by russell
The "this" in the headline is "guns".
The back home in Indiana thread petered out into (somehow, once again) a discussion of guns. The topic is obviously of interest to a lot of people, and equally obviously seems to be one of the hardest things to talk about.
I thought I would try a front-page on the topic, to see if we could actually have a useful conversation. I don't know if we can, or not. It's an experiment.
I want to start by remembering a comment from JanieM, one of my favorite long-time, now-gone ObWi regulars:
How can I make it safe for you to hear what I need to say?
Words to live by. In the interest of (possibly, with luck) making it possible to even broach the topic, I'll say where I, personally, am coming from in the great gun debate.
I have no interest in taking people's guns away. I think it's fine if people own and use firearms. I think they are obliged to do so safely and responsibly. I think most, by far, gun owners do so.
I understand why guns freak people out. They're dangerous. I'm not sure much more than that needs be said.
I also understand why folks who like guns are frustrated by the debate about guns. Lots of people have strong negative feelings about guns, but don't know much about them. Lots of people have really negative opinions about gun owners, again without knowing much about them.
I think both sides typically enter any discussion about guns with blinders on. I think both sides hold some things to be true that aren't really so. It seemed like some folks wanted to discuss this stuff, so I thought I'd put a front-page post up.
To kick if off, I thought I'd offer 6 Things Gun Lovers And Haters Can Agree On, from Cracked magazine. I don't know what it says about our public life, but if I want to find a thoughtful, insightful, fair-minded and plainly-stated discussion of any current day issue, the most consistent and reliable source I know is Cracked magazine.
It's a hot topic, so for this thread and this thread only I will lay down some ground rules.
If folks seem like they are thread-jacking or going wildly off topic, I will try to return the discussion to the topic at hand. If that fails, I will shut it down.
If things get abusive or overly heated, I will shut it down.
If it gets to the point where everyone is just saying the same things over and over and over and nobody is listening, I will shut it down.
The kitty has given you a discussion, if you can keep it. Carry on.
It seems like there may be two disperate groups who want gun control.
1) those who are concerned about gun-related crimes. They want registrations and such, in order to make it easier to solve such crimes. And they want things like background checks to make it harder for criminals to buy guns. Those two might not work as exected, but that seems to be the thinking behind them.
2) those who are concerned about mass assaults. They talk about Columbine High and self-styled militias running around pretending (practicing) to be military-types. These are the folks who get worked up about “assault weapons” — regardless of what legal definitions are invented for that label. What they are really worried about are (crazy) people running amok and killing lots of people.
Both groups get lumped together as “gun control advocates.” But they really are talking about totally different problems, and have totally different proposed solutions. Put another way, it is entirely possible to address one group’s concerns, while not even touching the other group’s concerns.
disparate or desperate?
(not to threadjack, but that set of words never looks right)
some grist for the mill, it’s been posted here before
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/
Ahhh …. nope,
Oh, crap. I used a comma instead of a period. Commas are what got us into this mess in the first place.
It seems like there may be two disperate groups who want gun control.
FWIW, I would put myself in the first category.
I’m not especially interested in gun registration one way or the other, however I am interested in closing loopholes for the background checks via private sale.
My understanding, perhaps faulty, is that there are a large number of firearms sold via private sale, without any, or sufficient, enforcement of the background check.
FWIW, I’m not sure if that qualifies as me being in favor of “gun control”, unless any restriction or regulation on the ownership or use of firearms, at all, is considered “gun control”.
I don’t think there is anything short of either an outright ban on firearms, or a highly intrusive regime of mental health monitoring, that would make much of a dent in spectacular mass assaults. I’m not sure there’s that much of a common thread through the incidents that would let anybody know or predict who, or when, such assaults are going to happen. Possibly, people that know the would-be perpetrators might have clue, otherwise I think we’re in the realm of sociopathic and insane individuals.
I figure that a felon that really wants a gun will probably get one.
Now, if all felons had a absolutely irrevocable lifetime ban on gun ownership, then, upon conviction they should get a tattoo declaring their status, and anyone that sells a gun to them becomes a felon too. And hey, someone that wants to make sure that they can’t buy a gun in a fit of depression? Just visit the local tattoo shop!
But probably never be acceptable. Too much like “Mark of The Beast”, or something.
What I would like to see is a requirement that, before buying that first (legal) gun, the new owner has to pass a gun-safety class; run by the NRA would be fine. They get their certificate, good for life. Just like passing a driver’s test, but without the every few years renewal/eye test/fee stuff. Just: know the rules, know how to do things safely.
I really, really wish I knew how to stop the incidents of little kids shooting guns (or getting accidentally shot). It’s horribly tragic. There’s probably some combination of biometrics etc., that might help, but for now I’d just happy if gun-owners get some safety training, in the hopes that it would cut down on the accidents.
As I mentioned before, putting holes in targets is too much fun to let a bunch of homicidal a**holes ruin it. Doesn’t mean we have to make it easy for them.
What about the Australia example?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/
My take is that there are just too many guns out there, and what should be legal guns become illegal guns. It’s unfortunate that (would-be) law-abiding gun owners have to be potentially inconvenienced because of that, but it’s an imperfect world.
I don’t even have a strong grasp on what policies would or would not be effective, but I don’t have a problem in principle with regulations or restrictions on various aspects of gun/ammo ownership/purchases.
In the heat of the moment, say, after a bunch of six-year-old were gunned down by a deranged older kid, I wanted to ban or strictly limit this or that kind of gun or magazine. I don’t know who well any of that would actually work.
The one thing I do know is that the United States doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and there are other countries with other policies that seem to work reasonably well. Even if those policies don’t exacly square with our constitution, approximations of them could potentially be created to do so.
I honestly don’t have a beef with people who like guns, per se. It’s not something that affects my daily life, to be sure. I’m not out to get anyone or to have the government be a step closer to being our unquestionable overlords or to prevent people from taking reasonable precautions to protect themselves. I don’t personally see the need to own guns, myself, but odds are, my being a total-bad ass is going to be enough in the vast majority of cases. (I kid, of course, about being a bad-ass, except when I’m drunk and actually believe it.)
I’ve gotten weary over this debate, nearly to the point that I don’t really give a fnck until some completely tragic bullsh1t happens and I care again, until I don’t.
It still think a lot of people have a sort of neurotic obsession with guns in this country, though, if I’m being honest about it.
What I would like to see is a requirement that, before buying that first (legal) gun, the new owner has to pass a gun-safety class; run by the NRA would be fine.
I also think that is a great idea, and to my eye at least doesn’t conflict with the general concept of the enumerated right.
I’m OK with the NRA running it, although the police or, for example, the national guard could also do it. Whatever works.
When I got my MC license, I took a class and got the license. No biggie, I learned a lot, and since the state instituted the program my understanding is that MC accidents have gone down. Win/win.
russell: it’s what “well-regulated” ought to mean.
Not sure why we have to have weapons that shoot targets over and over and over again without reloading.
It’s fun for some people, I know. So is torturing animals, for some people. Question is, what’s the upside?
@russell
are you trolling brett bellmore with this post?
Should we require training and a license to exercise free speech? The pen, after all,verily, being mightier than the sword. More wars, resulting in millions of times more deaths than citizen on citizen shootings, have resulted from an irresponsible media machine following irresponsible political machinations.
Overwhelmingly, gun owners, whether they have single shot black powder replicas or modern high capacity semi-auto assault rifle look-alikes, are law abiding and never harm anyone.
The bulk of gun homicides are criminal on criminal are can further be reduced to, essentially, an urban phenomenon.
So, mostly, urban thugs are shooting each other over drug dealing turf or sneakers. I’d shed a tear for them, but I can’t seem to find one for some reason.
Folks, this is a non-issue that is served up as a heated plate of elect-me-I’ll-do-something-about-it by urban liberals to urban liberals.
Far more people are killed by irresponsible drivers (how’s that licensing process working out?). Far more children drown in swimming pools than are shot. More people die from overdoses on prescription medicine (ex; narcotics) – how’s that government licensing/control working out?
Life is full of hazards and I don’t, from a rational perspective, understand why guns are the hazard du jour for political grandstanding.
What’s the upside? Well, there’s the incalculable – yet very real – number of citizens that have defended themselves and families, lawfully, from unlawful assaults, home invasions, rapes and such. Then there’s the even more incalculable, but likely real, restraint of the government to impose itself, unconstitutionally, on the populace because it fears an armed populace.
