America's biggest gun problem is willful ignorance

[loyalsister]

Thus, it is difficult to find satisfactory solutions.

When you don't know enough about something, your reaction is probably to research it — on Google, on Wikipedia, at the library. The federal government is supposed to respond in a similar way when it has questions about certain laws and policies. So if there's a public health crisis, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is usually charged with looking into the matter by funding studies and research that look into the best policies to deal with the issue.

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/6/9465649/gun-violence-research-cdc

Willful ignorance suits the pro-gun agenda by limiting information that could help guide the development of strategies to combat the pathology that gun culture has imposed upon our entire population. And, it just keeps the argument and conflict going because there is not enough empirical data to indicate potential solutions.

It also seems to be a strategy in the arguments advocates put forth. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" dismisses the fact that the presence of the gun makes it easier for a person to kill. It is easy enough that even young children are physically able to commit homicide.

Would empirical research convince those who demand unfettered access that it is NOT okay to have so many guns floating around? I have no idea, but it couldn't hurt to try.

[ion_theory]

1. Most of the people who are pro-gun don't pay attention to stats and facts in my experience..

Most of them are re-pugs who already shun anything intellectual, so I don't think it is them we can ever convince with studies and facts. They like to view all things through the simplest eyes. Black and white. Take that and add how our politics in this country have become recreational entertainment and a sharks vs the jets type deal, and ppl, mostly uneducated republicans, naturally are apologists with whatever position their party takes. Just look at the Right's candidates. Besides a few things here and there, usually in the form of 'I defunded _____ more,' they are all have the same damn views on every issue.

[GGJohn]

20. Most of the people who are pro-gun don't pay attention to stats and facts in my experience..

I disagree, there are many, many instances of the gun control side not paying attention to stats and facts, right here on this board.
Why do you think gun control is all but ineffective in this country?
Because the pro 2A side cites facts while the pro control side usually uses emotion to try to get their agenda enacted.
The majority of Americans aren't buying what the pro control side are selling.

[Kingofalldems]

35. That's an old Rush Limbaugh meme--liberals are all emotional and stuff.

Interesting.

[GGJohn]

36. Interesting that you would compare me to old Limpy.

And I never said liberals, now did I?
I said pro control side.
Next time before you try to smear a fellow member, try actually reading and understanding what's said.

[beevul]

45. Please. Its in the published anti-gun talking point manual.

#1: ALWAYS FOCUS ON EMOTIONAL AND VALUE-DRIVEN
ARGUMENTS ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE, NOT THE POLITICAL
FOOD FIGHT IN WASHINGTON OR WONKY STATISTICS.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023396665

[Duckhunter935]

50. Yep, so very true

And they have never been able to post a link to the so called "NRA talking points"

[Duckhunter935]

28. Couple of simple questions

If I buy a weapon online and have it shipped to me do I have undergo a background check?

If I go to my local gun show and purchase a weapon at a dealer, do I have to undergo a background check

Those should be super easy, let's see how many get them right.

[Lizzie Poppet]

58. My experience is rather different.

I find that the majority of people on either side of this debate tend to largely ignore verifiable data save for cherry-picked, soundbite-worthy items that they think bolster their argument. The "anti" side is no better than the "pro" side in this respect.

[Fumesucker]

2. Leave "gun" out of the title and it's still quite true

[Shandris]

3. The big problem as I have seen it (read: anecdotal!) is that...

...those who would be willing to pursue safety in terms of responsible gun ownership believe that a vast majority of liberals want to remove their ability to own a gun at all. Since that's a terrible idea to conservatives (because a huge number of them are rural, where police departments have a response time in the hours), they're not going to budge at all. They've seen incrementalism for 40 years and they know it when they see it again.

And, on this topic, I think they're right (EDIT: about the full-disarm thing, not that they shouldn't budge at all. On a liberal site it should be obvious, but...). Even if the majority of liberals don't intend to fully disarm the entire populace, it doesn't require a majority to get things done. It only requires a fraction of a fraction of a fraction, and then enough shaming power to back it up and we have more than a few people who are more than happy to do it. Witness the entirety of government.

IOW, our past actions have produced current results. Doubling down on them will continue to produce current results. That's why the deadlock, unfortunate though it is. Again...imo.

EDIT: For clarity on a point

[loyalsister]

4. I think there are a lot of other factors

The belief the agenda of wanting to see a little more accountability on the part of gun owners automatically means that people want to confiscate all guns is kind of like suggesting that all people who consider themselves pro-life want to throw women who have ever had an abortion in prison.

