Senate Gun Control

Aside from the confirmation bias in your post, can I also comment on the absurdity of this formulation "hopped up on antidepressants", especially in the context of a thread that has repeatedly emphasized the need to make mental health issues less ostracized and solutions more accessible. Antidepressant drugs of the kind those two were were taking have little to no recreational value, which is what the phrase "hopped up" seems to indicate to me, and, more importantly, those drugs were prescribed because the pair had already displayed alarming mental and psychological pathologies.

 

No, comparing something where the dominant purpose is to kill vs where the dominant purpose is to transport is disingenuous.

 

Well, I would say that the entire "loophole" issue has been blown all out of proportion. I live in Illinois, and I've never bought a gun from a gun show, but I've been to quite a few shows themselves. I've never bought a gun from a show purely for practical reasons, as most people who sell at IL shows are selling a used, or an antique, or a relic firearm, and I wouldn't buy something like a used gun out a "buyer beware" type of rationale. I've always bought my firearms through a regular gun store so they're new and have always had to go through the background check. (IL also has something called a "FOID" card-Firearms owner identification-which is like an extra layer of background check as you have to have one to buy any gun or ammo, so really you go through 2 checks in IL) But anyway, my point is that even at gun shows in IL, even regular people who sell firearms use a dealer to go through a check just to make sure the purchase is "above board." But again, no one is going to go to a gun show, buy something like a ex-WWII German Luger, and then go on a shooting spree.. Well, I mean they could, but the "loophole" would only apply in a minuscule amount of situations.

But if it matters for compromise, I have absolutely no problem with a waiting period, or background check, or limiting the amount of sales per month, or anything of the sort for all sales conducted in public. Why would I? But again, this isn't going to stop any of the examples like me buying a gun and then just selling it to my neighbor for $50.00. Even in this incident, the actual shooter tried to buy a rifle and he failed his background check, so the sale was denied. The system worked. Except he then went and took his mom's guns, which no amount of laws or regulation would prevent.

 

Other than a ban.

 

Ah, but that's were you are incorrect. I'd say that the dominant purpose of a firearm is to shoot at targets and practice shooting sports. I'd say that if misused, both cars and firearms have the potential to be deadly. Is that assessment any more or any less accurate than your assessment?

But regardless, again, I wasn't talking about all cars, but only "hot rods/street racers." I'd agree with you that the dominant purpose of a mini-van is to transport people. The dominant purpose of a 2 seat rotary engined Mazda RX-7 isn't to transport people (at least with any practically or comfort), but it's to go fast. Again, if there are 35x more deaths related to car accidents in the US than firearms deaths, then to save lives, the only cars that should be sold are "practical transports," and no one should be allowed to purchase any car that is capable of exceeding the speed limit. But again, the government doesn't regulate intent, so Mustangs and Nissan GT-R's, and Corvettes (none of which are really designed to transport) are sold right along side of Ford Focuses, and Accords, and Town and Country mini-vans.

 

Just curious about gun show "loopholes." I guess I just see gun rights advocates as saying there's nothing going on, but then undercover cops go and admit they couldn't pass a background check and they still get to buy them, not to mention up to 40% of sales at them don't get checked, and Al Qaeda even urged their members to buy their guns there so they don't get checked.

And, no, nothing would have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre from occurring (except a ban, or as I said earlier, everyone in your identified household has to get a background check). But isolating what gun laws can prevent to these kinds of shooting is rather irrelevant, as they are one out of many, many, many incidents happening every day.

It just seems we are sacrificing so much in this country, namely people's lives and an honest debate about the place of guns in our lives, for the convenience and satisfaction of gun glorifiers and hobbyists. They're devices designed to kill. Nothing else.

 

Then go buy a paintball gun and a tranquilizer.

And I'm only partially joking.

 

Right, and that's why it wouldn't be so bad to require that all public sales go through a background check. Why not? It's certainly a solid compromise point and a solid initial buffer. But it's not going to stop every incident. Because again, technically, it's already illegal for even a private citizen to sell a private citizen a gun if that person is aware that the sale would be illegal. But people don't care, which is why I used the "drug dealer/cocaine" example above. Because if I go to a gun store, pass a background check, and buy a gun, what would happen if I just give it to my neighbor knowing that he couldn't pass the check? Nothing. That act is already illegal. It all depends on me following the law, and it's only going to apply after the fact or if I get caught. Drinking and driving is already illegal, but it doesn't stop the behavior, it just acts as a sanction for those who get caught doing it.