A caveat being, should insane people own guns? The answer is obviously a resounding “NO”. But insane people shouldn’t drive motor vehicles or own sharp knives or vials of poison or a myriad of other things that they could use to do harm to others.
Insane people, psychopaths and other amoral or negatively temperamental people are a problem; guns or no guns. Collective punishment (i.e. deletion of Constitutional rights) of the majority due to the potential bad acts of the deranged minority cannot be the rule of law in a free society.
no, i’m not.
I am, personally, interested in the issue, because it’s a serious point of division, and it’s also a topic that people can’t seem to discuss without yelling at each other.
it came up in another thread, it seemed like several people had things to say, and it seemed like it might be possible to have a conversation.
so, I thought i’d take a chance and put it out there.
that’s it.
Guns don’t bother me but gun people do: there’s a culture of carelessness and stupidity about America’s gun owners. That doesn’t mean that every gun owner is a careless idiot, but it does mean that people are encouraged to act that way, and lo and behold, they do.
Here’s another way of looking at it. I’m a hobbyist acrobat. My hobby is actually pretty dangerous, relative to stamp collecting. But I work in a community dedicated to safety. And every single time I lay hands on a partner, I think about what can go wrong and how we can prevent that from happening. Every single time I touch an apparatus, I think about what can go wrong and whether I can be safe. I surround myself with people who take safety seriously and we hold each other accountable.
That doesn’t seem to happen in the gun world. Every few days, we get to read about another gun-toting idiot who killed his kid or his friend or his neighbor or let his kid kill him or his sibling or a friend through utter fracking stupidity. Really basic things like “assume there’s always a round in the chamber” or “check to see if there’s a round in the chamber” or “don’t leave your firearm accessible to children” or “store your weapon apart from ammo” just go unheeded. And people die. And nothing happens to those responsible.
Now I get that every group has idiots (I weep at some of the terrifyingly dangerous acro tricks I’ve seen on youtube). But I don’t see gun owners calling out idiot gun owners. The NRA sends out tons of mailings to scare the crap out of people (“Obama is coming to take ALL your guns!”) but they never seem to send out mailings saying “this idiot was stupid and caused his 5 year old kid to kill his 2 year old sister: don’t be stupid like him!”. And because “responsible” gun owners never do a damn thing to improve the behavior of stupid idiot gun owners, a lot of people end up having their stupidity encouraged, rather than discouraged.
I’d be willing to give gun owners as a group a lot more leeway and trust if they acted like responsible people, but every thing the community does is based on evading responsibility. Gun registry? No way. Restrictions on mentally ill people owning guns? No. Any kind of punishment for negligent people whose idiotic gun-owning behavior causes their kids to die? Absolutely not.
Russell, I understand. It is a major bone of contention. I am pro- gun/pro 2nd amendment. I know several law enforcement officers – a Sheriff, some of his deputies and a couple State Troopers that agree with me (that’s all of the LEO’s I know).
I know two people that have suffered from snow mobile accidents. One died and one is paralyzed from the neck down. The latter is a friend and used to be a work colleague. I think snow mobiling is stupid and dangerous and with no upside other than some reckless idiots’ fleeting sensation of “fun” and should be banned – but that’s just me.
When I think of gun opponents I think of them being the same as my opposition to snow mobiles.
But there seems to be something more fundamental on the line – both on the pro and con side – when it comes to guns. I am curious how this thread will shake out. I wish there were more rural pro gun types to throw in here.
Once upon a time (i.e. in the 1950s) the NRA was pretty focused on gun safety. But then they acquired a President who figured out they could grow and makes tons of money by transforing themselves into a lobby/ad agency for the gun industry, A focus which they maintain to this day.
“Restrictions on mentally ill people owning guns? ”
T, I think you are being hyperbolic. Yes people have preventable accidents with guns; just as they have preventable accidents with a myriad of other household objects.
The NRA does, as it always has, promote gun safety. It continues to offer a variety of classes and instructor certification. The characterization of the NRA here is straight out of some liberal OZ.
Now, as for the mentally, the NRA absolutely would like to see them NOT owning guns. In days of old the mentally ill were locked away. Liberals, for better or worse, let them out into the community with far reduced supervision.
Now, you tell me, how are these people to be identified? A tattoo on their foreheads? Under what circumstance? How are they to be prevented from committing a variety of serious social ills; among which acquiring and using a gun is only one? Yet you want to put the blame on the NRA for this situation? How bout when they drive and kill? Want to blame Ford Motor for that?
I think you work too hard at jamming square pegs into what you have identified, by force of ideological adherence, as villainous round holes.
The bulk of gun homicides are criminal on criminal
This does not appear to be true:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/key-gun-violence-statistics
Far more children drown in swimming pools than are shot.
Does not appear to be true, either.
http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html
Folks, this is a non-issue that is served up as a heated plate of elect-me-I’ll-do-something-about-it by urban liberals to urban liberals.
Yes. The libruls. Damn them to hell. Seeking local control over what you characterize as a local (urban) issue that concerns public safety.
How effing dare they?
And right out of the gate, the locus of rational discussion is shattered. Because the issue is not safety, it becomes a dark and menacing something else. It’s all about “them”.
Libruls.
http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html
10/day drown, Bobbyp. I don’t see where you links refute what I say. The statistics are a mishmash manipulated to display the worst possible scenario; and to get your librul blood up.
I notice you didn’t even try to refute the prescription drug related deaths; drugs that are as heavily regulated and controlled as can be.
So, it’s a public safety issue to you. My question to you is how did this particular public safety issue – if that’s what it really is – rise to the political forefront, whereas as a wide range of others have not?
To illustrate, how many deaths have resulted from a freedom of speech? Some examples being, “Witches are behind it, burn them”, “The free mason poisoned the wells”, “it’s the Zionist Rats”, “Remember the Maine”, “The commies fired on our ship in the Gulf of Tonkin”, “We know they have weapons of mass destruction and we know they are East, West, North and South of Baghdad” all of which got the public moving into action.
But yeah. let’s parse whether or not there is statistically significant difference between drowning and gun deaths. ’cause you don’t like guns at some visceral level and the rest of the BIG problems…well they’re too big.
I’ve read both the Cracked article recommended by Russell and the Atlantic piece lj linked to and I have some impressions, but I’m too tired tonight to pursue them.
Probably tomorrow.
Icarus makes some good points, as in what and how to control with some efficacy, but the snowmobile comparison seems about as apt as Brett’s multi-thousand book collection being compared to a guy hoarding 50,000 rounds of ammo- as a red flag.
Let me know when a guy takes out 15 moviegoers with a snowmobile or goes from classroom to classroom mowing kids down with an Arctic Cat.
The kids drowning comparison would be appropriate if kids were drowning OTHER kids.
Now, drowning accidents may compare with gun accidents in numbers.
Actually, backyard drownings have risen to the forefront of safety/zoning regulation issues at the local level.
In Florida may ask about their patients about household hazards, like the presence of backyard swimming pools in households with small kids, but they are prohibited in most instances from raising the subject of guns in households.
Maybe swimming pools manufacturers need a rabid NSWA headed by Dwayne La Aquafree.
But swimming pool manufactuers haven’t gone off the rails.
http://smartgunlaws.org/eleventh-circuit-upholds-florida-law-preventing-doctors-from-asking-about-ownership-2/
In days of old the mentally ill were locked away. Liberals, for better or worse, let them out into the community with far reduced supervision.
For as long as I can recall, it’s been a consistent trope on the left that it was Reagan who ‘let out’ the mentally ill. Imagine my surprise to learn it was actually the “liberals” who did this.
This article from long ago makes the phenomenon appear more structural/institutional than your attributed cause. But hey, we all gotta have our bogeymen, right?
That’d be “doctors” doing the asking.
Isn’t the NRA strongly opposed to disarming people with mental health issues, even when the disarming is done by a court? I regularly see articles about the “gun grabbers” taking away some law abiding citizen’s guns just because of a few restraining orders and a history of mental instability.
I know they want to put the mentally ill on a public registry, I remember the NRA’s speech on that, but I also recall the NRA being really against disarming people with mental health problems. So I’m pretty sure the registry thing is just supposed to hurt the mentally ill for the political benefit of gun owners.
Or maybe the idea is that if you know your neighbor has mental health problems, you can buy guns and clutch them to your chest whenever you see him? I dunno.
What strikes an outside observer as unusual is the insistence on the constitutional importance of gun ownership.