The point of the article is that it is possible to examine solutions that do not include confiscation and elimination of all firearms. The republicans and NRA made an effort to prevent that possibility. And we are left with people perpetuating foolish slogans and dismissing basic logic.

[branford]

5. There are indeed solutions that do not include confiscation and related bans.

However, one need simple peruse the vast number of draconian gun control suggestions (either immediate or incremental) here on DU over the last few days to realize the fears of gun rights supporters are at least partially justified.

The attitude concerning the slippery slope of regulation really does make "reasonable" and "safety" firearm regulations to many Republicans what "reasonable" and "safety" abortion restrictions are to many Democrats.

[loyalsister]

6. The basis of your assumption is rhetoric not facts

It still comes down to a sick sense of entitlement. "My right to kill trumps the right of people to live under conditions where it is difficult for people to be shot and killed."

It is that underlying sentiment resists all factual evidence because the number of lives lost is dismissed as unimportant. Ultimately, people who want unfettered access do not give a damn about the lives of walking, living, breathing people. After all, any restrictions could make it a tiny bit more difficult to carry out hobbies, acquire trophies, and\or kill someone perceived to be a threat.....

[branford]

7. Your post is basically justifying draconian restrictions by dehumanizing gun owners.

There are 80-100+ million gun owners in the USA (I'm not one of them), more than 1 out of every 3 American adults. The vast, vast majority of legal gun owners will never engage in any criminality, firearm or otherwise.

The fact that you apparently attribute the worst callousness and evil to so many of your fellow citizens, and could so easily deny deny them their rights (and whether you like it or not, firearms are a right), amply justifies their fears and lack of trust.

We could implement a myriad of policies in this country, including eviscerating numerous rights, that might ultimately save a life. That's not the standard for legal restriction of citizen behavior, no less constitutionally protected activity, and firearms are not the exception to centuries of jurisprudence.

Of course, you are entitled to you opinions about guns or anything else, and can lobby or advocate as you see fit, even if the policies might ultimately be unlawful.

However, as Shandris noted earlier, comments like yours and others justify your opponent's fears that the firearm discussion is not really about targeted safety regulation, but far broader and more pervasive restrictions that are both widely and strongly opposed by a great many Americans.

[loyalsister]

12. As much as people want to wish it away, the 2nd amendment does include the words "well regulated."

Do you believe that the vast majority of gun owners have no idea that their guns can kill with little physical effort? Do you truly believe that even if the majority of gun owners do acknowledge that fact, it has absolutely no influence on their desire to own a gun?

We could implement a myriad of policies in this country, including eviscerating numerous rights, that might ultimately save a life. That's not the standard for legal restriction of citizen behavior, no less constitutionally protected activity, and firearms are not the exception to centuries of jurisprudence.

In other words, "I never saw a body with bullet holes that was more devastating than taking the right to arm ourselves away."

[Kang Colby]

16. Incrementalism.

Last edited Wed Oct 7, 2015, 10:23 PM - Edit history (2)

Gun control advocates use incremental tactics, in other words they make every effort to disprove the slippery slope fallacy. This is well documented in many of the gun control states.

Take my current state for example, we got on the gun control bandwagon back in the 80s. It started with these cheap handguns people called "Saturday night specials". These were cheap guns, mostly made in California. The thinking was that these guns were so cheap, so inaccurate, they were only made for killing and needed to be banned. Several of us said, hey, wait, these are decent self defense options for the working poor, better than nothing. But, the legislature had to do something to curb the violence brought on by the crack cocaine epidemic, so affordable handguns were banned.

Some time later it was decided we needed an approved roster of handguns, because we needed to give the state time to review firearms so dangerous weapons didn't end up in consumer hands. We would only be allowed to purchase handguns made after a certain date if they were included on the roster.

Several years went by and then we decided to start registering handguns in a state wide registry. We then extended the waiting time necessary to purchase a handgun. Then we decided to ban several handguns that were discussed in too many rap songs. Then we decided to add various semi-automatic rifles to the list of guns that needed to be registered and require a more lengthy wait. Then we decided to require a training class to purchase a handgun or one of the more evil rifles. Then we decided to require safety features on handguns that 15 years later still don't exist. Then we decided to require spent shell casings on every new handgun purchase and then repealed the law over a decade later because the technology didn't work. Then we decided to ban all of the evil rifles, their copies (the law doesn't define copy, so the state police make it up as they go and change their mind every so often), and any rifle that has a combination of evil features. The state won't allow several old battle rifles like the M1A or the SKS (with removable magazine)...but AR-10s are legal and don't require registration. We also require every handgun purchaser to submit fingerprints, take a 4 hour course with live fire in a state administered curriculum that over two years later doesn't even have a high level syllabus, submit application fees, course fees, gun rental fees, fingerprint fees, wait up to 30 days for approval, and end up spending over $300 in total costs for a license that needs to be renewed once per decade. Each handgun requires an 8 day wait for the registration and background check to be processed. They make it as onerous and costly as possible to purchase a gun.