EDIT:

Well sure, but I'll get a paintball gun when it's impossible to buy a hot rod. And all alcohol is prohibited again. And Whoppers are illegal. And all states repeal medical marijuana laws. And whole milk is nixed. And most of all, TV shows like Jersey Shore or Honey Boo Boo are completely banned. And yes, there could be differing degrees of seriousness there, which is why I'm only partially joking....

 

Mr44, I'm assuming you're trolling for the sake of a cheap "a-ha!" moment?

Has it not been established that most of the massacres in the US in the last 50 years were done with legally obtained firearms?

At what point does shame not kick in for you, as an American, when you hear 11 out of the 20 worst mass shootings happened in the US (see my post, about 2-3 pages back)? And when the next most frequently affected country is Finland on two?

And, when half of the worst shootings in the US in the last 30 years happened since 2006?

Something's not right and you're playing sophist.

 

No, not at all.

Because it doesn't make sense at the macro level to compare different countries based on undefined criteria. For example, Japan has one of the highest overall suicide rates among all countries, even though a gun isn't the more frequent method. Can you just pick one reason to "blame" for this? In one of the prior Senate gun control threads, we established that as a country, Australia had crime rates for some categories of serious crime that were well above the US's rate, and way out of wack per capita for what Australia should have. IIRC those categories were rape, auto theft, battery, and I believe, robbery. Would it be fair to ask you why does Australia have such a high sexual assault rate? Could I ask you if you felt national shame like you're doing above? Is it a complicated combination of gender identity vs masculine power roles vs social issues, or could someone just take the easy way out and say "nope..It's porn....if we just ban all porno in Australia, then rape will stop..." (a blanket reaction that doesn't address the fact that rape isn't about sex, or that doesn't establish a link between porn and rape in the first place.) I know that Australia doesn't have the same attitudes about property crimes, so it doesn't even occur to people to use a gun for self-defense, but from a practical standpoint, maybe Australia's overall crime rate would drop if firearms were used for self-defense? Your mantra has always been that those in the US shouldn't only look at things through a US-centric lens. That's solid advice, which has come up time and time again. But then in this case, you're only using an Australian lens, and failing to head your own advice.

In a nutshell, every country has risk and reward that makes up what the country is. So yeah, the US isn't Finland, which isn't Australia, which isn't Japan, and so on.....The US has a gun violence issue, but the least important aspect of that overall social issue is to blame the gun itself.

There' s no gun that this shooter used that couldn't have been bought in Canada, for example. (with some procedural differences, the US and Canada have pretty similar gun laws) But Canada doesn't have the same level of gun violence. It's been revealed that this guy got into some sort of argument with someone at the school prior to this. What needs to be addressed isn't if the gun he used had a 20" barrel or a 16" barrel, or if it was bought at a gun show-that's all meaningless garbage. What needs to be addressed is why a 20 year old man with his whole life ahead of him thought his only recourse for getting into an argument was to go back to the school and kill people and kill himself.

 

The problem I see with your latest post is that while restricting porn wouldn't necessarily reduce sexual assault, the availability of firearms is directly related to gun crime. So how exactly is the suggestion Ender is putting forward unreasonable?

 

Mr44 the argument has already been made - by me - that Americans, more than any other people in the developed world, are too quick to resort to firearms as a means of resolving a dispute.

The problem is that so long as you can access guns that will continue. The issue is that Americans and guns do not seem to mix, and I know someone, bless them, will note that most law abiding gun users this blah blah blah, but I don't care. I cannot comprehend of a transaction where the right to life is worth less than the right to bear arms.

Right now, you're doing precisely what I spoke about earlier. I know you Mr44, I know you'd be one of the most responsible gun users out there and I know your experience with firearms. You don't condone what happened but in the general unwillingness to condemn wholly the role American gun laws and gun culture played in facilitating mass murder, you add a pointless third tier to the debate which is inherent more sympathetic with the rabid "libertarian" pro-gun crowd. Nobody is blaming law abiding gun owners for the issue; they are saying they're sick and tired of this happening. It hurts us all to turn on the TV and see yet another Yank shooting. Guns might not be the problem, but I'd wager life would only get better if guns were largely removed from the equation.

Honestly, when is the point at which you'd concede that Americans have abused their right to bear arms and should forfeit it in the defense of the right to life?