Is there anywhere else on earth, not under Sharia law*, which similarly puts the right to own a gun on a par with (say) free speech ?
* http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_rights
In days of old the mentally ill were locked away. Liberals, for better or worse, let them out into the community with far reduced supervision.
It would be good to acknowledge that this move towards mainstreaming occurred in large part because of the advent of drugs that seemed to deal with mental illness effectively. Liberals, in so far as they didn’t really support locking up people when they could be participating in society, helped this along, but as I understand it, the main driver was the Republican ascendancy which took took Carter’s ideas of local autonomy and ran them into the ground. 2 links if you are interested
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_legacy_violence_the_homeless_mental_illness/
http://www.sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas.html
From that Cracked article, while I mostly agree with the conclusions, #1 is utter BS.
Look, there are too many actual politicians, some of them still in office, who’ve said outright they want to take your (my) guns away. I used to have one for a Congressman. Bought a Calico carbine with 100 round magazines just to piss him off. Still have it, it turned out to be nice for plinking.
There are too many gun control groups that stated this was their goal, before they realized that maybe admitting it was bad PR, and that they ought to lie about what they want.
There are too many jurisdictions in the US that have set out to DO IT. Registered guns promising they didn’t mean to take them away, and then changed their minds about that.
I’m willing to believe the author of that article doesn’t want to take my guns away. But, “nobody”? If he really believes that, he’s an idiot. He should have stuck with, “Not enough to attempt it, most places.”
“Once upon a time (i.e. in the 1950s) the NRA was pretty focused on gun safety. But then they acquired a President who figured out they could grow and makes tons of money by transforing themselves into a lobby/ad agency for the gun industry, A focus which they maintain to this day.”
Gun controller mythology: That the NRA is some kind of gun industry astroturf, that the switch from exclusively gun safety to gun safety and 2nd amendment rights was internally originated.
Google “NRA Cincinatti revolt”; I was around back then, and interested. While I wasn’t there in person, I’m pretty familiar with what went down, have met some of the people who were. The NRA became a 2nd amendment lobby because the membership demanded it become one, and then kicked out the people in charge when they resisted. At this point, aside from the occasional false flag “gun rights group” created by the DNC’s PR firm, the NRA is actually the most moderate of the gun rights groups around, most of them are much more hard core. Because most of them are more responsive to the membership than the NRA. (So many revolutions are 360 degrees, and the NRA, too, later changed it’s rules to prevent another Cincinatti revolt.)
“Isn’t the NRA strongly opposed to disarming people with mental health issues, even when the disarming is done by a court?”
The NRA notices that you get a right to a jury trial when accused of a crime, and get some dude in a white coat making the decision without any adversary process or much in the way of safeguards when accused of being mentally ill. And comes to the same conclusion some anti-gun groups have: A mental health exception to the 2nd amendment looks awfully prone to abuse, unless the standards for applying it become a LOT more strict.
We see this as a bug in need of fixing, they see it as a feature in need of use.
Anyway, think about this: Do you really want to discourage people who own guns from seeking psychiatric help if they need it? Because taking their guns away if they do is a pretty good way to keep gun owners who need help from looking for it.
“What strikes an outside observer as unusual is the insistence on the constitutional importance of gun ownership.”
Hey, it’s in our constitution. That does kind of make it a constitutional issue.
Off to work soon, and I might drop off the net without warning in the near future. Sis took a turn for the worse, and will be checking into hospice instead of chemo. And I’m her executor. Damn, being the older brother ought to mean she gets to deal with my death, not the other way around! If I don’t respond to something, I’ve got a lot on my mind.
Peace be with you and and your sister, Brett.
He should have stuck with, “Not enough to attempt it, most places.”
What if that’s as good as it gets?
Do you really want to discourage people who own guns from seeking psychiatric help if they need it?
That’s a reasonable point. The counter-argument, of course, is do we really want people who need psychiatric help to have firearms?
So, maybe somethings gotta give.
Also: Icarus, thanks for joining us here. You’re making a number of statements of fact here, it will be useful to everyone if you could substantiate them.
“What strikes an outside observer as unusual is the insistence on the constitutional importance of gun ownership.”
Hey, it’s in our constitution. That does kind of make it a constitutional issue.
The operative word there was ‘unusual’.
I’m not disputing that it’s in the second amendment – just pointing out that from the an outside point of view, it’s more than a little strange.
In representative democracies, most of your constitutional (or common laws) rights have direct equivalents or analogues (habeas corpus; due process; freedom of conscience; freedom of speech; right to privacy; right to fair trial etc), and we would find their absence strange or disturbing.
That simply is not true for the ‘right’ to bear arms.
I’ll accept that the UK’s 1689 Bill of Rights – which provided the skeleton to its US counterpart:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction
did grant a right to bear arms, but that was situational, rather than fundamental –
(In reference to the complaint that James II:
“did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome.”
“…By causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law.”
The Bill granted:
“That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law…”)
The idea that the right to bear arms is today a bulwark against tyranny, half a century after Gandhi, and in the age of the Kalashnikov, is on the face of it without justification.
It is instructive, I think, that the only other legal system which provides for it as a right is Sharia law.
In any event, what the Count said.
All the best, Brett.
And, sorry to hear about your sister, Brett.
Yes people have preventable accidents with guns; just as they have preventable accidents with a myriad of other household objects.
the basic flaw in the analogy is that guns are designed and intended to kill. (yes, you can shoot targets, but that’s called ‘target practice‘ for a reason: the same reason those targets are often silhouettes of people or animals.) nothing else in that myriad of other household objects are designed specifically to kill.
snowmobiles aren’t designed to kill. cars aren’t. ropes aren’t. staircases aren’t. cigarette lighters aren’t. even (most) knives aren’t – and the knives that are designed specifically to kill aren’t the kind of knives you commonly find in a house.
a gun accident is primarily accidental in the target, not in the application.
i get that the 2nd A exists. but it’s doubtful that nobody will ever convince me that the intent behind it is the state of affairs that we have today.
Thanks. It’s tough, but “Nobody gets out of life alive.” I just wish I didn’t live 12 hour’s drive away, and my brother on the other side of the continent. Neither of us can afford to be there for her the way we’d like to.
There is a lesson in this, I’d ask everybody to take to heart: When I went through chemo back in 2010, I was physically fit, and if not slim, at least not more than moderately overweight. And the chemo still left me weak enough that I’d break into a sweat walking across a room.
My sister was sedentary and grossly overweight when this began, and so it didn’t take much to make her an invalid requiring 24 hour care. And weak enough that the side effects of the only drug showing any promise would likely kill her.
Being physically fit is more important than you realize.
Oh, and don’t, don’t DON’T opt for the low deductable policy with a high co-pay. Just don’t. All it takes is one diagnosis, and you’re looking at a quarter million a year in copays. Don’t get the insurance that covers flu shots, and leaves you high and dry when you get cancer.
I may have this completely wrong, but my understanding of things is this: up until relatively recently (1990s?) there were no background checks mandated, and really no mechanism in place to facilitate them. For private sales currently, there are no background checks required, and currently there is no way for an individual to check the background of the person they are selling the gun to. Just as, for example, I as an automobile owner cannot really positively identify the purchaser; I simply sign over the title.
The big objection to background checks for personal sales is as I understand it that individuals currently cannot perform them, and that any such requirement would constitute an undue burden.
I am not here to argue that point in either direction, honestly. Just to note my apprisal of things.
I personally would appreciate it if we’d all treat this as a conversation of things which could (but not necessarily will) be, and refrain from conservative vs. liberal point-scoring. For once, please. I know: easy for me to say, given that I am (for personal workload and other reasons that I’d be happy to talk about later&elsewhere) not participating. But rehashing the history an who’s to blame and who is being stupid & obstinate is not contributing to the conversation that Russell seeks along the lines of what do we do now, differently, if anything?
This is only a request on my part. I’d beg, if doing so would make a difference.
Brett, sorry about your sister.
cleek also speaks for me in this matter, Brett.
I personally would appreciate it if we’d all treat this as a conversation of things which could (but not necessarily will) be, and refrain from conservative vs. liberal point-scoring.
Yes, that’s what I’m hoping for here.
I made this comment to Brett earlier:
What if that’s as good as it gets?
That was somewhat cryptic, I’d like to expand on it.
I think it’s correct to say that there are some people who’d like to take away the guns. Certainly, at least some guns. Total ban on handguns, no semi-automatic weapons, nothing that resembles an AR-15.