I'm sure I left out many of the other nuances, like safe storage laws, and every so many years we will lower the acceptable magazine round count, we've gone from no limit, to 20 rounds, to 10 rounds.

What's next? I can't say that I disagree with all of it, but this has gone past the point of "reasonable, common sense legislation".

[jack_krass]

8. Utter idiocy

In reality, every time one of these mass killings occus, there's a single minded, lazerlike, 24/7 fixation on GUNZ GUNZ GUNZ as the one and only cause, usually followed by some stupid useless gesture like another cartridge capacity limit passed by the politicians to mollify the screaming masses and make themselves feel useful.. This limits time, energy, and resource that could be used to explore fresh solutions that could actually help.

[jack_krass]

15. Another

Thing that really annoys me is the misplaced blame and anger... I swear to God sometimes you'd think the shooter is blameless in these incidents. I hardly see any anger at all aimed at the shooter but much much rage at "TEH GUNZ", (and by proxy) people who own guns. The worst, most primal most rage (which you'd think would be directed at the shooter) is reserved for those who show any interest, enjoyment, or enthusiasm towards TEH GUNZ. It's bizarre and sureal.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

54. Yes. How dare they want to discuss guns after a mass shooting.

What kind of idiotic logic is that?

[ileus]

9. I've been fighting it for years...folks like being dead wrong about the 2A.

[loyalsister]

10. According your and the RW interpretation, maybe

Ignoring "well-regulated" makes that interpretation work.

[branford]

11. So, the Second Amendment is a collective right about a well-regulated militia?

I think you might need to have a word with the Democratic Party.

This is the official Democratic Platform concerning firearms,

Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

[loyalsister]

14. I am well aware of the fact that glorifying guns is part of USA culture

Yes, I think it is a stupid and sick mentality, but I do recognize that reality. My arguments are reflected in that statement.

1. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation.
- My concern is unfettered access, so obviously I agree.

2. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms.

- That conversation would be more useful with more data. You may notice that research has been restricted.

3. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

- I am glad to see suggested solutions.

[Duckhunter935]

32. Let's see

Unfettered access?
Any new firearm or firearm that crosses state lines must have a federal background check done at purchase. Intrastate sales are governed by the state. Federal prohibited persons are barred from owning firearms

Research is not restricted, the CDC just did a major study. What is not allowed is advocacy for either side.

Unless you ban semi-auto rifles the AWB is useless as it is based on cosmetic feature. Rifle A has a bayonet lug and is banned. Rifle B does not have that and is fully legal. Both rifles operate and function identically. That is just idiotic.

[Lizzie Poppet]

59. One need not be RW to point out the linguistics.

Legal questions aside, the construction of the sentence is such that it rather clearly ascribes the right to keep and bear arms to "the People." The introductory clause is not constructed in a way that makes it an unconditional modifier of the main clause. It instead presents the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a rationale for protecting what the formulation of the main clause implies is a pre-existing right. Were it intended to grant that right to members of the militia (or even to the people as a whole), the sentence would have to be constructed differently.

[Decoy of Fenris]

13. Loyalsister, you're right but in all the wrong ways.

There are a few of us in the Gungeon (A few, with some chaff as well) who genuinely and truly know our shit; capabilities of arms, how to buy and manufacture them, how to sell them and how to shoot them. We know every in and out of almost anything related to firearms; if a rule can be exploited, we know how to do it.

We need sensible people on the Gun Control side to sit down, listen to us and hopefully come to an understanding that banning -some- guns won't work, banning -all- guns won't work, and three quarters of proposed legislation will do absolutely nothing to hinder criminal use of firearms. A few of us RKBAers have floated solid, sensible and most importantly -viable- alternatives to "gun control" that have been proven to work and will work (if given time), yet each time we try to discuss this with gun controllers, to be blunt, they don't give a shit.

"It's the guns, stupid."
"Gun humper."
"Gun fetishist."

THAT is your side's idea of "dialogue." So when you say "Ignorance suits the pro-gun agenda", just remember that us RKBAers know our shit and we know what works. It's not up to us to force you gun controllers to listen, though. Hell, I'd be on your side if there weren't so many classless, lowbrow mouthbreathers screeching from the sidelines whenever the adults sit down to talk about progress.

