Guns?

[SciFiFisher]

3. No one is infringing on your right to bear arms. What is being discussed is how to make things safer for those who: a) don't use weapons. b) are being gunned down on at alarming regularity. c) the terminally stupid (a guy shot off his penis... really?? You want to give him is guns back?? On the upside, he won't be procreating...) d) taking guns away from abusers, those that are having mental difficulty (perhaps on a temporary basis?), stalkers and other people that are shown to have a propensity to do serious harm when they have access to a weapon.

That's the one that gets me. Every amendment to the Bill of Rights has had reasonable exceptions carved out of it to protect public safety and general welfare. You have the right to free speech, but you can't cause a panic (yelling "movie" in a crowded firehouse) or libel someone. Why would anyone think that the right of gun ownership should have no restrictions and no responsibilities?

Except, IIRC, every state in the US has some type of gun regulation and in many there are laws governing safe responsible gun use. For example, as a teenager, I was not allowed to have a hunting license until I passed a hunters safety course. Which I did.

I think we tend to forget that little fact. It seems to me that most of the people (the rationale ones anyway) who object to more broad sweeping additional laws are merely saying "what's wrong with enforcing the laws we already have first?" If those laws aren't being enforced why would you assume that passing new or more laws will work any better?

The 2nd amendment has already had restrictions placed on by most states. Hell, in some places it's illegal to buy hand guns. and the supreme court has upheld the right of the state to restrict and regulate hand gun ownership.

California has some of the most strict gun laws in the country. New York too. There are lots of laws and restrictions already in place.

Now if you what you REALLY want is one sweeping standard in every state and territory then just say so..... but good luck with that.

Cause if you think the gun nuts are bad you should see what happens when you poke those "STATES RIGHTS" folks with a stick.

[FZR1KG]

I think we tend to forget that little fact. It seems to me that most of the people (the rationale ones anyway) who object to more broad sweeping additional laws are merely saying "what's wrong with enforcing the laws we already have first?" If those laws aren't being enforced why would you assume that passing new or more laws will work any better?

Because the laws you have in place were handicapped by the NRA.
e.g. Putting a prohibited person on a list is meant to stop a person that lost their right to own one from buying one, at least legally.
But, the NRA pushed for no checks on gun shows or on private sales.
So, a person who isn't allowed to buy a gun can do so without question at a gun show or privately.
Best part is that if they want a new gun from a store, they just ask someone to buy it for them.
That person gets checked out and gets the gun, sells it to the person who isn't meant to have one.

Who needs underground gun sales with a system like that in place?
And how does a police officer enforce the law so the person can't get a firearm with this system in place?

So here's my solution, make the laws "workable" so they can be enforced.

The best part is that the NRA claims the same thing you just did, enforce the laws we already have, while they damned well know they are the ones that crippled the laws so that they can't be enforced in the first place.

[grapes]

So here's my solution, make the laws "workable" so they can be enforced.

That's it? That's all we have to do? Can we at least make them workable, instead of "workable"?

[Swift]

Except, IIRC, every state in the US has some type of gun regulation and in many there are laws governing safe responsible gun use. For example, as a teenager, I was not allowed to have a hunting license until I passed a hunters safety course. Which I did.

I think we tend to forget that little fact. It seems to me that most of the people (the rationale ones anyway) who object to more broad sweeping additional laws are merely saying "what's wrong with enforcing the laws we already have first?" If those laws aren't being enforced why would you assume that passing new or more laws will work any better?

The 2nd amendment has already had restrictions placed on by most states. Hell, in some places it's illegal to buy hand guns. and the supreme court has upheld the right of the state to restrict and regulate hand gun ownership.

Except the court hasn't upheld those restricts.

CBS News

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

....

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns

This decision has impacted restrictions that other states and cities had put into place.

Yes, there are some restrictions and regulations on gun ownership. They are not nearly enough, and even measures that the vast majority of people think are reasonable, like universal background checks and restricting semi-automatic weapons, have been stopped by the NRA and their supporters.

[SciFiFisher]

Best part is that if they want a new gun from a store, they just ask someone to buy it for them.
That person gets checked out and gets the gun, sells it to the person who isn't meant to have one.

Who needs underground gun sales with a system like that in place?
And how does a police officer enforce the law so the person can't get a firearm with this system in place?

Straw buying is illegal in most places. And the Supremes just upheld the federal law making it illegal. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-cou ... haser-law/

The NRA lost on that one.

[FZR1KG]

Good thing they made straw purchases illegal though this is a pretty unusual case for it.
The guy was buying it for another person who could own a handgun anyway, but he also did lie stating that he was not buying it for someone else when he knew at the time it was not for him.

[FZR1KG]

Case for gun control: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violen ... weapon.svg

That peak was 1993. That same year Clinton got in and started introducing gun laws, the Bradley Bill and the ban on assault weapons. Notice the sharp decline immediately after.