What I don’t think is likely is that those folks are likely to prevail in any significant way. Because a lot of people want to own firearms.
My impression, as a non-gun-owner, is that many gun owners feel that they have to draw a very hard line, and fight every attempt at any regulation of firearms at all, because it will the camel’s nose under the tent. Silencers today, my handgun tomorrow. High-capacity magazines today, all semi-automatic guns tomorrow. And, the day after that, all guns.
As a result, there is little room for negotiation. Even what strikes non-gun-owners, and many gun owners, as reasonable proposals are resisted tooth and nail. Complete with, literally, threats of physical violence.
Most people are not interested in preventing responsible gun owners from owning and using guns. By “most” I mean a really overwhelming majority of the population. I don’t have polls and studies to back that claim up, it just seems pretty clearly true to me.
People that are concerned about guns are concerned primarily about (a) people who shouldn’t have guns getting them, (b) people who do own guns using them irresponsibly.
What I’m curious to hear from folks who are against any further regulation is where the room for negotiation is.
I think a lot of people would be fine with leaving gun owners the hell alone if they felt that their concerns – legitimate concerns, concerning their own personal safety and public safety at large – were addressed.
I’m sure gun owners have their own set of concerns that they feel are not being considered.
The idea that the right to bear arms is today a bulwark against tyranny, half a century after Gandhi, and in the age of the Kalashnikov, is on the face of it without justification.
I have a couple of thoughts about this.
IMO there actually is value – “bulwark against tyranny” value – in widespread ownership of firearms.
It’s true that what any modern military brings to bear dwarfs what any private owner is ever going to have in terms of firepower. But, to revisit a point Brett made on another thread, it’s also true that a government seeking to impose its will by force is not only going to have to overpower the population, but govern it. And, if it wants to do so with a standing military made up of citizens of that country, it’s going to have to rely on that military to go to war with their own family and neighbors.
Widespread ownership of firearms makes both of those things problematic. Basically, it raises the risk and cost significantly. It doesn’t make it impossible to impose some kind of forcible rule, it just makes it a lot more expensive. And, so, less likely.
That said, most of the successful efforts to expand civil rights and political freedom in the US have occurred through peaceful means. No guns. So, what I take to be your point in naming Gandhi is apt.
I think in many ways the relevance of the 2nd A has been attenuated by history. It was written in reference to, and in the context of, a set of institutions and practices that no longer exist – a civilian militia with nearly full citizen participation and under civil control, no federal standing army. IMO it made much more sense – not “was more legitimate”, just made more plain common sense – in that context than it does in ours.
“The idea that the right to bear arms is today a bulwark against tyranny, half a century after Gandhi, and in the age of the Kalashnikov, is on the face of it without justification.”
There’s this tendency, when somebody insists on doing X in order to achieve Y, and simply won’t accept that X can’t achieve Y, to start looking for Z.
This is a foolish tendency. You should be willing to recognize that the advocate of X might just be irrational, and incapable of accepting that X won’t achieve Y. Or, they might just want X because you don’t want it, and they’re your cultural enemy, just want to screw you over. Or maybe they want it for reasons A-Q, but can’t say so, because those don’t poll as well as Y.
Why is Z tyranny, in this case? A number of reasons.
1. Averting tyranny was the original justification for the 2nd amendment, which creates a presumption anyone who wants to be rid of it wants tyranny.
2. Advocates of gun control tend to also be advocates of big government, which makes the idea that they might want tyranny somewhat plausible to those who want generally less government.
3. Taking a right away from somebody who isn’t doing anything wrong is a bit tyrannical, let’s face it.
4. Burning all those people alive at Waco, looked like the sort of thing an aspiring tyrant might do.
I personally don’t think most gun controllers want gun control to ease the route to tyranny. They’re just phobic about guns, incapable of reasoning clearly about them, and groping about for something that at least looks like a rational justification for policies that are motivated by their psychological problems.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t unburn those people at Waco, does it? Irrational people can be pretty dangerous.
Brett:
I’m sorry to hear about your sister.
Regarding the subject, I want to touch in on one of the claims made in the cracked article, that nobody owns guns for self defense.
I don’t think that’s the most common reason people own guns, nor do I think that gun ownership is the one thing holding back a crime wave.
Crime is down across the country, for many reasons, but its not gone. I have friends and family members that have been victims of violent crime. I don’t begrudge people that want a weapon to protect themselves.
And I know people that do. I know people that live in bad neighborhoods, I know some that live rurally (i.e. emergency response will be slow), and some others that want it just in case. A friend’s brother has a CCW, because as a contractor, he’s often driving around in bad areas with $10,000s of equipment hitched to his truck.
Again, I don’t think the issue of 2A rights hinges on self-defense, but I don’t begrudge people for wanting a weapon to protect themselves.
The big objection to background checks for personal sales is as I understand it that individuals currently cannot perform them
CA, for example, requires private sales to go through a dealer. Basically, buyer and seller show up at dealer, dealer handles the background check, takes a cut, fills out paperwork, etc.
I think that’s a workable system worth considering, but it might constitute an undue burden (I have a friend that recently went through this…it was a huge pain. Various CA hurdles resulted in a ~month wait and a lot of driving around). Just something I’m floating out there for discussion.
Regarding undue burden, I want to echo what Brett said on the other thread regarding suppressors. In general, they don’t decrease the sound that much, but I think they could be a real benefit to hearing safety at ranges, especially indoor ones. In honor of the OP, I’ll also link to Cracked:
http://www.cracked.com/article_18576_5-ridiculous-gun-myths-everyone-believes-thanks-to-movies.html
Regarding Turb’s comment:
there’s a culture of carelessness and stupidity about America’s gun owners.
I don’t think that’s true. I know a lot of gun owners, and they are all careful and extremely safety conscious when it comes to firearms. Is the same true for every gun owner? No, of course not. But I don’t think there is a ‘culture’ of carelessness and stupidity.
I’d just like to note in passing that “burning all those people alive” wasn’t something that anyone set out to do. It happened, undisputably, but as a result of negligence and perhaps hubris, not as a deliberate imposition.
Please try and recognize when you’re indulging in bombast (even unintentionally), and try and dial it down a bit. Please.
“What I don’t think is likely is that those folks are likely to prevail in any significant way. Because a lot of people want to own firearms.”
Well, yeah. And are taking that hard-line position you decry in the next paragraph.
Basically, I don’t want people to mistake a hard fought stalemate for peace, a tug of war with both sides straining for all they’re worth for people just standing there.
The reason we’ve still got these guns isn’t that there hasn’t been a serious push to take them away. It’s because we fought back, and continue fighting back.
We stop fighting back, they win, because they haven’t stopped fighting. They’ve just stopped winning.
I think in many ways the relevance of the 2nd A has been attenuated by history.
i’ll add:
the types of guns available in the 1780s were nothing like what we have today. today’s guns are cheaper, more accurate, more reliable, more powerful, faster to load and fire, and much easier to acquire.
the people who wrote the 2nd A could not have imagined a person wielding the kind of firepower a person today can wield. a person simply couldn’t walk into a theater and shoot 80 people. one, sure.
it’s a different world. the 2nd A is anachronistic.
“I’d just like to note in passing that “burning all those people alive” wasn’t something that anyone set out to do.”
I don’t think they set out to burn them alive, either. More a case of not setting out to not burn them alive, actually. Unfortunately, while reckless disregard for human life isn’t quite the same thing as actual homicidal motives, the end results are often indistingushable.
The constitutional setup (no standing army, citizen militias organized by States) was anachronistic, oh, around 1812 or so.
Nice idea. Didn’t work so well in practice for ‘national defense’.
“…the basic flaw in the analogy is that guns are designed and intended to kill…”
I’m not sure why that distinction is important. A loved one killed by a drunk driver or overdosed on oxycontin is just as dead and missed as a loved one killed by a gun.
However, I will stipulate to the idea that guns are designed to be deadly weapons. OK, well, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to self defense is fundamental (see District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago ) and that a gun is not only a good means of self defense, it is also a right enumerated in the Constitution.
What to do about guns then? The answer would seem to be “nothing” other than offer and promote classes (k-9 curriculum maybe?) centered on responsible gun ownership and to enforce existing laws that attempt to keep them out of the hands of known dangerous criminals and diagnosed seriously mentally ill.
Now, do I personally believe that some people shouldn’t own guns because, for one reason or another they cannot be trusted to be safe and responsible? Absolutely. Apparently there are even some law enforcement that fall into this category.