When the Controller side sits down, ignores their extremist loonies, puts their chips on the table and says "Lets work together", that's when this childish back and forth will end and both progress and healing can occur. Until then, absolutely nothing will change, people will die by the thousands, and each side will point at one another screaming "He did it."

I know I and a few other RKBA folks have said "Let's work together." We're waiting on you guys to do the same.

[loyalsister]

18. "just remember that us RKBAers know our shit"

So you know that guns are designed for the purpose of making killing and or destruction possible with little physical effort?

My observation is that willfully ignoring that seems to help justify the fact that people know that and want them to be so easily available anyway. If there are people somewhere who have no idea that guns can kill and want to own them, there is no doubt that they are a very tiny minority.

People know they are designed to kill. They know that we are seeing indents where children are shooting people, proving that they are very easy to use. They know that there have been an ridiculous number of mass shootings. We know that homicide and suicide are both carried out with very little effort with guns. And the importance of those facts are willfully ignored when people argue for unfettered access.

Then they are buried under a narcissistic claim their rights are more important than acknowledging the very real problem we seem to have with easy access to the weapons that make it easy to kill. The refusal to entertain the possibility that making the process slightly more complicated could be a step towards reducing gun ownership among people who intend to act on impulses to use the gun as it is intended to be used.

[Decoy of Fenris]

23. Of course we know that. It's called a "Force multiplier."

You also are aware, since you seem intelligent, that there are numerous guns out there designed for -not- killing people? Granted, they're few and far between, but I defy you to kill something with a plinking gun. Likewise, assault rifles, machine guns (both light and heavy) and some marksmen's rifles aren't designed to even -hit- anything, but provide a hail of bullets forcing an enemy combatant to hunker down and avoid the off-chance of a bullet actually hitting them.


In regards to people "knowing" things... If what you say is true, and all these people -know- exactly what you say they know... Why is nothing being done about it? Why do people fight tooth and claw against regulation that will "save lives"? Either they don't know what you say they know... Or, to be blunt, not as many people care as you think they do. That may sound cold, but both of those could very well be true.


If you want to know where the "rights are more important" people are coming from, consider this, please, since you seem to be sensible. Rights enumerated in the Constitution and appropriate amendments are what govern all of us. Not just a few of us, but -all of us-. The elderly and infirm, the hale and hearty, black and white, gay and straight, theist and non-theist-. Every right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, from the first to the twenty seventh, are vitally important in describing things that the government can not, nor will not, abridge. To some of us, speaking of abridging a right, -any- right, by proxy is an act tantamount to government overreach and a direct attack against the citizenship of the country. Would you give so much thought and reason to, say, talk of repealing/rewriting the 19th Amendment? No, because you assume voting is a civil right that is -undeniable-, making such comparatively innocent former legislation like poll taxes or voter disenfranchisement grievous violations of our rights as citizens. Compare, then, "bullet taxes" or "mandatory gun insurance" in the lens applied to any other enumerated right in the Constitution and you can see, perhaps, why we defend what you see as indefensible.

The RKBA crowd just holds that same standard to the 2nd Amendment. If the Right Wing ever got enough power and tried to alter the 19th Amendment so only, say, white woman could vote, we would fight just as hard, just as loud and just as passionately on that issue as on the 2nd Amendment. Rights granted to the people should be retained by the people, unmolested and unabridged, even if the losses suffered in the meantime are indeed tragic.

Do you see where I'm coming from?

[loyalsister]

39. Voting is not a civil right enumerated in the constitution

Voting rights are conferred by the states, which can impose restrictions and regulations.
In some states, people who have been convicted of felonies can never vote again. In mine they can vote after the sentence is finished unless it is a crime related to elections. There are also people who are not allowed to vote because of guardianship status. I don't agree with some of those restrictions. It is very close to my heart because I have friends who have intellectual disabilities who are not allowed to vote. However, it is not unconstitutional.

I have trouble imagining a scenario where a single act of an individual voting would interfere with the well being of another person.

However, that most definitely is the case with gun ownership. Does the unfettered access to firearms work to "insure domestic tranquility" or is it possible that some regulations might promote widespread relief of domestic anxiety so many people experience in this climate that has developed?

You also are aware, since you seem intelligent, that there are numerous guns out there designed for -not- killing people?

Are they not designed to simulate killing by destroying an inanimate object?

