People still die over there, so, like, why should we bother with gun control?
5 Likes
Okay, I think the felony conviction preventing gun ownership thing is a fair point showing that most murders are committed with illegally owned firearms, but I donāt see it leading to the conclusion that gun control wouldnāt matter. Illegally owned guns are mostly legally manufactured guns produced for a legal gun market. Iād tend to think that more gun control would mean a smaller market for guns which would mean fewer guns, driving up the cost of obtaining one illegally.
Anyway, I certainly donāt claim to know what laws could change the current situation in America. Compliance with laws always relies on buy-in from the populace. There are tons of laws on the books just everyone just ignores. It would be nice to try to take guns away from people who are demonstrably unsafe with them, but how you could enforce such a law I would have no idea.
I am of two minds on that one. On one hand, the lists are racist, totalitarian nonsense that need to be abolished in their current form. On the other hand, the gall of someone who supports the no-fly list but who votes against a bill to extend it to a no-buy-guns list is insane. They might as well just hold up a placard reading, āLook, I just do what the lobbyists tell me, I donāt give a fuck.ā
2 Likes
Assuming the intended effect is to reduce murder rates, they donāt work. Surprisingly, it seems to have the opposite effect.
I canāt say for sure why it works out that way, but it does.
Here is my best guess (take it with a grain of salt): If you look at it in the context of prohibition or the war on drugs, it makes sense. Banning something doesnāt necessarily prevent it from being produced or used. It does create a large black market for the product though. The black markets can be more efficient than legal markets. Itās easier to buy a $50 (offhand price I heard a cop mention once) handgun from Shady Joe than buying a retail price handgun from a store with legal checks. A monopoly could only help Shady Joeās businessā¦ much like itās easy to buy drugs in the US, despite a total banā¦ easier, in fact, than going to a grocery store if you know a dealer. Another factor might be that people feel āsaferā committing a crime with an unregistered firearm under the expectation it will be harder to trace back to them, and when all firearms are now unregistered, that barrier drops.
I think itās foolish to assume that destroying our gun industry with an outright ban would reduce gun ownership. For one, you still have all the existing guns already sold (assuming āwe arenāt going to take your gunsā isnāt a lie). Secondly, anyone with a CNC mill, a lathe, and a bit of training can make a decent gunā¦ and availability of designs and computer controls means you donāt even need much training. Crappier guns can be made with far less. Since someone is now in the business of making illegal guns, the step up from semi-automatic to fully automatic is trivial. The tools and materials are legal to own, and easy to explain having (unlike a meth lab). The tools are getting more advanced and cheaper now thanks to impressive advances in automation. BB even has a related article running right now. A more interesting thing to see are videos about Pakistan gun markets (do search that if youāre curious) ā¦ entire villages dedicated to producing (by hand) and selling firearms, using tools you could find in any machine shop and many āmakersā garages. The one I saw had a man producing a knock-off handgun from a Chinese design and would stamp the guns āMade as Chinaāā¦ not āMade in Chinaā. It was a clever joke about copying the Chinese design and a mark of pride. Practically anyone could learn, and if you give the criminal market a monopoly, they will.
1 Like
Which surprisingly enough is echoed in the Lone Ranger. He uses silver bullets because āit should cost a man to take a lifeā.
.
.
.
ā¦
And becauseā¦werewolves
4 Likes
[quote=āanon50609448, post:286, topic:80545, full:trueā]
Anyway, I certainly donāt claim to know what laws could change the current situation in America. Compliance with laws always relies on buy-in from the populace. There are tons of laws on the books just everyone just ignores. It would be nice to try to take guns away from people who are demonstrably unsafe with them, but how you could enforce such a law I would have no idea.[/quote]
I wish there were better answers, but I have no idea either. I think what weāre doing now already grabs the low-hanging fruit of ādonāt let criminals buy gunsā. I canāt even claim that has actually helped though considering it isnāt hard to buy a gun on the black market. From what Iāve seen, the best thing weāve done to reduce gun crime is reduce lead exposure, which in turn reduces crime, particularly aggression related crime. The lead hypothesis is truly fascinating and has a lot of data to support it.
I think the best we can do is address the causes of crime in general, rather than the tools it utilizes. Income inequality is a major contender I believe. Iām not in favor of revoking current gun control measures. I donāt want everyone on the block owning fully automatic 50 cal weapons. There are lines to be drawn, but it is a complex issue without any easy solutions as far as I can see. I donāt support ādoing somethingā just because people want something to be done. An ineffective solution is just throwing money away that could be better spent elsewhere, just appease voters. We do that far too much.