I also believe that there are people who are too compromised or too irresponsible to vote or exercise other 1st amendment rights. I repeat that the media and the ballot box has been the genesis of more death and destruction than privately owned guns have ever caused. Who is in favor of restricting voter rights or censoring the press?
And…I was about to say what russell said about a bulwark against tyranny. But he beat me to it. But one minor point:
a civilian militia with nearly full citizen participation and under civil control, no federal standing army.
I think our standing army is far too large. I would rather it was far smaller, without nearly as much force projection. In short, I think an increased National Guard and militia would be a better way to go, even today.
We’re less likely to call up the militia to invade the middle east, if nothing else.
Yeah, about 1812 or so. One of the ideas behind the militia system, was that it would discourage foreign adventures, because the militia were more a tool of defense than aggression.
Then along comes the war of 1812, and the militia system turns out to work just as it was intended. It’s just that the war of 1812 wasn’t a defensive war on our part.
Basically, the militia system got tossed because it worked too well doing what it was intended to do.
ooooops. I meant to say a k – 12 curriculum. I was looking at the dog across the street when I wrote the comment. Funny how that works.
The NRA does, as it always has, promote gun safety. It continues to offer a variety of classes and instructor certification. The characterization of the NRA here is straight out of some liberal OZ.
Icarus, I didn’t say that they no longer do gun safety. I said that their focus was no longer there.
Which, in the conservative OZ I live in seems to be the case — based on the fact that I see lots of stuff from them about (opposing) gun control. But nothing, at all, about gun safety, courses in gun safety, etc. At best, they are hiding their light under a bushel.
“What to do about guns then? The answer would seem to be “nothing” other than offer and promote classes (k-9 curriculum maybe?) centered on responsible gun ownership ”
Yes. Don’t mandate a safety course before you can buy a gun. Just mandate a safety course, that everybody gets, before they’re old enough to own a gun. Make it a regular part of the curriculum.
Like it was when I took it.
BTW, my son just got “Red” on his daily report, because he pointed his finger like a gun during recess. I assure you, marking him down for this had nothing to do with public safety, the finger wasn’t loaded.
For as long as I can recall, it’s been a consistent trope on the left that it was Reagan who ‘let out’ the mentally ill. Imagine my surprise to learn it was actually the “liberals” who did this.
Worn, as someone who was actually in California when the mental hospitals were replaced by “community care,” let me observe that the driver was, indeed, from liberals. Community care was going to provide better care, and better prospects for recovery, at no increase in price,.
And the biggest failure was, IMHO, the fact that the promised “community care” was never funded. The mentally ill were released from the mental hospitals, but there was nothing for them when they got to the community. Which is why they make up a substantial portion of the homeless population.
I repeat that the media and the ballot box has been the genesis of more death and destruction than privately owned guns have ever caused. Who is in favor of restricting voter rights or censoring the press?
Really? Do you think those things have ever prevented death and destruction? Do think those things are essential to a stable (quasi-)democracy? Do you think we sould do away with elections and have some other means of succession of power? I wonder what sort of death and destruction that might unleash. I wonder what sort of things certain arms of the government might undertake without a free press exposing them.
This particular angle is like arguing that the US should have stayed out of WWII based on the number of people we killed and the numbers of Americans who died, without considering what would have happened had we stayed out.
The lens is too narrowly focused.
I’d just like to note in passing that “burning all those people alive” wasn’t something that anyone set out to do.
According to the Danforth report, it was. It’s just that the people who set out to do it were the Davidians themselves.
So what I’m hearing, from Icarus, is that there is simply no problem with guns in this country, at least not one of significance relative to a bunch of other things – all of which boils down to, “No, you can’t talk about guns, because there’s really nothing to talk about.”
“Icarus, I didn’t say that they no longer do gun safety. I said that their focus was no longer there.”
More or less has to be: Not much point in being a gun safety organization in a country where you couldn’t own guns. Got to defend the right to own them, or there’s nothing to handle safely.
Same reason the membership revolted when when the NRA started to build a gun museum, and was about to close their D.C. offices; We didn’t want to be a historical society with a nifty museum where we could go look at the guns we could no longer own, which is what the pre-revolt NRA leadership were planning for: The NRA’s role in a post gun America.
My understanding, perhaps faulty, is that there are a large number of firearms sold via private sale, without any, or sufficient, enforcement of the background check.
Probably true. Two potential solutions: First, as a part of driver’s license issuance, a person is stamped ‘approved’ or ‘not approved’ for gun purchase. The seller has to document the DL and approval notation. This is an off-the-cuff thought prompted by the common sense of Russell’s post–not that all posts here aren’t eminently common-sensical. Second is to vigorously prosecute and incarcerate firearms possession by felons and others statutorily disqualified from gun ownership.
I disagree that there is not a sizeable number of mainly urban supporters of very strict UK/Australia-type gun control regimes. My son lives in New Jersey. Apparently–perhaps this is urban legend–if you want to go to the skeet range (not target practice, Cleek, just skeet shooting), your shotgun has to be in the back of the car, under lock and key, and your shotgun shells also in the back of the car, under separate lock and key.
If this is the case, or approximately the case, this is a stupid regulation to impose on law abiding citizens. One problem I’m pretty sure we haven’t had is crime sprees that have their genesis in sporting weapons stolen from the back of cars while en route to the rifle or skeet range. But, there is a mindset among many that the more limitations that can be imposed, in some macro, cosmic way, tragedies will be reduced.
Turbulence is more right than people give him credit for up to a point. There are several subsets of the gun culture that are felony stupid about a lot of things, including compliance with a lot of other laws. People do leave loaded guns around where kids can lay hands on them. Kids are raised not to be hyper-careful around guns. Between the two, too many stupid things happen.
How to fix stupid–that is one for the ages.
If folks seem like they are thread-jacking or going wildly off topic
4. Burning all those people alive at Waco, looked like the sort of thing an aspiring tyrant might do.
I’d like to take the incident at Waco out of the mix for this thread.
It’s not wildly off topic, but is a likely exit ramp for getting there.
Not saying it’s not an important event or issue, just trying to keep this thread on track.
Thanks!
Brett:
I, too, am sorry to hear about your sister.
And I entirely agree with you that it’s critical to get the right insurance. I’ve gone with a plan that basically means I pay for all the routine stuff. But if something really serious happens, the insurance kicks in. Call it moderate co-pay, moderate deductable.
I don’t think they set out [at Waco] to burn them alive, either. More a case of not setting out to not burn them alive, actually. Unfortunately, while reckless disregard for human life isn’t quite the same thing as actual homicidal motives, the end results are often indistingushable.
Am I the only one to notice that this view (that end results are important, regardless of motives) is identical to what many gun control advocates say about gun in private hands?
That’s fine. I think you can’t really understand the gun control fight back in the 90’s without mentioning Waco, but it’s relevance to today’s gun control debate is limited.
I’m not sure why that distinction is important.
it’s important because things which are intended to do one thing are regulated/policed/restricted/whatever differently from things intended to do another thing, even if the former can be misused to perform the latter’s intended thing.
there is a mindset among many that the more limitations that can be imposed, in some macro, cosmic way, tragedies will be reduced.
That’s quite true.
But I wonder, which is the cause and which is the effect? Do we have silly gun controls because those writing them want to impose lots of controls? Or do those writing them go that way because they cannot get sensible rules passed?
Perhaps someone who has watched a legislature debating some of these laws can offer an answer.
There are several subsets of the gun culture that are felony stupid about a lot of things
Fair. I was just attempting to point out that those subcultures are hardly universal.
“So what I’m hearing, from Icarus, is that there is simply no problem with guns in this country, at least not one of significance relative to a bunch of other things”
Not exactly, but close. Something we could do about guns is ensure that citizens, starting at an early age, know all about them and how to handle them. Educate.
This is the opposite of what the anti-gunners are doing and the anti-gunners remind me of the proponents of the “war on drugs” and their historic counterparts in the prohibition movement, who, in their zeal, have done nothing to reduce drug/alcohol use and whose actions created a violent black market, unregulated dangerous drug product and a stigma that makes people shy away from treatment.
– all of which boils down to, “No, you can’t talk about guns, because there’s really nothing to talk about.”
Talk away, by all means.
“How to fix stupid–that is one for the ages”
Right. Some want to take away the right of many as a solution for the stupidity of a few. That’s what all of the anti-gunner proposals boil down to.