[Decoy of Fenris]

43. See, that's my point, though.

The people who have had voting restrictions in place -earned-, after a fashion, their lack of said "right". I'm not saying that the right to own firearms is absolute to every degree by any stretch, but it's certainly not as malleable as many seem to think it is.

But see, that's my point. You have trouble imagining where a single act of an individual voting would interfere with the well being of another person; What about ten thousand, or twenty thousand? For the sake of argument, let's say 30,000. 30,000 instances of an individual voting when they shouldn't, or 30,000 cases of voter fraud or voter disenfranchisement, whatever, pick your poison. Let's say 30,000 Republicans registering twice and voting twice. Enough to swing an election, say, similar to 2000.

Now, instead of Hillary or Sanders, we have President Trump. I don't think I need to tell you how that one ends up.

The votes of 30,000 people, either helped or hindered by the government to a single point of purpose, throws the country into a death-spiral, all because of that 20,000 or 30,000. Less than 1% of the population. 1% of 1% of the population has an impact the likes of which the world may never have seen before.

Now, I know that's hyperbole in the extreme, and I'm sure you know why I picked the 30K number; Why should the acts of even 30,000 people -ever- impact the rights of the other 300,000,000? No one in their right mind would ever consider banning voting or banning specific people from voting because of the acts of 30,000 and that's a -good thing-. If 30,000 black Americans committed actual voter fraud every election, you wouldn't stop blacks from voting or re-institute poll taxes, so why punish 100 million gun-owning Americans for the acts of 30,000? To hold any degree of logical or legal consistency, or intellectual honesty, we have to apply an equal defense across the board for every right and every Amendment, and that does include the Second.



In regards to your statement about unfettered access, two points, which I'll try to keep short.

-Firstly, I'd say yes, firearms do promote a degree of insurance of domestic tranquility. There are people in the world, like myself at the moment, my parents, my grandmother, who, if push came to shove, could not defend themselves if the need arose. I'm disabled at the moment, and in my career I live with a mark on my back; If I go through a day without having my life threatened, it's a good day. On top of that, I live in a shit neighborhood. So yes, my shotgun and a handgun -do- provide me with domestic tranquility. Since no one else in the apartment knows I own them, why would their domestic tranquility be harmed by my (unknown) firearms? Net gain, all things considered.

-Secondly, Yes, I do agree that restricting some firearm ownership would ensure a greater social tranquility as a whole. I'm not gun-blind; Some things are obvious. What I argue about in relation to that is the effectiveness of any legislation, and I think there are a great many gun control folks out there who genuinely don't understand what, precisely, would happen if guns became hard to find. Imagine the drug war, but with AR-15s on every corner instead of Glocks.


Also, no, plinking guns are normally used to practice basic form and function for accurate shooting. They're beginner-level rifles that aid in training up to full-bore rifles frequently used in competitive target shooting. You can say that's "Simulating killing", but there's a great degree of skill in that particular sport, and I'm pretty sure that most professional target shooters never think to themselves "Wow, I'da killed a guy good with that shot."

[Hoyt]

29. That's funny, a gun profiteer and self-styled gun expert telling us what the problem is.

[GGJohn]

31. Coming from you,

that's frickin funny.

[Decoy of Fenris]

34. Okay Hoyt, my first response was going to be snark.

Look mate, I'm being as real and up front as I can with folks. There are very real problems out there that need to be addressed, not just "gunz."

You can work with us to fix them. Otherwise, you're a part of the problem. The blood of the innocent will be on the hands of those who won't act to stop this violence.

[Hoyt]

49. So your selling gunz, carrying gunz, accumulating gunz, is helping to stop violence? Don't think so.

[TeddyR]

37. Hoyt

You are a pretty frequent poster in the gun-related threads, so what's your proposal to lower gun-related deaths? Setting aside a confiscation/ban, which I don't think will happen any time soon ("ever" perhaps, but ever is a long time), what laws do you think should be enacted? Maybe you could offer a proposal on laws to prevent (1) firearms related murders and (2) firearms related suicides, since those are two completely different issues with different causes and potential solutions.

[Duckhunter935]

51. I would be surprised you get a response

They tend to run away

[Tommy_Carcetti]

55. We tried passing some common sense measures after Sandy Hook. You guys blocked it all the way.

Manchin-Toomey was as common sense and a no-brainer as it got, and you shot it down. Never gave it a chance.

You claim you want "dialogue" and for the sides to "sit down and listen" and "Let's work together" but it's all meaningless hot air.

