Why are firearms control measures ineffective?

[Indy Lurker]

Do you agree that firearms control measures ineffective?


Or do you believe it would be much worse without the laws we have now?

[MercutioATC]

1. They're not.

Think of it this way...life is a big dimmer switch.

You can have complete dark (banning all guns) or full light (zero gun restrictions) or be somewhere in the range betweem the two extremes.

To make firearm laws completely "effective", you'd have to completely have to ban guns. The trade-off is that you'd also be denying people their 2nd Amendment rights (in addition to a host of other practical issues. a host of practical issues).

We set that dimmer switch where we want it as a nation. Gun legislation is doing exactly what its "dimmer switch setting" intends it to do.

[Statistical]

2. How do you know existing fire control measures are not effective?

If one person dies with a gun does that mean they are not effective?

If you are looking for absolutes, i.e. 0 gun deaths or 0 violent crimes involving a gun then that is the wrong metric.

However I think "crime control" measures and those involve making it more difficult for felons to gain access to a firearm and stiff penalties when they are caught ARE working.

Violent crime is at a 30 year low, homicide rate is lower than it was in the 1960s.
Doesn't that indicate it is working?

Of course if we had a better social safety net & real mental health program in this country it likely could be a third lower.

[customerserviceguy]

3. Because criminals really don't care what the laws are

just like with drugs, if someone wants a weapon bad enough, they'll get one.

All gun control laws do is make it harder on the law-abiding.

[zipplewrath]

4. Effective at what?

A misunderstanding on both sides of the issue is that police and proctorial support for most gun laws has little to do with preventing gun violence, and almost everything to do with making it easier to convict the "bad guys". If you criminalize a BG's cultural behavior, you can incarcerate him prior to actually catching him committing a crime. We do it to all manner of people. The homeless have laws aimed directly at them and generally only enforced against them. We have laws against "lying horizontally in a public place". We convicted Al Capone of tax evasion. We have DUI laws set at 0.08 despite a huge lack of any evidence that it is particularly more dangerous than driving after a hard days work, or after 80 years old.

It's all related to the "broken windows" theory of law enforcement. The theory goes that if you enforce petty laws of personal behavior and cultural conformity, you can intervene prior to more serious acts of criminality or anti-social behavior occur. So you pester a guy who doesn't fix his broken window, or parks his car on the front lawn, before his house becomes some sort of crack house hang out.

So the idea behind many gun laws is that if you criminalize the behavior of people who like to own guns, you can arrest the ones that like to own them for all the "wrong" reasons before they get around to choosing to do those things. It doesn't take a rocket scientist though to understand that this results in huge over lapping groups of people who are both exposed to these laws, despite not being the real target of them. And it also empowers our law enforcement to "pick and choose" upon whom they enforce them which then of course allows all manner of bias to enter into the enforcement of our laws.

The Gates/Crowley dust up is an clear example of how we have empowered the police to arrest and charge people "they don't like". The argument in that case is who didn't like whom and why. It is sad we aren't having a conversation about why police should be allowed to arrest people just because they don't like them. And in the case of gun laws, or any of these other sets of laws that are intended to arrest someone before they become a criminal, we should really be asking ourselves if the useful purpose of laws should be to try to criminalize culture or character.

[rrneck]

7. Very informative. Good stuff. nt

[gorfle]

5. They are very effective.

NICS has screened out thousands of ineligible people who attempted to buy firearms. I'd say that was a very effective, non-intrusive firearm control measure.

We need to make it so that ALL firearm purchases go to NICS-screened people, including private sales, while preserving anonymous firearm ownership.

I believe we need an opt-out FOID system tied to the states drivers' license / state-issued ID programs. Run EVERY applicant for a drivers' license or state-issued ID through NICS, except those who opt-out. Encrypt their FOID number on the ID. Then provide all FFL dealers and police stations with ID scanners that can scan IDs and print out a receipt for the seller, who must keep said receipt for 10 years from the date of sale.

This makes ALL sales go through NICS-screened people, while preserving anonymous firearm ownership.

[cslinger59]

6. I think they are a band aid

I think there are some laws that have merit. NICS check, no firearms for felons, those under 18 etc. but all in all the thousands of other firearms laws on the books do absolutely nothing to address the problem and I personally think provide little return on investment. I think there needs to be more emphasis on firearms education, safety, reality vs. TV and safe responsible handling and storage for the masses.