I think increased exposure to guns coupled with increased quality education would ameliorate at least some of the stupid.
Or do those writing them go that way because they cannot get sensible rules passed?
wj, that doesn’t make sense to me. If they can’t get sensible rules past, what good (beyond pettiness) are insensible rules?
Something we could do about guns is ensure that citizens, starting at an early age, know all about them and how to handle them.
what makes this strange to read is that Kansas, under the leadership of arch-conservative Sam Brownback, has just eliminated its requirement for mandatory training course. an 8 hour class was too much of a burden.
they also eliminated the requirements for permits and certification for concealed carry.
given that all of Brownback’s other schemes have backfired spectacularly, i don’t expect this one to lead to anything good, either.
McK,
Second is to vigorously prosecute and incarcerate firearms possession by felons and others statutorily disqualified from gun ownership.
Sorry. I don’t see how this is to be done. Are the police supposed to randomly check on disqualified individuals? No. They are not going to do that. Those individuals will be caught and charged once they have committed a crime using a gun. In other words, this suggestion has no preventive value whatsoever.
The background check on private sales seems so sensible that find opposition to it just plain irrational. I read thompson’s comment about it above, but do not believe that the process has to be so clumsy.
Some want to take away the right of many as a solution for the stupidity of a few.
and “the few” are responsible for a big chunk of the 30,000+ people who die, and the 80,000+ who are injured, every year in the US from guns.
300 shootings per day, on average.
this is not a small problem.
About your sister, Brett, I wish you strength and resolve. I’d like to wish more, but some things in life are what they are. There’s not really an up side.
(I get the sense that, like me, you might get mildly annoyed when people try to look on the bright side of something that doesn’t really have one. Look it square in the face and deal with it as it is, the best you can. That’s what you’ll do.)
Regarding russell’s post,
IMO there actually is value – “bulwark against tyranny” value – in widespread ownership of firearms.
I’m not really buying this. My ‘age of the Kalashnikov’ comment reflected the widespread ownership of firearms worldwide having been quite the opposite of a bulwark against tyranny; consider, for instance the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
it’s also true that a government seeking to impose its will by force is not only going to have to overpower the population, but govern it. And, if it wants to do so with a standing military made up of citizens of that country, it’s going to have to rely on that military to go to war with their own family and neighbors.
Indeed. But that remains true whether or not they have guns.
Widespread ownership of firearms makes both of those things problematic. Basically, it raises the risk and cost significantly. It doesn’t make it impossible to impose some kind of forcible rule, it just makes it a lot more expensive. And, so, less likely.
I’m struggling to think of a single example which might justify that hypothetical calculation.
That said, most of the successful efforts to expand civil rights and political freedom in the US have occurred through peaceful means. No guns. So, what I take to be your point in naming Gandhi is apt.
Replace “in the US” with “worldwide”, and you have my point.
Just to be clear, I’m not against gun ownership per se.
I just think the ‘freedom’; ‘basic civil right’ fetish is idiotic.
I don’t even know where to start with Brett’s x y and z, so I gave up.
As for WACO, has anything even vaguely comparable happened anywhere else in the world where the second amendment doesn’t exist ?
“But I wonder, which is the cause and which is the effect? Do we have silly gun controls because those writing them want to impose lots of controls? Or do those writing them go that way because they cannot get sensible rules passed?”
I think there’s a number of things going on here.
1. Most of the actually sensible rules got enacted a long, long time ago, because they weren’t all that contraversial. Proper backstops for ranges, guns shouldn’t blow up in your hand when you pull the trigger, stuff like that.
2. Most gun laws are drafted by gun controllers, which is to say, people who are flat out hostile to gun ownership.
So, they’re drafted by people who are militantly ignorant about firearms, and reflexively disbelieving anything firearms owners have to say. So, they’re cut off from actual information about firearms, and amazingly gullible when it comes to disinformation from their own side.
And, because they’re hostile to gun ownership, they tend to draft the laws so as to have various gotchas in them, to be easily subject to abusive enforcement, inconvenience is viewed as a positive, not a problem…
And because of this, gun owners tend to oppose all regulation, because it IS coming from people who are hostile to gun ownership, and tends to be booby trapped. And even if sensible, provides yet another opportunity for abusive enforcement.
Basically, you’ve got the regulations being written by people who are ideologically and culturally hostile to the people who are regulated. This is a recipe for a real mess.
it’s been a consistent trope on the left that it was Reagan who ‘let out’ the mentally ill.
With respect, I’d like to take the question of who emptied the asylums and sent people with psychiatric issues back into the community off the table, for this thread.
A worthwhile topic, I would just like to keep this thread on track.
Also, I’d like to reiterate my request to take Waco off the table for discussion, in this thread.
For the purpose of this thread, I’m fine with stipulating that it was a disturbing incident and gave a lot of people concern about the government’s actions there.
Thanks!
Some want to take away the right of many as a solution for the stupidity of a few. That’s what all of the anti-gunner proposals boil down to.
I think increased exposure to guns coupled with increased quality education would ameliorate at least some of the stupid.
Some states certainly have tighter controls on gun ownership than others. Does anyone have a link to some statistics on the prevelence of “stupid behavior with guns getting people injured or killed” in those states? Versus those states where there are minimal controls?
That would seem to at least give us some basis for arguing one way or the other on whether controls are
a) something that works,
b) irrelevant, or
c) something that actually makes things worse.
I think one thing that would help the debate enormously is a little – well, a lot – more information and honesty on both sides. The Cracked article points out a number of misconceptions non-gun people have about “assault weapons” and the like, including how often they are used in crimes and so on.
But let’s get real on the other side as well. The US has a vastly higher rate of gun violence, including suicides, than almost every other advanced industrial society. It also has easier access to guns. To deny that these two facts are related is just dishonest. (And by the way, if you want to discount “thugs shooting thugs” then you should subtract those incidents from other countries’ dath rates as well).
Guns are dangerous. They kill people. In the US they kill a lot of people. (Yes. Cars kill people too. But compare rates of ownership and use and this argument oretty much goes away.) It would be nice if we could reduce those numbers.
So here’s the thing. How do we do that in a way that is acceptable to those who like guns?
But I wonder, which is the cause and which is the effect? Do we have silly gun controls because those writing them want to impose lots of controls? Or do those writing them go that way because they cannot get sensible rules passed?
Sorry, but the logic her is that because we can’t get something (undefined) smart done, we’ll do something stupid instead, because it is easier to do stupid than smart.
Sorry. I don’t see how this is to be done. Are the police supposed to randomly check on disqualified individuals? No. They are not going to do that. Those individuals will be caught and charged once they have committed a crime using a gun. In other words, this suggestion has no preventive value whatsoever.
Felons and others are apprehended all the time in possession of firearms. Routine traffic stops and interviews during investigations are two ways that bad people encounter the police.
and “the few” are responsible for a big chunk of the 30,000+ people who die, and the 80,000+ who are injured, every year in the US from guns.
300 shootings per day, on average.
The stats I’ve seen on accidental death/injury are pretty small. I’d like to see what you have that is different. Roughly half the homicides are suicides, or at least that was the case the last time I looked.
And, because they’re hostile to gun ownership, they tend to draft the laws so as to have various gotchas in them, to be easily subject to abusive enforcement, inconvenience is viewed as a positive, not a problem…
There is more to this than many will acknowledge. Bloomberg, when he was mayor of NYC, made it his policy to arrest travelers passing through NY airports with properly declared and packaged guns if their flight required them to recheck their bags–or so the story went (my recollection is the story was true, but I could be wrong). This is the kind of chickenshit that makes it hard for there to be trust. But then along comes Lefty Russell and lays out a pretty balanced view. So, maybe big picture-wise, both sides on a number of key issues should exercise a bit of internal restraint and then see just how much daylight there is between their two positions. Ok, that’s not happening. Fuck.
“what makes this strange to read is that Kansas, under the leadership of arch-conservative Sam Brownback, has just eliminated its requirement for mandatory training course. an 8 hour class was too much of a burden.
they also eliminated the requirements for permits and certification for concealed carry.”
This actually makes sense, if you think about it.
Consider that, in practice, people with concealed carry permits have a lower abuse rate than the police. The rate of actual problems is phenomenally low.
Consider also, that a large number of states have adopted concealed carry reform, with wildly different levels of regulation and training requirements. And the states that have the ‘lax’ requirements haven’t seen any more problems than the states with the ‘strict’ requirements.