You've got a lobbying arm that will attack any sort of gun control measure as "ZOMG!!! They're coming to take all our guns away!!!!!" and people who a week after a horrific massacre will race to the nearest gun shop to buy up AR-15s that they don't need just because they think perhaps they won't be able to buy them later.

Then you have places like in my state where your gun lobbyists are literally writing the gun friendly laws and hand delivering them for signature. This is Marion Hammer, chief NRA lobbyist in Florida with the past three governors of my state and her bills on things such as Stand Your Ground, prohibiting doctors from discussing guns with patients, and prohibiting any sort of local gun control ordinances:







Perhaps if all of this hadn't happened over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, maybe we'd be a little more friendly in responding to the likes of you, but we can only take so much. Please cut out the deflectionist bullshit from you guys. If you actually want to work with us, prove it and cut out the whole "Why won't you talk to us and agree with us?" garbage.

[beevul]

17. Lets start here.

There 300+ million guns in the hands of 80+ million people.

There are 30 thousandish gun deaths annually. A tragedy to be sure.

In spite of those tragic numbers, 99.9x percent of gun owners and 99.9x percent of guns are not and never will be involved in gun violence.

How can it be then, that those people, or the guns they own, are the problem?

[loyalsister]

21. If the gun is not present

in whatever incidents that lead to those 30,000 deaths, it would take a lot more work to carry out a violent act.

Are the 99.9% not aware of the fact that their weapon has the capacity to kill without much effort, yet still unwilling to sacrifice a little time and effort so that the few people who plan to use the gun as intended have expend more time and effort to commit a violent act?

[beevul]

22. Thats not an answer to the question I asked.

I'm not going to even bother to address yours if you aren't going to answer mine.

[loyalsister]

30. To clarify

There 300+ million guns in the hands of 80+ million people.

There are 30 thousandish gun deaths annually. A tragedy to be sure.

In spite of those tragic numbers, 99.9x percent of gun owners and 99.9x percent of guns are not and never will be involved in gun violence.

How can it be then, that those people, or the guns they own, are the problem?

First of all, 99.9% is a hyperbolic rhetorical device that has no basis in reality.

It does not matter if a given gun is used in violent episodes. The point is it is a choice that is easily available because there are 300+ million in the hands of 80+ million people who may or may not be responsible, who may or may not have highly responsible children, friends and neighbors who could gain access, etc.

[beevul]

33. Wrong.

First of all, 99.9% is a hyperbolic rhetorical device that has no basis in reality.

Wrong.

300 million guns in the hands of 80 million people. 30k deaths a year.

Lets triple that to 100k. Lets say there were 100k dead per year.

100k is .125 percent of 80 million.

100k is .03333333333333333 of 300 million.

So not only is it NOT "a hyperbolic rhetorical device that has no basis in reality", its in fact spot on.

It does not matter if a given gun is used in violent episodes. The point is it is a choice that is easily available because there are 300+ million in the hands of 80+ million people who may or may not be responsible, who may or may not have highly responsible children, friends and neighbors who could gain access, etc.

99.9 percent of the time, this does not happen.

The numbers don't lie, and theres no wishing them away.

[sarisataka]

19. You are correct

though not necessarily in the way you intended.

Counter question- if empirical research concluded some forms of gun control are ineffective or even counter productive, would you change your position and support loosened laws in those areas?

Some proposals I made the other day:


The NRA will cave in if there is wide support of a bill among gun owners. It has been done.

Some things I, and many other gun owners would support:

-Enforce the laws we have. Recently a person was sentenced to two years for making straw purchases with the intent to move seven guns over states lines. A single straw purchase can be a ten year sentence. The remarkable thing was that any jail time was involved. We can pass 100k laws but if they do not get enforced they are only words on paper.

-Pass UBC. Should have happened long ago. The issues with enforcement have been hashed over but in reality there is no downside.

-Safe storage laws. Also an enforcement issue but if keeping your kids safe isn't incentive enough, maybe the threat of jail time may make a few more act responsibly. Also, as in the first point, they must be enforced, not waived away in misplaced sympathy after a tragedy.

-Mandatory reporting of stolen/lost firearms. Goes well with the above point. Criminal culpability may be considered for extreme negligence.

-- Get DV laws passed to remove guns from those who are a high risk of violence. The MN law (which helped campaign for) is a good example. It removes guns to protect potential victims but also has due process provisions to protect the accused.