 

Because they're both unreasonable reactions that aren't tied to either of their main topics. The US already has quite reasonable and comprehensive gun restrictions...Background checks, waiting periods, prohibition on automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns, and grenade launchers. No mail order purchases. Ineligible after domestic violence conviction. The list is quite extensive. But I think all the actual laws are wiped away in an instance by perception when a movie like The Terminator shows Arnold just walking into a gun store and buying an actual Uzi....People then say "you mean, you can just buy an automatic submachine gun? But it's not accurate. Again, the US and Canada have pretty similar gun laws. What's funny is that when the US had it's utterly stupid and pointless "assault weapons ban," Canadians had more of a choice in the firearm features they could buy. Canada doesn't have nearly the same level of gun violence that the US has, so certainly, "availability of firearms" on it's own isn't the controlling factor on its' own.

Again, Australia had one mass shooting, and the guy is in prison for 199 years. As a response to that event, Australia banned large swaths of categories of firearms (with a few exceptions). That's fine. Except I'd wager that even without the ban, Australia wouldn't have had any more mass shootings, so the ban didn't really change Australian's views on firearms at all. But perhaps more importantly, there are other things to look at. Parts of Australia have a SE Asian gang violence problem that rivals any movie depiction of the crips and the bloods ever filmed in Los Angeles. (believable or not) These Australian gangs all use weapons which are supposed to be banned, so again, clearly a "ban" doesn't really apply to those who are going to break the law anyway. Dealing with specific categories of crime, Australia has a higher rate in some serious crime than the US does, so again, a blanket ban on weapons didn't equate to making Australians safer overall. Not that there was connection between gun and crime, but it all becomes characteristics of the country in question. The individual Australian isn't any more safe or less safe just because there is a ban on firearms in Australia. I suppose the one point that we agree with is that what gun bans probably do act as a buffer against those who are willing to follow the law, but the law itself acts as a deterrent.

The US has shamefully high levels of gun violence. Australia has shamefully high levels of sexual assault. Japan has shamefully high levels of suicide. I consider them all to be both completely unrelated, but also all sides of the same coin. Which would anyone rather be known for? Well, in a perfect world, no country would have gun violence, or suicide, or rape. But humans have free choice and will, and it results in an imperfect world.

 

We also have Arab gangs - mostly Lebanese Muslims - shooting up large chunks of working class land in Southwest Sydney. It is mostly at other Lebanese gangs, i.e. the gang violence is largely self-contained.

However, the point I would make is that we don't have a right to bear arms which engenders a mentality that says I can exercise this right to the exclusion of all other rights. The point isn't necessarily that in following our lead, things would be cleaned up.

It's that if six of the worst 12 shootings in US history happened since 2006, then the right to bear arms is forfeit based on how far it deviates from the object and purpose of the 2nd amendment. Any suggestion of a ban is in response to those statistics and the view I've formed (speaking for me only) that Americans are simply not responsible enough to be allowed to own firearms with little restriction.

Yes, there are people who used to shoot as I did, at paper targets and who would never be remotely associated with a gun crime, who will miss out. Two points to them; 1) You are trading your right to own a gun, which should never have been a right in the first place, for a more precious right, and 2) You had your chance to self-police and self-regulate and the results suggest you have not been successful in achieving this end.

 

I would say the ban in Australia has had an impact on Australia's view of firearms. We still have gun violence and gun fatalities but even organised criminals don't tend to use fully automatic rifles as much anymore, the use of firearms by criminals is predominantly limited to handguns. Something like 87 -90% of shootings in Sydney were handgun related. The fully automatic 'machine guns' are still around (certainly the bikies still have stockpiles), but they are not being used as much as they were previously and they are not really used at all in non-criminal gun violence- again handguns being the weapon of choice because they are more easily accessible.

 

Because I think that's a single minded way to look at the overall issue, and you should care. It's not an easy answer just to define. What I also believe is one of the US's strengths is the Constitution. It doesn't matter if one likes it or not. It doesn't matter if one accepts it or not, but the US has the 2nd Amendment as one of the controlling principles that founded the country. I don't expect everyone to get this. But it's a package deal. It's kind of like how those outside of the UK accept the concept of the royal family, but are kind of baffled on the whole idea. Except the "right to bear arms" is stronger than any one idea.. The President swears an oath to defend it, even more than his own office. Members of the military give their life to uphold it, above even the President. As a result, not just dealing with guns, but bans just don't work in the US, because there are concepts that sit higher than any legislation. Just the other day, there was a horrible prank, pulled by Australians mind you... , where some radio show hosts called up a hospital and pretended to be part of the royal family to get information about Kate. The nurse who was duped ended up killing herself over the incident, leaving a family behind. I'm pretty sure that the Australian radio hosts ended up being fired, but does being fired equal out causing someone's death? Now obviously the scale is different between a school shooting and a horrible prank, but should there be more prohibitions on misuse of the telephone? The point is that this is an example of people misusing a right. Do you just throw the baby out with the bathwater?