Now, if you don’t consider inconveniencing gun owners a downside, there’s no reason to consider over-kill in regulating guns to be a problem. But that’s not Brownback. He actually is in a position where he regards inconvenience to gun owners as a downside, and so has to balance it against benefits. If he has evidence from other states, that many of the requirements Kansas is imposing don’t actually provide any benefit, why shouldn’t he relax them?
It’s not like he regards harrassing gun owners as an independent benefit.
Something we could do about guns is ensure that citizens, starting at an early age, know all about them and how to handle them.
… lemme add…
i do agree with what i quoted there. if we’re going to have a society where guns are potentially everywhere, it makes all kinds of sense to ensure that everyone knows how to handle them (of course that would mean mandatory education, which would certainly be anathema to someone).
but, yes, mandatory gun training sounds like a find idea to me.
because, liberal though i am, i have owned (and purchased, and then sold) guns in the past. i took the NRA training course. i killed a bunch of small wild animals and blew up a lot of bottles and cans. and then i figured out that i don’t like killing things. and i do appreciate the mechanics and craftsmanship and even the aesthetics of a finely made gun. and i can certainly see why people would want to collect them. but i know that a gun in my house would just make me uncomfortable. because, like i said above, their primary purpose is to kill, and i’m not interested in killing. and i certainly wouldn’t want a gun of mine adding to the accidental death count, and the idea of intentionally killing a person just makes me ill.
so, when i see gun fetishists fantasizing about plugging other people in righteous anger, i don’t nod along in agreement. i wince.
wj @ 9:55
Fair enough. I wasn’t actually yet walking the earth in the time frame you & the article reference; I think my opinions about this aren’t worth too much in that regard. But more importantly, I’d rather hew to Slart’s earlier suggestion that commenters drive this thread towards left-right finger pointing, a suggestion I am glad to accept – for I am most interested in whether a rational discussion can be had on a topic that seems to bring forth so much irrationality.
Plus, I need to be getting ready for this trip to far west Texas I am about to embark upon with my father and uncle. There has already been a heated discussion between the two about exactly what sort of firepower is going to be needed for what is supposed to be a family reunion type event. Last I heard, my uncle thought he and my dad should be carrying long arms with me providing pistol cover from the perimeter as needed. My dad is on record as saying he doesn’t really wish to get into any situation we are forced to shoot our way out of. This a literally the conversation they had.
Me? I’m just going to keep the voice recorder rolling for the entire journey.
Sorry, but the logic her is that because we can’t get something (undefined) smart done, we’ll do something stupid instead, because it is easier to do stupid than smart.
Granted, it’s stupid. Doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.
Also: late to the conversation & OT, but just wanted to take a moment to also wish Brett all the best in facing what I am absolutely sure is a most trying time for he and his family. Take care, Brett.
“…they also eliminated the requirements for permits and certification for concealed carry.”
This actually makes sense, if you think about it.
Consider that, in practice, people with concealed carry permits have a lower abuse rate than the police. The rate of actual problems is phenomenally low.
It only makes sense if you assume that it is having a concealed carry permit which causes people to not abuse guns. Rather than, for example, that the effort required to get a permit filtered out those likely to abuse.
The stats I’ve seen on accidental death/injury are pretty small. I’d like to see what you have that is different.
i wasn’t distinguishing between accidental and intentional with those numbers. those are simply total gun-related injuries and deaths.
Consider that, in practice, people with concealed carry permits have a lower abuse rate than the police.
Kansas is doing away with permits and training. well-trained, permitted CC people will not be Kansans.
So here’s the thing. How do we do that in a way that is acceptable to those who like guns?
Gun crime is down, as is most violent crime. It will never be down *enough*, but it is measurably down. Suicide is a function of depression and other mental imbalances/disorders. Our suicide rates are no different from a number of other western countries, the only difference is the method.
More crimes are committed in the US with guns because there are more guns. We have more car deaths because we have more cars. Some stuff can’t be fixed beyond a certain point.
This actually makes sense, if you think about it.
No, it doesn’t. If it did, it would make sense to issue drivers licenses without administering minimum driver competency tests. There are 300 million plus Americans, most of who live in crowded, urban environments. Too many of us are too close to too many others. We are crowded. I’d like to know that, when I’m asleep, that my neighbor has responsibly stored his/her pistols etc and knows how to use them. Requiring gun safety courses as part of issuing a concealed carry or hunting license is not an undue imposition. Texas is pretty loose on gun stuff, but we have a two day course for concealed weapons carry and a mandatory hunter safety course. No one’s ass is being broken by either.
I’m not sure a general licensing requirement wouldn’t pass constitutional muster and I’d be in favor of it if *it would end the discussion going forward.* The Big Fear is that it is the camel’s nose inside the tent. If the committed gun controllers operated at Russell’s level of good faith, I would make that deal.
wj, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-heroux/the-correlation-of-gun-la_b_4528290.html
McKinney, right, the anti-gunners float all kinds of incorrect statistics about gun deaths: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities
“so, when i see gun fetishists fantasizing about plugging other people in righteous anger, i don’t nod along in agreement. i wince.”
As a gun owner and one who has trained to use a gun for self defense, what you describe makes me wince too. But again we have a very unfair characterization of gun owners that demonstrates why it is so difficult to talk about guns.
That’s fine.
Thanks Brett, I appreciate it.
My ‘age of the Kalashnikov’ comment reflected the widespread ownership of firearms worldwide having been quite the opposite of a bulwark against tyranny; consider, for instance the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
That’s a completely valid point.
The 2nd A assumed a civilian population who participated, almost universally, in a militia that was under civil control at the state level.
The existence of a civil authority, subsidiary to the federal government, which also had a military capability of its own is probably a unique feature, or a nearly unique feature, of the US’s history.
Part of the context of the 2nd A was the surrendering of sovereignty or near-sovereignty by the states, to the federal government, as part of the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution.
Folks were concerned about totally giving up local control of the militias in favor of a standing, professional federal army as part of that deal.
Again, IMO the relevance of all of that is somewhat attenuated by history. But that’s a lot of the motivation at the time the 2nd A was written.
I’m struggling to think of a single example which might justify that hypothetical calculation.
A possible example might be the labor struggles of the late 19th / early 20th C.
Folks on the labor side literally went to war with folks representing industrialists, and government was largely on the side of the industrialists. By “on the side of” I mean supporting them with armed force.
Absent the guns, I’m not sure labor would have done as well. So, a *possible* example.
So, they’re drafted by people who are militantly ignorant about firearms
Leaving out the “militantly”, I think this is a reasonable objection. Understanding very basic things like, for instance, the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons seems like a reasonable requirement for people writing legislation.
The background check on private sales seems so sensible that find opposition to it just plain irrational.
I agree with this, completely. If there were one thing I would like to see change in current policy, it would be stronger enforcement of the background check requirement.
How to fix stupid–that is one for the ages.
For the sake of argument, I would propose some simple things.
If you handle a firearm in ways that don’t comply with well-known safety practices, and someone gets hurt, you lose the right and privilege of having a firearm. Temporarily, if that makes it easier for folks to accept, but if so, to get the guns back you have to take a class in proper gun safety.
You are also liable for whatever civil or criminal charges apply to harming other people through personal carelessness or negligence.
Or: to own and use a firearm, you have to carry liability insurance. If you do stupid stuff and your insurer finds out, it costs you. Let the market sort out the numbskulls.
Would any of that be acceptable?
Also – way upthread – I agree with thompson’s comment about people having guns for personal protection. IMO that’s actually fairly common, and also IMO is legitimate.
Plus, I need to be getting ready for this trip to far west Texas I am about to embark upon with my father and uncle. There has already been a heated discussion between the two about exactly what sort of firepower is going to be needed for what is supposed to be a family reunion type event. Last I heard, my uncle thought he and my dad should be carrying long arms with me providing pistol cover from the perimeter as needed. My dad is on record as saying he doesn’t really wish to get into any situation we are forced to shoot our way out of. This a literally the conversation they had.
In west Texas? Seriously? Your family will be the only folks out there.
“But let’s get real on the other side as well. The US has a vastly higher rate of gun violence, including suicides, than almost every other advanced industrial society. It also has easier access to guns. To deny that these two facts are related is just dishonest.”
But, I don’t care about “gun violence”, I care about violence. I don’t care about “gun suicide”, I care about suicide.