-Fix carry laws. All carry must be shall issue (to avoid racist enforcement) but can include refusal by LE "for good cause". If the person is known to LE as a trouble maker, multiple DUIs misdemeanors etc., then they can be denied. If the person wishes, they can appeal and LE can put their evidence before a judge. If found insufficient or frivolous then LE pays legal costs.
--Also to get a PTC, class time including laws on legal self defense should be required. A practical shooting test comparable to local LE would also be required.
---While I personally do not object to open carry, it typically causes undo alarm. Allow concealed with no more that a citation for inadvertent exposure. This would also solve the issue of idiots who carry rifles everywhere.

-Fix SYG. While the theory that a person should have no civil liability for legitimate self defense is good, in practice the issue is murky. I do not have the legal expertise to suggest specific changes.

-I know I'm forgetting something obvious that I usually include, but getting any one of these passed will be a major effort in today's political climate.

These all address the gun side of the equation, which I look on as treating the fever of an ill person. It is a symptom, not the disease. That must be treated on a social level. I found this list a good start

1. Access to alcohol and drug treatment and rehab
2. Prison reform
3. Curbing the school-to-prison pipeline
4. Addressing structural racism and investing in young black men
5. Correcting income inequality
6. Addressing gender inequality and "macho" culture

[loyalsister]

24. Good suggestions

Counter question- if empirical research concluded some forms of gun control are ineffective or even counter productive, would you change your position and support loosened laws in those areas?

I would need to see details of the research.

I think your idea are good, and they address a real life situation that I found very troubling.

My dad is a well known alcoholic in the town where he lives. He keeps a loaded handgun on his nightstand, and has an extreme startle response. (I think he has PTSD, but he has never been diagnosed). Although he does, he should definitely not have a CC permit.

A few years ago he was arrested for threatening someone with a gun. The story he told was ridiculous. Someone knocked on the door and when he opened it they demanded money. He said he was going to go get his checkbook so he could give him one. Instead he came back with a gun and fired a shot in the air to scare the guy. After it was all over, the guy called the police. I have no idea what really happened, but I know that in all of these years of alcoholism he has cultivated a talent for making up stories to justify his behavior. Knowing him, alcohol, garden variety paranoia, and machismo probably played a big role in the incident.

Your suggestions seem to understand it as a public health and safety issue. I like that.

[sarisataka]

26. I have always maintained

it is more of a software (human) problem, than hardware(the gun), but that does not preclude addressing the hardware.

Your father sounds like a excellent example where "good cause" would come into play. Though no felony conviction is involved a case could easily be built and documented that he is a danger to himself and others.

[Act_of_Reparation]

40. What are your thoughts on mandatory insurance or civil/criminal liability for accidents?

These are a few items I've heard floated around recently and I'm curious to know their potential. It seems requiring firearms owners to insure their weapons may help mitigate the public cost of gun violence, while holding owners accountable for any accidents or crimes committed with their weapons (if they themselves are not the perpetrator) may go far to encourage some gun owners to keep their firearms well out of the hands of others.

[branford]

48. Mandatory firearm insurance is a non-starter.

I've discussed the issue extensively before, and will just re post an earlier comment:

Mandatory insurance is a feel-good measure and little more than solution looking for a problem.

First, you cannot insure against your own intentional criminal acts. Insurance also wouldn't cover the effects of violence unconnected to the owner's firearms. Personal liability insurance is not a some general crime victim recovery fund funded by legal gun owners (which would have its own myriad of constitutional problems). For instance, even if the recent shooter of the reporters in Virginia has liability insurance, the victims' families would not collect a dime from the policy.

Second, since the incidence of firearm negligence among lawful gun owners is minuscule, despite the occasional graphic news story (recall that the USA has about 100+ million legal gun owners and over 300+ million firearms), the cost for such policies would be (and are) negligible. If the government attempted to artificially raise the costs of such insurance above what actuarial standards required, it would become a tax or penalty on gun ownership, and no longer "insurance" (again, with significant constitutional problems).

Third, most homeowners and renters policies already cover accidents involving firearms.

Fourth, if the intent and design of the policy is to discourage the exercise of a constitutional right by simply making it more burdensome or expensive, it would almost certainly be unconstitutional in the same manner the courts struck-down poll taxes and literacy tests for voting.

Fifth, the vast majority of crime involving guns does not involve legal firearm owners or guns, and therefore this policy would have little to no effect on crime rates as such firearms would still not be insured even if mandatory. "Mass shootings" are also an extremely small percentage of gun crime.

Sixth, firearm accident insurance and policy riders are already very cheap and readily available, and the NRA is one of its largest proponents. If specific firearm insurance became mandatory, it would be a huge financial windfall for the NRA not only as a provider and vendor (similar to how AARP is a vendor for health and life insurance), but also as an endorser as they are the largest firearms safety organization in the country. T

Seventh, there is no data to suggest that the country actually has a problem with uncompensated losses resulting from accidents involving legal firearms. What problem does the mandatory insurance proposal actually address?