When pro gun groups tell you that there have been no changes in the crime rate since new laws were enacted, they are flat out lying.
Just recently however they have changed tactics.
The claim now is that more guns are sold yet the crime rate is reducing, so it can't be the guns at fault.

Again, deception and lies.
The primary law was targeted against people who should not have guns and delays in purchasing guns.
Gun numbers and gun owners are two different things.
An extreme example is that all the guns in the USA are owned by one person.
How much gun crime would there be?
Notice that the same number of guns are in circulation, it's the number of gun owners that has declined.
That is what the laws are doing. Restricting certain individuals from owning guns and introducing delays to prevent spur of the moment killings.

They aren't restricting guns in the USA as we were once told by the pro gun groups and they are working to reduce gun deaths. Pretty obvious to anyone that looks at the data objectively.
If you want to look at the data Biblicaly, where you pick and choose the information you want and dismiss that which doesn't agree with your view, then sure, the laws made no difference at all.
But that's only in your minds view of the world and not the real world.

[FZR1KG]

So here's my solution, make the laws "workable" so they can be enforced.

That's it? That's all we have to do? Can we at least make them workable, instead of "workable"?

The quotes had to be placed there due to amendment NRA12.423 that states anything which may or may not deliberately or accidentally suggest that any gun related issues may be reduced by legislation, laws or anything other than the complete deregulation of guns and people owning them (this includes the criminally insane) in the USA needs to be placed in quotes so that the our constituents can giggle at it with a smug smirk on their face.

Oh yeah, speaking of which, how many people here know the NRA effectively prevented the CDC from researching anything on gun related deaths?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.1809263

The pro-gun behemoth succeeded in ramming legislation through in 1996 that forbade the CDC from using federal funds for studies that “advocate or promote gun control.”
Known as the Dickey Amendment for Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.), who sponsored it, the bill didn’t outright ban gun research — but made it clear the CDC risked all its funding if it gave financial support to studies that might not suit the NRA’s agenda.

The fucking NRA, helping psycho Americans kill other Americans since 1975 (the year it started lobbying).

[The Supreme Canuck]

The best part is that the NRA claims the same thing you just did, enforce the laws we already have, while they damned well know they are the ones that crippled the laws so that they can't be enforced in the first place.

Well, I hate to say it, but "Just enforce the laws we already have" is always the refrain of people who don't actually want anything to change. It sounds reasonable, but it doesn't actually do or mean anything. It's an attempt to silence advocates of reform while still looking like you want reasonable change. It's a way to derail debate with irrelevancies.

You saw the same rhetoric around the regulation of banks in the US prior to 2008. No substantive regulatory changes were made - it was all about "enforcing the laws we already have." Worked out great, didn't it?

[The Supreme Canuck]

Case for gun control: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violen ... weapon.svg

Also important to note there, I think, is the fact that while rates of firearms homicide went down, rates of homicide by other means did not go up. Which refutes the common gun advocate claim that regulating guns won't help anything, since someone who wants to murder someone will always find a way to do it - knife, baseball bat, whatever.

Turns out that's absolutely and categorically false. Gun control absolutely reduces the overall homicide rate. Other means of murder do not make up the difference following regulation. Gun control unequivocally saves lives.

[FZR1KG]

I think that's true in the USA because of the huge number of firearms creating a disparity.
Once the level of firearms goes down enough any shift by removing the small remainder will transfer into the other types of murder.
Australia for example saw a spike in stabbings when firearms were severely removed.
Though it did not last long IIRC.
I really need to re-research that too as my memory might not be remembering right and I was not a gun regulation campaigner back then so for all I know I may have had selective bias no matter how hard I tried not to.

[Swift]

And the Supremes just upheld the federal law making it illegal. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-cou ... haser-law/

[Yosh]

B) I disagree that the end game is banning all guns. The end game is sane regulations on firearms ownership and use, like exist in the entire rest of the developed world. The attitude in the US is so into the red-zone of crazy on the issue that that may appear to be a total ban, but I assure you it is not. The goal is good laws, and a change in public attitudes such that people don't want guns in the first place. Or at least such that they don't want them in the... peculiar... way that many Americans currently want them.

I mean... you do recognize that attitudes towards guns are different in the US than in the entire rest of the developed world, right? And that US attitudes are a little... off? That's what needs changing. And that's the real reason for regulations - the regulations themselves are nice, but the real pay-off of regulations is that they change public attitudes.

Simply addressing the comment you made...your first sentence seems at odds with "...change in public attitudes such that people don't want guns in the first place. So, in other words, you think an attempt at a full legal ban won't work, so rather let's try to "social engineer" them out of of the mix? Not trying to put words in our mouth, but that's what I took away from the that section.