Again, heart disease is the number one killer in the US, killing millions of people instead of the 1,000 that guns do. but cheese isn't banned. Big Macs aren't banned. Car crashes kill 35x more people than guns do, but hot rods aren't banned. It's a calculating way to look at things, but that is precisely what any law banning something is suppose to do. From a cost analysis, the US shouldn't allow alcohol, or cigarettes, or red meat, or whole milk, or any number of of things that kill people. We could even limit the banning to the top 5 causes of death, and guns still wouldn't be on the list. But gun violence is sensational, which makes all the difference. I mean, unattended swimming pools either kill or injure the same amount of people that guns do. If you give people a choice, then there are those who are going to misuse what they are given. What kind of country would we live in if all those things were banned?

Having said all that, that consequence of choice is exactly why I don't believe that anything is absolute. I despise "open carry." I don't think a private revolution against the government is going to happen anytime soon. I don't have a problem with waiting periods, or background checks, or limits on purchases, or prohibiting felons or abusers from buying them, because none of those take away the overall right. But the problem is that whenever something like this happens, no one acknowledges that the US already has quite extensive gun laws, and instead, the initial reaction seems to be based on how a gun looks.

What I don't get is the disconnect between those who think the same way but who also have what I consider to be an irrational fear against guns themselves. People here will yell and scream just as loudly on how there is a right to privacy, and a right to freedom of speech, and such, but then turn around in the same breath and say "but guns are evil and should be banned" without looking at any other aspect or examining the social issues surrounding the topic.

 

Here's a dumb idea: why don't we just ban certain types of ammunition? That way your right to "bear arms" isn't "infringed" upon but the weapon itself is functionally useless. Gun collectors can keep their military-grade weapons, but if they purchase or possess ammunition for it, they go to jail. Problem solved!

Or we could just keep doing nothing. Since it seems to have worked so well up to this point.

 

Because people will just reload their own ammunition, and create a new "ammunition ban loophole."

Either that, or what was pretty boring and mundane before the ban will get a brand new evil sounding term applied to it by the media. Someone's standard .22 caliber target bullets will suddenly be described as "assault rounds" to reflect the new level of evilness they are supposed to represent under the ban.

 

Fixed.

Since getting rid of that oh so precious Second Amendment might lead to secession and civil war, I suggest all Americans latch on to this opening here by Mr44.

 

A bit of hyperbole here, but I think it raises a good point of just how stupid gun owning defenders are in their arguments. And 44 here and KK seem to be playing all of the hits.

 

Since there have been too many posts while I was asleep to respond to all of them, I'm going to change direction a bit and speak more generally.

First of all, let me make one thing absolutely clear. If you could promise me that it would end all gun violence, I would give up my handguns in a heartbeat. However, that's just not realistic, and I'm pretty sure everyone here knows it. My handguns aren't the problem. I am a responsible gun owner, and a law-abiding citizen. Restricting me won't actually address the root cause of the problem.

Part of the problem in this discussion is that people outside the US don't seem to recognize that the legal system we have is different from theirs. You cannot just ban guns without violating the Second Amendment. It has been ruled to be a "fundamental right" and an "individual right". To change that requires a 2/3 majority in each house of Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the states. That is an incredibly high bar to cross.

Not only that, but a ban would be incredibly expensive. Congress can't just retroactively make gun possession illegal and confiscate all guns, even without considering the Second Amendment. Such an action would be considered a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment, and would require compensation. Estimates suggest that there are on the order of 300 million guns in the US (with 50-100 million of them being handguns). If you estimate $1000 per gun (which is not an unreasonable value), you are looking at a cost on the order of $300 billion, not counting administration expenses and enforcement for those who don't comply. With the current budget situation, I don't think the nation would accept another third of a billion in borrowed money to get rid of all guns. It's just not realistic.