IMO we would be better served by scrapping 90% of the firearm laws and the money and resources spent to enforce them and shifting those resources and dollars to the following.
-More community policing (cops on the beat not SWAT guys)
-More training / equipment and new folks for first responders
-Stop the drug war (decriminalize at the very least MJ)
-Decriminalize non violent crime (make these folks pay their debts to society through community service, home imprisonment etc. Empty the prisons so they can be used to incarcerate those who need to be incarcerated so they can be kept in prison)
-Shift some of that money into education and programs to reduce poverty
-Shift some of the money and resources to health care and mental health care

Basically until we stop viewing gun violence as any different then violence and we start attacking the root causes its not going to change. Poverty, Education, teaching respect/compassion and coming down hard on real criminals would IMO go a long way to making society as whole better.

Attacking inanimate objects is a useless, waste of time that has shown time and again to have no return on investment. Not to mention the political capital spent hand wringing over this would be better spent putting our country back together, creating a robust / varied economy with jobs from blue collar service to white collar banking that provide live able wages and opportunities for those willing to work for them. Liveable (I don't believe everybody deserves to be the quarterback and has a right to new Caddy etc.)

[burrfoot]

8. +1

Great post cslinger.

The only thing I'd add- and this is not my original idea by any means, but one I strongly agree with- is that penalties for crimes involving guns (to include illegal possession and selling to unverified individuals) should be ratcheted WAY up.
Same goes for leaving a gun unsecured where a child has access to it. If you don't secure your weapon and a kid gets a hold of it and someone gets hurt, that should be a crime with a hefty penalty. Pure and simple. If we don't start holding people responsible- even for "accidents"- we don't provide any incentive for them to prevent those accidents.

[cslinger59]

9. I'm ok with that.

If you want to use the use of a firearm to make sure violent offenders are incarcerated for even longer terms I am good with that as long as we don't give a pass to those who commit violent crime without a firearm.

As for those who do not handle their firearms responsibly I absolutely agree they should be extensively penalized and this doesn't have to be an expensive proposal for the firearm owner. I do not advocate making it law that one needs a $1000 dollar gun safe. Just a $40 locking document box is enough to secure a firearm from a kid. We keep firearms in our household loaded for self defense. You will however NEVER find one unsecured when children or unknown adults or known adults who are drinking are in the house. Its not hard and its not expensive.

[burrfoot]

10. couldn't agree more

All violent offenses need (IMO) tough penalties, without early release. Using a firearm in your violent offense should just up the ante, as it were.

We also keep loaded firearms, and we keep them secure. Like you said, a $40 lock box will do it. If every gun owner did just that, and nothing else, we'd see firearms related accidents- particularly among children- drop significantly.

Maybe we should start a poll. }(

Why isn't this a big initiative? I wonder if people/corporations/the NRA/anyone would contribute to a fund to provide a lock box to any handgun owner who requests one? Maybe WalMart, or a manufacturer, would even offer a discount? Maybe I'm just dreaming about that last part, but still.....

I know this wouldn't solve the problem of gun deaths. But I actually do believe it would make a HUGE fucking difference.

[cslinger59]

11. I really think alot of it has to do with "the lowest common denominator"

I have taught a great many folks to shoot, buy their first firearm etc. and I drive home that part of the expense needs to be a way to secure it even if they have no kids etc. since there will come a time when they will want to secure it from somebody (like a party) but I am generally a responsible person in my life.

It is the idiots who are likely just as dangerous with a car or chainsaw or knife etc. who are the problem so I don't think offering them a discount on said lock box would help since

("Hell, I don't need one since I don't have kids or my kids know better etc.")

I think it really comes down to how do we educate people to be more responsible overall. You can lead a horse to water and all that.

The good news is accidental deaths are way way way way down so something has changed in the last 90 years or so.

If it were me I would make firearms education a lot more accessible, socially acceptable and available. Whether in schools or workplaces or malls etc. Now I am not talking about education that teaches shooting or politics or drives some marketing agenda but simple safety using fake guns and illustrating the proper safe handling and storage so as to make it second nature. I was shooting when I was in like seventh grade and I was taught how to safely handle a firearm and due to this when I came across a firearm at a friends house a year or two later (stored under the bed etc.) I simply took it from him, cleared it and told him that one he/we shouldn't be screwing with it and two if you are going to screw with it do it safely and properly.

I want folks to be safe and responsible and I do everything I can to promote this but sometimes you just cannot make a horse drink.

[burrfoot]

13. you're right,

of course. I just let myself have a quick little daydream that people would be willing to prevent accidental death if they had a simple way to do it. I'm glad that stats are way down, but I still wish they were even lower. Always will.

I'm also very aware of the concern that a locked gun is a useless gun, if you need it RIGHT NOW. I'm not sure how to reconcile that with the need to keep guns unavailable to kids.

Education, early on and for as many people as possible, is clearly a large part of the issue. Removing the stigma of shooting/ownership/education/training is harder- all we can do, I suppose, is be responsible owners ourselves and encourage others to be as well.