The "attitude" thing struck me too. I will fully admit that some of my countrymen are over the edge. Won't *even* try to argue otherwise.

But, from my perspective, responsible, law-abiding individuals who have small collections for varying reasons (for this purpose let's say "small" equals three or four handguns, and maybe a half-dozen to ten or so, long arms) are not, somehow "abnormal" in their desire to have them.

Why does my "attitude" need changing? Not the guy claiming his one-acre farm is "sovereign land." Not the goof-ball rancher/moocher out in Nevada. Guys like me.

Fisher's comment was valid. You, Fox Zulu, and others who debate this *are* reasonable and interested in a balance between safety for society and possession.

But a whole lot of folks who claim they only want the next "increment" of restriction, really *DO* intend a full-scale ban. And they're happy to use the method you described.

So...how do I thread the wickets between the following range of positions:

"I want a nuclear-tipped, ground-to-ground missile 'cause, Murica"

"I think the National Firearms Act of 1934 went too far."

"I think the 1934 NFA restrictions are perfectly reasonable, but I don't see the fuss over semi-automatic firearms possession; so long as there's a background check."

"No one needs a semi-automatic rifle, you can hunt and target shoot quite effectively with a shotgun and a bolt-action rifle."

"No one, except the police and military, needs a handgun."

"This is the 21st century, there's no need for private citizens in the U.S. to possess any firearm."

Yes, there are even subtler variations internal to those positions, but I thought they'd do as an overarching framework.

Which attitude is the "right" one?

[FZR1KG]

"No one needs a semi-automatic rifle, you can hunt and target shoot quite effectively with a shotgun and a bolt-action rifle."

No one that can't shoot a manual rifle effectively (accurate, safe and repeatable) should be allowed anywhere near a semi-auto.
You want one, show me you can handle a simple repeater or single shot firearm first.

The reason some people use a semi-auto is because they can't shoot properly and are relying on the repetition rate to make up for it and looking where the bullet lands then compensating.
A true shooter knows if he's hit the target as the trigger is squeezed far more often than not.

[The Supreme Canuck]

See, the "I'm responsible, so why should I be punished for some whackjobs' actions?" response holds zero water with me. I mean... if we only considered the people who don't need regulating, how could we (or why would we) regulate anything, ever?

Banks that don't do anything wrong are punished by banking regulations. Drivers who don't do anything wrong are punished by traffic laws. Responsible hydrogen bomb owners are punished by restrictions on who can own atomic weapons.

I don't buy it. It's absurd. It fails to prevent miscreants from acting wrongly. It distracts from what we should actually be doing. It derails the process of good governance and policy formulation.

What we should be looking at instead is the likely outcomes of any law (or lack of law). Then we pick the law that creates the best outcome. This means we look at all the outcomes. For firearms regulations, the effect on mass shootings is considered as well as the effect on law-abiding citizens. Then we regulate so as to create the best outcome. Let's look at some data for a change instead of bowing to the "GOD GAVE ME A GUN AND JESUS CRIES WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT FORCING ME TO KEEP A TRIGGER LOCK ON IT" crowd.

To make laws based on anything other than this outcomes-based process is irrational.

Anyway... to answer your social engineering question, yes. Absolutely I want to "engineer" attitudes such that people don't have crazy attitudes towards guns any more. It's exactly the same process that changed public attitudes about smoking and seat belts.

I mean, for god's sake, lots of people own guns in Canada. Lots of people. But we also have a much lower rate of gun-nuttery. That's mostly what I want. Just fucking cut it out with the singular, insane attitude towards firearms that is particular to the US, and I'll be almost entirely mollified. I mean... you guys have some real screwy attitudes towards the things.

[The Supreme Canuck]

No one that can't shoot a manual rifle effectively (accurate, safe and repeatable) should be allowed anywhere near a semi-auto.
You want one, show me you can handle a simple repeater or single shot firearm first.

The reason some people use a semi-auto is because they can't shoot properly and are relying on the repetition rate to make up for it and looking where the bullet lands then compensating.
A true shooter knows if he's hit the target as the trigger is squeezed far more often than not.

I see no reason for anyone to own a semi-automatic weapon. The drawbacks to society far outweigh the benefits. Same goes for handguns (aside from sports shooters - I'll give you that). If you need to allow them, though, have a separate class of licence for the things that requires more extensive training and oversight. We have that for handguns in Canada, though we don't for semi-automatic long guns. More's the pity.

[FZR1KG]

TSC, you forget, Guns are a right here.
Of all the things you can assign rights to they gave the right to guns.
No right to equality between races or sexes.
But you get to have a gun

[The Supreme Canuck]

TSC, you forget, Guns are a right here.
Of all the things you can assign rights to they gave the right to guns.
No right to equality between races or sexes.
But you get to have a gun

Right? This is why I say the Revolution was a mistake. Not because forming the US was a bad idea; because the way they went about it baked some reprehensible things into US political culture.

