiting numbers where they are. 

Unfortunately this is impossible.  The rank structure alone would prevent it.  In addition, modern warfare doesn't really have well defined "front lines" any more.  I enlisted into the Infantry at age 18 and of all the people I knew, not a single one felt like we were too young or immature to do what we did.

Agreed, don't know if it's doable, but I do think it should be looked at to see if there's any way to at least mitigate it. I would point out, however, that there isn't an 18 year old in the world that thinks they're too young or immature for anything!

23 hours ago, GoAU said:

To an extent I agree, but I think much depends on the conduct of the company. Responsible companies will promote the safety aspect of shooting and the use of guns against people as a last resort, but if they encourage the "yahoo" side of gun culture and the "wink, wink" about weapon modification, I absolutely think suing that company into oblivion is fair game.  

I've been shooting for the better part of half a century (recreationally and competitively) and  can't think of a single company that doesn't actively promote gun safety and responsible shooting.  Hollywood and some genres of music are much more egregious about unsafe gun use than anyone in the industry could ever be.

Gotta disagree with you on this....

 

[GoAU 1,600]

31 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Unfortunately there are no easy answers here. Certainly a better job could be done enforcing our laws, but you run into the problem of manpower and funding. Employment levels with the government as a percentage of population has been declining for quite some time. I'd love to see some areas of the government trimmed and resources allocated to others, but I don't have the information to say which and where.

Agree that there are no easy answers to this, but saying the government isn't enforcing current laws (for whatever reason) can never be a reason to pass more laws or remove rights.   We aren't banning guns and alcohol because of the numbers of people drunk driving.

As for society itself, I don't think either of us has the time to devote writing about what we think are the root causes. Certainly poverty, hopelessness, and the cycle of low expectations play a large part. Crime eases when everyone feels they have a voice and a part to play, but there are a lot of barriers and prejudices on all sides that have to be overcome, and that will take decades.

The only way I can think to do it currently is trigger locks or a small safe that bolts to the vehicle. I do understand that those who carry would be very upset with those solutions, though, because it makes getting to them in an urgent situation difficult.  Biometrics could be a solution, but I have no idea how failsafe they are, or how much it would add cost to the weapon.

In some ways trigger locks or safes could have some effect, and the point you make about accessibility doesn't mean you have to have it locked or secured when you are in the vehicle.  For example, I installed a safe under the seat of my Jeep in event I had to leave a weapon in my car when the tops and doors are off.  I'm less inclined to advocate trigger locks because someone could still steal the gun and remove the trigger lock after they are clear of the crime scene.  But I also understand that forcing people to install gun safes could result in a significant financial cost for people without a reasonable high level of disposable income.  They are easily several hundred dollars - doesn't sound like much to many people, but it is to some.

The biggest deterrent would be manufacturing all guns with RF chips or some other type of locator, but there are understandable concerns about abuse and intrusion there. Perhaps the owner is the only person who is given the code, so they can be the ones to activate it if the gun is stolen?

The biggest issue with smart guns is reliability.  Speaking about guns that read biometrics and prevent firing from unauthorized people.  As far as some type of Apple tag on a gun is honestly something I haven't thought of.  At first thought - not a fan, but it's worth thinking about.

Sure, I'm familiar with the loophole. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but I thought your concern was that expanding background checks to all gun purchases would require a gun registry. I just didn't understand why that would be the case.

Hypothetically, how could you prove we did a background check if you sold me a firearm in a private sale unless it was recorded in some type of registry?

Not quite sure what you're saying here, but in my view, culture has evolved around firearms. There is of course the inner-city culture, but there is also the culture that has embraced military-style weapons and glorifies the firepower and ability to stand against the government. I don't see many people in that group encouraging safety. 

In all honesty, how much time have you spent involved in the "gun culture"?  I've been competition shooting and members of several private gun clubs for many years, and I think the amount of safety would surprise you.  

I don't disagree with you about glorification of violence in popular media. Certainly the action moves of the 80s kicked that into high gear, as did gangsta rap beginning around the same time. I was a gamer, but I never liked the idea about a game like Grand Theft Auto. These industries certainly share some responsibility, but I don't know how we change that other than voting with our wallets. 

The best way to keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible people, in my opinion, is to make it very difficult to obtain them in the first place. To own a weapon like an AR-15, I believe you should have to go through pretty rigorous training and safety courses, and have a sterling background. Many of those who are irresponsible won't have those clean backgrounds, and of those that do, many won't want to go through all that much effort. Primarily, though, and I know we disagree on this, I simply don't think an average person has a "right" to a weapon like that. I also believe we should reword the 2nd Amendment to state, as some other countries do, that the Amendment extends only to weapons not prohibited by law. 

You're right that we'll probably never see eye to eye regarding the right to own semi automatic rifles, but you do realize that if we actually enforce the existing rules & laws and follow the processes already in place, many of the "bad guys" will already "prohibited persons" regarding firearm ownership & purchases.  The problem is that most people don't want to accept responsibility for holding people accountable.  Just banning items from everyone just feels like the easy way out.

In many cases, sure, but do you not agree that someone having to reload more often in a mass shooting gives more time for potential victims to flee the area, and law enforcement or good samaritans to intervene? Potentially, but a magazine change only takes a couple of seconds.  Since most mass shootings (~75%) are already happening with pistols, which have an average capacity of 6-15 rounds, I'm assuming we'll start there.  That won't have any impact, so we'll start reducing, or people will just carry multiple weapons.  Soon we'll be like Joe Biden and just using a double barreled shotgun.  The intent of the 2A is a citizen militia, not hunting and standard capacity magazines are part of that.

Agreed, don't know if it's doable, but I do think it should be looked at to see if there's any way to at least mitigate it. I would point out, however, that there isn't an 18 year old in the world that thinks they're too young or immature for anything!

I guess I just keep thinking we continue to remove responsibility from 18 year olds and then wonder why they are less responsible...  We've got more "adult children" living in their parents basements and avoiding the real world than at any point in our history.