Oh and take new folks to the range whenever possible. Damn I hate that part....twist my arm and I GUESS I'll take you shooting.... :)

[cslinger59]

14. Its not hard at all to have a defensive firearm ready with kids in the house...

It just requires you to spend the $100 bucks or so on a quick access safe. No muss, no fuss. If you can afford the couple hundred bucks minimum for a firearm you can pony up a few extra for a quick access safe. There are even quick access lock boxes that are not designed for firearms that are not very expensive at all.

Being safe and responsible isn't really that tough even with kids in the house. It just requires a modicum of responsibility.

I am not sure how I would administer it as I don't believe in registration etc. but I would like to see some type of mandatory simple class to be taken before a firearm can be purchased. Not every time just the first time. Again, I don't know how to administer this or log that folks went through it but I would be ok with something like this. Then again, horse to water.....

[burrfoot]

16. I'm a fan

of those quick access boxes. I've got one myself. For me (I'm having deja vu- we may have discussed this on another thread somewhere) the trade off is worth it- a couple of seconds to get my hand on it is worth knowing that it's secure.

I know there are others who'd disagree..... like you said....Horse, meet water. Do what you will.

[cslinger59]

18. Currently we are childless for the next few months (first is on the way)

So I do not have a need for the quick access safe. They are simply locked up when we are not in the house or, as mentioned when kids or other adults who I don't have complete faith in are on the premises.

Once Jr. arrives you can be damn sure they will be secured in two quick access safes. It's just irresponsible not to IMO and as I always tell folks I am training putting on the top shelf or "hiding" it doesn't cut it, think back to your own childhood at Christmas, was there really anything your parents could hide or put out of reach?......I thought not. :D

They only thing we can do is continuously reinforce responsible ownership in our own lives and to others. Follow the rules, take a modicum of storage care and you are golden. No different then not getting hammered at the bar and driving home, just a modicum of responsibility goes a long way.

[X_Digger]

15. Well.. the NRA & Many police departments..

.. offer free trigger / cable locks for existing guns, and all new guns come with one or the other. Both are effective for stopping children and unknowing adults from firing a weapon.

[Statistical]

17. Really just needs to be enforced.

Penalty for felon possession is 5 years.
Penalty for firearm in connection to certain drug charges and/or firearm in prohibited area (school) are even more, 10-20 years.

These are two of the most unenforced laws in America. Routinely prosecutor never even notifies federal authorities and charges are never filed.

In Richmond, VA (at one time one of the murder capitals of the world) they instituted a program called project exile.

Pretty simple concept
1) Commonwealths Attorneys are required to turn over all possession cases to feds.
2) CA are prohibited from any plea bargin on gun charge
3) Massive public awareness campaign. 5/10/20. 5 years for possession, 10 years if used in a crime, additional 20 if results in a death.
4) Under project exile you served your fed time after local time and it was in an out of state prison (hence exile).

Murder rate in Richmond fell 40% in 2 years.

Program was so successful it was adopted state wide and renamed "Virginia Exile".



Simple concept, take an existing neglected law, enforce it, make sure every criminal knows about it, and offer no exceptions.
If you are felon in VA and are caught with a firearm you will do 5-20 years in federal prison located outside the state in additional to whatever criminal charges you were arrested for.

[cslinger59]

19. I think one of the biggest issues with this

is that our prisons are pretty crowded with folks who likely really don't need to be in prison. I am not saying they don't need to pay a debt to society but IMO, they can pay with fines, community service, house arrest, indentured servitude whatever. Ok maybe indentured servitude is going a wee bit far but I digress.

If we could free our prison resources up to house truly dangerous folks and keep them there then a whole lot of society's ills could be mitigated, again IMO.

I mean was there really a need to incarcerate Martha Stuart? I am not saying she shouldn't have to pay a debt to society in someway shape or form but to waste prison space on her? An extreme example to be sure but you get the point.

Project Exile is a great plan and one backed by the NRA I might add.

[Statistical]

20. Releasing just non violent drug offenders would free up about 30% of prison capacity. n/t

[TheWraith]

12. +1 to that.

Decades of attempts and successes both in the US and abroad have proven that you can't fight social problems simply by attacking guns. The root cause MUST be dealt with. More beat cops, more education and less poverty to prevent kids from falling into the gang lifestyle that causes most of our crime, and reforming the system so that we don't keep punishing non-violent offenders and addicts. The only thing that you didn't mention that really should me is shifting money from drug enforcement to drug treatment: let people have some less harmful drugs, but for those who really do get addicted, provide actual help.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

21. because words on paper are worthless without physical enforcement