Eighth, the lack of liability insurance does not prevent accident victims from suing someone for their negligence or criminal acts.

[sarisataka]

56. Insurance does not bother me

I have it.

It would not make firearms prohibitively expensive as some hope. $200/yr gives me $1,000,000 coverage for accident liability and covers me in case someone I teach in a class turns around and commits a crime.

If more people bought the insurance, rates would likely go down.

As the other poster explained, and he has far better legal expertise, requiring insurance for ownership would likely fail on Constitutional grounds. Requiring it for those who carry would have a much better chance of passing legal tests.

As far as other civil/criminal liability I treat firearms as any other item. If the owner is negligent and does not secure it they may face accountability. If they made reasonable effort to secure a firearm but it was still taken through criminal action, then the blame is on the criminal.
To illustrate- if the gun is left on the seat of a car with the windows open a bit, that is on the owner. If it was locked in the trunk with a cable or trigger lock, then the owner made a reasonable effort and is clear.

[Act_of_Reparation]

57. I think that's reasonable

Honestly, I tend to fall on the side of control, but I'm open to exploring less invasive resolutions if they produce similar results.

[hunter]

25. No, it's gun fetishists, the most dangerous live among them.

[TeddyR]

27. So what's the solution?

I for one can live with UBC, and registration, and even an assault weapon ban and limits on magazine capacity (it takes less than two seconds to eject an empty magazine and insert a loaded one). But when all those laws are enacted, and there is no decrease in mass shootings, what is the next step for those who favor stricter gun regulations?

[loyalsister]

41. I don't have a solution

to the problem of gun violence, but I think we could move in that direction if gun advocates would admit that the presence of the gun is every bit as relevant as the intention of the shooter to the the discussion.

[TeddyR]

42. ok

For arguments sake, I admit the presence of the gun is as relevant as the intention of the criminal who misused the gun. And although I'm willing to have that discussion, I don't see how my admission moves the ball forward. You can't ban guns, and you can't take away all the guns that are in the hands of criminals, so admitting that a gun is relevant to the discussion does nothing to address gun violence. Am I missing something?

[loyalsister]

44. If the NRA talking points included that admission

we might have something. I think it could open a national discussion about possible regulations that address the ease of access.

[Egnever]

47. You can't take all of the gins away from the criminals

No but you can limit the amount of them available to them.

The idea that restricting gun sales over time wont reduce the access criminals have to them is ludicrous. Yes determined criminals will get them but billy bob who is mad at his wife in most cases won't.

[world wide wally]

38. Gun lovers will rationalize every aspect of gun laws

They will use anecdote about their personal use and repeat the deliberate misinterpretation of the Second Amendment never even addressing the part about a "well regulated militia".
Hence the proverbial brick wall.
They truly believe that their gun is the only thing that makes them "free".
Your freedom to be safe in a sane world is inconsequential. (The NRA told them so)

[Egnever]

46. That is America's problem in general

it is not in any way limited to the issue of guns.

[Captain Stern]

52. I don't think that's America's biggest gun problem.

Our biggest problem with gun control is that we don't seriously discuss reasonable measures.

There are three groups of people in the "discussion":

1. The group that favors no amount of gun control at all. They think that even the tiniest effort to make things safer is a planned step towards eventually taking their guns away from them altogether. They are a small group.

2. The group that wants to ban guns completely. They don't like guns, and don't think anyone should be allowed to have one. They are also a small group.

3. The group that recognizes that guns shouldn't be, and won't ever be, banned completely, but thinks that we should have more gun control than we do now. This is, by far, the largest of the three groups.


The problem, as I see it, is that not only do the people in groups 1 and 2 not realize they are tiny minorities, they don't even seem to realize that group 3 exists. Each group has a "with us, or against us" attitude. If you aren't 100% on board with their radical agendas, then you are against them. I think this makes a lot of people in group 3 throw up their hands, and say the hell with it. And without the support of the people in group 3, things aren't going to change. Things won't get worse, but they won't get better either.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

53. If the American people are as ignorant as you claim why is Controller propaganda so ineffective?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

60. A research ban just was extended by Congress

against the CDC. You can't get any more "willfully ignorant" than prohibiting even the gathering or analysis of data on the phenomenon that's killing tens of thousands of Americans every year. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141225979 and the links in posts 10, 36, and 64.