I donāt support the no-fly lists as they exist now eitherā¦or much of the oppressive security theater we engage in over air travel. I think the terror watch list might be a useful data filtering tool for some organizations to track potential threats, but if weāre taking away citizenās rights, the system needs to have a fair basis for inclusion and a clear process of appeal.
The way I see it, If I die from a bomb on a plane or a bomb in a security line headed into the terminal, Iām just as dead either way. All the security theater we engage in canāt reliably stop someone from making a bomb and using it in a crowded place. I think we have Republicans to blame for most of that annoyance now. I donāt mean to hate on our governmentās security policies as a whole. We do some good stuff as well. Controlling the use of prepaid phones is a good example, as it is perhaps the only easy option for long-distance triggering. Similarly, buying large quantities of materials commonly used in explosives raises flags and checks. A lot of our data gathering and threat analysis work is actually useful in stopping threats as well, even if the data gathering gets taken too far sometimes. Of course, a broken clock will be right two times a day, and Iām sure some of our worst security policies have still managed to stop a few threats.
Again with sources of ill repute. That siteās existence is there to parrot NRA arguments.
āeven imperfect efforts to restrict gun availability to high-risk people can reduce illegal gun use on the margin, even if these regulatory barriers can be overcome in a number of ways by those who are determined to obtain a gun.āā
āWe have one of two mechanisms to explain the decrease in violent crime following gun control: either potential criminals are deterred from crime, or existing criminals are deterred from crime. Either way, you have gun reform that has produced meaningful, substantive improvements in the metrics society should care about. If itās not clear that laws have the capacity to induce changes in behavior, I wonāt be able to improve upon that position.ā
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=206421
" This article provides a review of the most commonly cited, representative, and empirical studies in the
peer-reviewed literature that directly investigate the association between gun availability and homicide. The article begins by describing individual case control and cohort studies. Then, it describes international ecological studies that have compared the United States to other countries. Lastly, it describes ecological studies of the United States that have contrasted the levels of gun availability and homicide across regions, States, and rural and urban areas. The available
evidence is quite consistent. The few case control studies suggest that households with firearms are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide. International cross-sectional studies of high-income countries find that in countries with more firearms, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide
4 Likes
Because they want to use them to keep you from purchasing weapons. Where were you in the 15 years that we had no-fly lists?
1 Like
Except that guns enter the illegal weapons market mostly through facially legal sales. Mostly due to loopholes and inconsistencies of laws between states on the issue. Your illegal weapon started out as a legal one which was purchased in the absence of sane and consistent registration laws and record keeping.
Lemās harping on illegal weapons avoids that aspect. That lack of gun control laws allow for more illegal weapons being available.
4 Likes
That handgun ban was introduced as a response to the Dunblane massacre. There hasnāt been a mass shooting with a handgun since.
Likewise, there hasnāt been a mass shooting with automatic weapons since those were banned after Hungerford.
I can only think of one other mass shooting in the UK in my lifetime, in Cumbria. I think all three were committed with legally held (at the time) firearms.
With killings by firearms thankfully so low in the UK, Iām not sure thereās enough data to argue the handgun ban had a massive impact one way or the other.
2 Likes
I opposed the patriot act when that was looming on the horizon. To be fair, it was for different reasons than the no-fly listā¦ something internet related at the time as I was some sort of nerd (still am somewhat). Iāve never been a fan of no-fly lists. It wouldnāt keep me from buying one anyway though. Iām white, not an āactivistā, not a criminal, never been arrested, never made any weird threats to trigger flags, never associated with a terrorist organization, or otherwise tripped up triggers to be placed on the list. My opposition to it and its potential use for gun control measures is an interest in preserving civil liberties for all Americans. I donāt even own guns or want to own guns. I do want to see tax dollars spent wisely though.
1 Like
Youāre right, you didnāt directly. The argument started with Space_Monkey claiming that
And I understood you as supporting that argument. I may have misconstrued your point by making it about āunconditional access to guns for everyoneā and Iām sorry for that. But that is more or less the current situation in the USA, with very few exceptions, isnāt it? And in my opinion, granting the right to own a rifle to āanyone who lives in a rural areaā isnāt much better. If I misunderstood you there, accept my apologies.