[SciFi Chick]

Speaking of wacky laws, what I do in the bedroom with my husband is technically illegal here in Virginia.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Speaking of wacky laws, what I do in the bedroom with my husband is technically illegal here in Virginia.

NOT JAYWALKING!!!



...frankly, I'm shocked at you two.

[FZR1KG]

WTF?

[Cyborg Girl]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking

[The Supreme Canuck]

Yeah, I mean, normally I'd say that what you do at home is your business, but if you're jaywalking... well. It's like I don't even know you. It's un-American.

[SciFiFisher]

No one that can't shoot a manual rifle effectively (accurate, safe and repeatable) should be allowed anywhere near a semi-auto.
You want one, show me you can handle a simple repeater or single shot firearm first.

The reason some people use a semi-auto is because they can't shoot properly and are relying on the repetition rate to make up for it and looking where the bullet lands then compensating.
A true shooter knows if he's hit the target as the trigger is squeezed far more often than not.

I see no reason for anyone to own a semi-automatic weapon. The drawbacks to society far outweigh the benefits. Same goes for handguns (aside from sports shooters - I'll give you that). If you need to allow them, though, have a separate class of licence for the things that requires more extensive training and oversight. We have that for handguns in Canada, though we don't for semi-automatic long guns. More's the pity.

Just because you see no reason for it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be allowed. Logically, there is no reason to allow ice cream and all the other associated treats to be made. I can prove scientifically that all the foods that fall into the class known as junk food directly and indirectly cause more deaths in the U.S. than guns do. Factually speaking we should outlaw all junk food. We would save over $147 billions of dollars in healthcare costs and potentially save over 300,000 lives. Compare that to the paltry 10,000 or so deaths per year attributed to gun violence. Outlawing obesity will save 30 times more lives than outlawing guns.

Your attitude and statement, however, essentially are exactly what I am talking about. You essentially want to ban hand guns and all semi-automatic weapons because you believe that there is really only one real purpose for these types of weapons. That purpose being to kill other people. When viewed with that lens it makes perfect sense to want to ban these weapons. It would even seem crazy not to want to ban these weapons and virtually all others similar to them. After all their only purpose is to kill other human beings. What rationale and logical person would desire to own and use such a weapon?

And you see no reason why we should not educate people and change their attitudes so that they too will understand and agree with this (oh so logical) conclusion. To condition and "educate" them so that they too will see these weapons for the what they really are.

And you even agree that taking us down that road with small incremental changes in the current laws is perfectly justified because the end (banning weapons whose only purpose is to kill people) justifies the means.

pardon me while I sit here and eat my ice cream sundae and clean my semi-automatic pistol. I think I hear the junk food police knocking on my door.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Just because you see no reason for it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be allowed. Logically, there is no reason to allow ice cream and all the other associated treats to be made. I can prove scientifically that all the foods that fall into the class known as junk food directly and indirectly cause more deaths in the U.S. than guns do. Factually speaking we should outlaw all junk food. We would save over $147 billions of dollars in healthcare costs and potentially save over 300,000 lives. Compare that to the paltry 10,000 or so deaths per year attributed to gun violence. Outlawing obesity will save 30 times more lives than outlawing guns.

Allow me to make explicit what was implicit in my statement: upon consideration, I see good reason not to allow these weapons; the cons outweigh the pros.

Your attitude and statement, however, essentially are exactly what I am talking about. You essentially want to ban hand guns and all semi-automatic weapons because you believe that there is really only one real purpose for these types of weapons. That purpose being to kill other people. When viewed with that lens it makes perfect sense to want to ban these weapons. It would even seem crazy not to want to ban these weapons and virtually all others similar to them. After all their only purpose is to kill other human beings. What rationale and logical person would desire to own and use such a weapon?

Essentially correct.

And you see no reason why we should not educate people and change their attitudes so that they too will understand and agree with this (oh so logical) conclusion. To condition and "educate" them so that they too will see these weapons for the what they really are.

Again, correct.

And you even agree that taking us down that road with small incremental changes in the current laws is perfectly justified because the end (banning weapons whose only purpose is to kill people) justifies the means.

More or less correct, though I'd prefer to say that the incremental changes are all good things in themselves. While the overall end is good, so too are the incremental changes themselves good ends.

pardon me while I sit here and eat my ice cream sundae and clean my semi-automatic pistol. I think I hear the junk food police knocking on my door.

Nonsense. Please tell me how a madman can use an ice cream cone to murder a dozen school children.

Or, if you prefer, please tell me why you aren't sitting there with your sundae, your handgun, and your hydrogen bomb?

Your argument boils down to "there is never good reason to regulate anything." That's overly reductive and entirely misses the point of good public policy formulation - the essence of which is to ask "are the good results of this law outweighed by the bad?"