I have a problem with waiting periods, because they are ineffective and unnecessary. In the end, they only restrict law abiding citizens without measurable effect on this sort of tragedy. Yes, a waiting period might make it harder for an abusive husband to buy a gun and kill his wife in a fit of anger, but it also means that the battered wife who left her husband cannot quickly buy a gun to protect herself from him. You can point to numerous examples on both sides, and it ultimately can't be determined either way. If it's ambiguous, I lean heavily on the side of less regulation, as it's cheaper for the government to maintain and allows them to devote more resources elsewhere that might make a difference.

As for background checks, The biggest two reasons I have for opposing forcing all guns to go through background checks are that private party sales haven't been shown to be a significant source of guns used in crimes (they are usually either bought through a dealer or stolen), and it creates an artificial gateway that only serves to drive up the costs for law-abiding citizens. For example, in DC there is only one federally-licensed dealer who can perform transfers. He charges (IIRC) on the order of $150 per gun to transfer it between people. In Virginia, on the other hand, most FFLs charge on the order of $25-35 to perform a transfer, in large part because of the availability of private party sales (which are only legal between residents of the same state - all other transactions require a FFL perform the transfer). If you gave individuals access to the federal NICS system, or you provide a guaranteed free or low cost way to access the background checks, then I would be willing to consider making them universal. Otherwise, it again would only serve to increase the burden on the law-abiding citizen instead of actually affecting the criminal.

I do have problems with limits on purchases (such as on-handgun-per-month) because they have also proven completely ineffective, much like waiting periods have.

Ultimately, there aren't going to be significant restrictions on firearms as a result of this tragedy. The Constitution won't realistically allow anything close to what Ender_Sai or V-2 (or others) say we need, and all of the proposed restrictions are largely ineffective and miss the actual root causes.

The bulk of gun-related homicides fall into three categories. 1) Drug/gang related, 2) Mental health related, and 3) Domestic violence related. When it comes to the mass shootings, like in Connecticut, they are most often in category 2. (Both categories 1 and 3 are already heavily restricted. People with drug-related convictions and domestic violence convictions are already prohibited from possessing a gun in most circumstances.) The question is what should we do about mental health to address the problems.

For example, in Connecticut, the courts cannot order someone with mental illness and a history of violence to undergo treatment as a condition of release. They are one of only 6 states that do not allow that. Most people with mental illness respond well with treatment and do not become violent. The key is to make that treatment more available and remove the stigma of getting such treatment. Personally, I like this proposal as a start for addressing mental health.

 

Here is what you can't seem to admit: all of those items main intent is something other than to kill. Guns are a killing device first, and a hobby / object of fun second.

And here we go with another pathetic argument from gun rights advocates. Simply because not all shootings are going to be stopped does not mean they aren't beneficial and no one is making that argument.

You bring up drinking and driving, but the number of traffic fatalities with alcohol involved has drastically decreased since they banned them. By your logic, since it hasn't completely eliminated it should we just repeal it?

 

With the exception of when I am going to the range or cleaning after a range trip, every single one of my guns is locked up, except for the one that sits in my holster on my person. Only one other person besides me has a key to them, and that's my wife. I even have a safe in my car to secure my sidearm when I cannot take it with me (such as into a store that prohibits firearms).

I have taken every reasonable precaution.

Quite simply, we don't penalize everyone because some people abuse something. In 2006, almost 18000 people died in alcohol-related car accidents. That's about 50% higher than the number of firearm homicides each year. And yet, we don't require that every car be equipped with a breathalyzer ignition lock, do we? There are fewer cars in the US than there are guns (about 255 million cars versus 300 million guns). Automobiles are far more likely to kill or injure someone than a gun is, and yet we don't restrict everyone because some people misuse them.

The principle is the same for guns.

 

I guess I simply fail to see how this suffering is worse than the people who will die by allowing someone that shouldn't have a gun to buy one. Make them all have one. It is not an unreasonable burden.

And this is more in reply to 44 & KK. No one here is denying the right to the Second Amendment - I believe that one does have the right to own a gun. But there are, and should be, limits as to who, what, where, and when. There is obviously a problem in this country and your unwillingness to admit that maybe the objects that run rampant in this country that are designed to kill could be part of the problem.

If you rank countries by gun homicides per 100k citizens, you find appalling results for the U.S. We are #28 (with 2.97/100k), right in with Barbados, the West Bank, Argentina, and Uruguay. Mexico is the only OECD country above us, and Chile is third at #34 with 2.16. Switzerland comes after, with 0.77.

I guess I just refuse to believe that somehow we are the only industrialized nation (other than Mexico) that can't do something about this problem.