2 Likes
Voisine v. United States changed the situation for reducing the risk of community violence associated with gun ownership. Itās a little easier now to continue aligning local and federal community stakeholders to advocate for strict, zerro tolerance enforcement of state domestic violence laws and then strict enforcement of 18 U.S.C. Ā§Ā§ 921(a)(33)(A) and 922(g)(9).
Per SCOTUSblog, the issue in Voisine was whether a misdemeanor crime with the state of mind of recklessness (as opposed to intentional) qualifies as a āmisdemeanor crime of domestic violenceā as defined by 18 U.S.C. Ā§Ā§ 921(a)(33)(A) and 922(g)(9). The decision was 6-2 that the recklessness standard was sufficient to trigger the protections without violating the constitution.
There is commentary at ThinkProgress.
2 Likes
I am some of those. But I am associated with two terrorist organizations: An Eagle Scout and registered Democrat. 
I would rather not see tax money spent on fixing the damages caused by people who are irresponsible with firearms or by situations which would have been preventable absent weakness in current regulation. We spend billions on the damages caused by gun violence and accidental gun deaths/injuries in one form or another. A little money and time with regulation would save a lot more on recovery from mayhem.
I own 3 guns, including one assault rifle (that I admit that I have no business owning or use for except on the target range). I find the NRAās rhetoric does not represent responsible or sane people. I know what kind of danger I pose to my family and public and act accordingly in terms of safe storage.
I have friends who are cops. None of them ever bring a service pistol or āoff dutyā with them when we go to bars or hang out. Alcohol and guns do not mix. They donāt want to risk guns being lost or stolen. Guns bring a lethal level of escalation to conflicts one can easily walk away from. One of them has been on the force for over 20 years. He never drew his pistol except on the qualifying range. Beating people within an inch of their lives with a nightstick, radio or flashlight being far more common.
4 Likes
[quote=āMangochin, post:297, topic:80545, full:trueā]
I would rather not see tax money spent on fixing the damages caused by people who are irresponsible with firearms or by situations which would have been preventable absent weakness in current regulation.
I know what kind of danger I pose to my family and public and act accordingly in terms of safe storage. [/quote]
I can see a reasonable argument for a gun insurance requirement. I expect the cost would be quite low as well. I doubt the idea will gain much traction, but it could reduce the burden on society as a whole if it went into law. My main objection to the last round of shot-down gun control measures is the terror watch list use, which isnāt well enough controlledā¦ Iāve beaten that dead horse quite a lot. Good on you for using a gun safe! (assuming that is your idea of safe storage)
1 Like
A rigorous insurance market requires keeping costs reasonable. They depend on collecting enough premiums to build up reserves to pay out possible claims. That is best done in volume and through cheap rates. Like auto and homeowner insurance, different markets will appeal to different types of owners and financials.
but it could reduce the burden on society as a whole if it went into law.
Insurance registration would allow for both the record keeping elements and take out the āthey will use it to take our guns like in Red Dawnā bullshit argument. It would also provide for gathering unbiased crime and loss statistics as they are necessary for actuarial tables. All because it is being done by a private industry which has a motivation not to have guns confiscated. As opposed to what people fear the guvāmint would do. Plus restrictions on an insurance policy are far less of an infringement upon personal freedom than laws.
I have an 8 year old niece, and a wife who has both a temper and was a former double black belt. I have a very compelling reason to limit access to firearms in my place.
2 Likes
A long time ago I put up a poll in a gun thread asking whether addressing income inequality or banning guns would have more effect on reducing gun violence. I know a lot of people around here like gun control, but we hate income inequality even more, and it won in a landslide. Single payer health care, a justice system that works for people who arenāt rich, adequate funding for all public schools; lots of things that could be done that would help reduce violence overall by just making sure there are fewer desperate people.
Of course the line between those and something like the Orlando massacre is a lot twistier than the one from guns. And I think that if you do buy into the worth of the no-fly list, then something like a measure to keep those on the list from buying guns really ought to be a no brainer. Neither of us think that list is a good idea, but we know it had continuous support for a long time from many senators who voted against that law. I get peopleās frustration.
3 Likes
Still wholly baselessly, but feel free to restate this in the hopes that saying it again makes it more true, because repetition is how falsehoods become fact.
2 Likes
I for one welcome our noisy music overlords!
3 Likes
Iāve got that one on the fact that most murders by firearm are committed by people with prior felony convictions, thus prohibiting them from even owning firearms. Feel free to pretend reality is different though if it makes you feel better. Itās a free country!
1 Like