America has a higher level of violence than many other countries. Maybe if we had fewer guns, we’d have less of that violence involving guns. But “stabbed to death” is still dead. Suicide by overdose is still dead.
Why this obsession about the means?
Why this obsession about a means, that almost everybody in possession of it does NOT use for the objectionable end?
Icarus, thanks for the links.
If you handle a firearm in ways that don’t comply with well-known safety practices, and someone gets hurt, you lose the right and privilege of having a firearm. Temporarily, if that makes it easier for folks to accept, but if so, to get the guns back you have to take a class in proper gun safety.
Agreed. If temporary, it should vary with the level of harm/stupidity.
You are also liable for whatever civil or criminal charges apply to harming other people through personal carelessness or negligence.
This is already civil law. Don’t know about criminal, but when kids are involved, some statutes reach an adult’s conduct, as they should.
Or: to own and use a firearm, you have to carry liability insurance. If you do stupid stuff and your insurer finds out, it costs you. Let the market sort out the numbskulls.
And for folks who are otherwise pristine but lack the funds? I disagree because it lets relative wealth determine who gets to exercise a right. And, it criminalizes missing a premium payment. Consider this: a gun owner required to pay for ACA and then lacking the funds to pay for gun insurance would have to sell his/her guns to comply with one law or the other. And, from the other end of it, insurers might balk at making “gun owner” insurance available.
“No, it doesn’t. If it did, it would make sense to issue drivers licenses without administering minimum driver competency tests.”
If you had some states issuing driver’s licenses without administering any competence tests, and in practice they had no higher level of traffic accidents than states that did require testing, it would make perfect sense for the states that do administer such tests to drop them.
A regulation, an imposition on the public, is a cost. If you see no additional benefit from imposing that cost, compared to not imposing it, then it is irrational to impose the cost.
Unless you’re consumed with animus towards the people who will bear the cost, and thus view the cost itself as a benefit.
Which, unfortunately, is a perfectly good description of your average gun controller. They don’t care about imposing costs on gun owners, because gun owners are the enemy, costs to them are themselves a benefit.
But Brownback isn’t a gun controller, if a regulation provides no benefit, why should he retain it? And the evidence from states with ‘lax’ regulation is that strict regulations do not produce any benefits over letting anybody who can own a gun carry concealed.
OK, so we have Icarus’ request for quality training and then we have facts on the ground such as Brownback’s canceling all required training in Kansas, with the full-throated support of the NRA and the Black Panthers, though I noticed the latter were not called to testify in the hearings.
They call them hearings because people hear but don’t listen.
Brownback is a lot closer to the sun and his wings haven’t melted yet, which tells me the Overton Window on weapons regulation has shifted to the very stupid side, as opposed to the very stupid other side and there is a sniper standing in it, and it’s not a kitten.
So, if the NRA, the supposedly moderate ones, has gone from what it was in the past, which seemed pretty acceptable to me and Ronald Reagan, to what it is today, it’s not me that changed, it’s the NRA and Ronald Reagan.
Basically, you’ve got the regulations being written by people who are ideologically and culturally hostile to any regulation of weapons whatsoever.
I agree with Turbulence and McTX’s qualified agreement with Turbulence.
So, what’s it going to be, Kansas or something a little less stupid?
By the way, in lj’s article, just to point out that I’m a trouble-making outlier on the gun issue, the Ku Klux Klan confiscated weapons from freed slaves, which would seem to put the former at least part way on my side of the confiscation argument, but wait, what should have happened is the freed blacks should have shot the Klan clowns dead in their tracks and THEN offered to place their own weapons and ammo in an armory with restrictions on any use outside of hunting, if everyone else agreed to that measure, or to have them outright confiscated.
I have other recipes, but later.
So now, the snowmobile thing seems apt once again, in this context: innocent, law-abiding snowmobilers are punished via regulation by having to observe the rules of the trail, which were imposed because of a few dumbasses.
Like everything.
Why is regulation considered punishment of the innocent?
I don’t consider the prevention of my car plowing through the median greenery a punishment just because some jackass ruined the pure joy of median strip navigation by turning into oncoming traffic a few times.
Why this obsession about the means?
guns are not knives. they are more deadly, efficient, and prone to causing accidental death or serious injury than any knife. nobody has ever been killed in their home by a knife thrown by someone who accidentally threw a knife into a wall in the house across the street.
it’s like saying a bike and car can get you to the same place so we shouldn’t spend so much effort regulating cars, while spending none regulating bikes.
America has a higher level of violence than many other countries.
I agree with the comment from Bernie that you are responding to here, but IMO this is also a very apt point.
There are countries with very high levels of gun ownership – Switzerland, Finland – but which don’t have anything like our level of violent crime and assault, whether gun-related or not.
It would be worth addressing.
Why this obsession about the means?
IMO the reason gun violence, specifically, gets attention is because of the remarkable efficiency of guns as a means of harming other people.
You can kill folks with a knife, but not from 100 yards away.
You can kill folks with a hammer or a bat, but their options for defending themselves and/or enlisting someone else in their defense are better than with a gun.
Guns are just really effective.
Right. A gun is, mostly, a tool for killing things. As sometimes people are entitled to kill things, they are entitled to the means to kill things.
But if you’re concerned about violence, a society where people are homocidally inclined, but just lack one particular tool of violence, seems to me to be a strange thing to aspire to. Just as pretending that the people most inclined to commit violence will reliquish the means, even as they commit all manner of other crimes, seems a bizzare thing to do.
And if you’re opposed to suicide, you’d think you’d actually care about evidence that suicides just substitute other means, and continue to kill themselves, if you deny them guns.
But, gun controllers are not defined by their opposition to violence, or their opposition to suicide. They’re defined by their opposition to guns. And it shows, boy does it ever. It shows in the way they focus laser-like on one particular means, and ignore that they’ve chosen a most indirect and ineffective route to their supposed goals.
Or maybe it’s just pretext, all that talk about murder and suicide, and they just hate guns. I think that makes more sense of it.
“Why this obsession about a means, that almost everybody in possession of it does NOT use for the objectionable end?”
Brett, ostensibly, the anti-gunners believe that if you remove the means the objectionable end is ameliorated. The reasoning being that guns are so extraordinarily lethal and easy to use that substitute methods would not only be less effective (i.e. cause less death), but would probably be used less frequently (e.g. too risky to the attacker, too awkward, too painful in the case of suicide).
I actually think this is a reasonable argument, though I ultimately disagree that the solution is to ban guns or even to impose more onerous laws (and I too believe there is sufficient evidence to suggest that a large group under the gun control tent DOES want to ban guns to the level of Australia or England and, given an opening, they’d drive right through it).
if you’re concerned about violence, a society where people are homocidally inclined, but just lack one particular tool of violence, seems to me to be a strange thing to aspire to.
Fair enough. So how would you, as a libertarian, propose going about changing a society where people are homocidially inclined? After all, if that is the problem that gun controllers really are (or should be) concerned about, what would be an acceptable path for them to take instead of gun control?
And for folks who are otherwise pristine but lack the funds?
I hear you, but just to push back slightly, here is the NRA’s liability insurance program.
$100 a year gets you half a million in coverage.
There are, no doubt, folks for whom $100 is a hurdle, but compared to the price of firearms and ammunition, it seems like not that much money, at least to me.
As noted, not trying to argue with you, just a mild pushback.
Also – Count, welcome to the discussion. I have no wish to step on anyone’s style here on ObWi, however as a request I will ask that we keep the tone moderate on this thread, specifically.
Thanks to one and all for the reasonable tone thus far, I more than appreciate it.
are there a lot of pro-suicide out there?
Or maybe it’s just pretext, all that talk about murder and suicide, and they just hate guns. I think that makes more sense of it.
Please, no mind reading. At least here, for now.
Thanks!
“Fair enough. So how would you, as a libertarian, propose going about changing a society where people are homocidially inclined?”
1. Abolish victimless crime laws. Thus defunding organized crime, including inner city gangs that provide muscle for the drug dealers and pimps. Let people get high or laid if they want.
2. Reinstitute the CCC. Nobody gets ‘assistance’ to stay some dead end place where the economy is the pits. Rather, you can get a job doing something hard but useful, and come out of it with skills and a grubstake, and settle down someplace where there are jobs to be had.
Violence in “America” isn’t a problem. Most of the country is as peaceful as you could want. It’s a localized problem, mostly having to do with organized crime and inner city gangs in areas where there is a lack of hope. Kill off organized crime, and give those people a way out of a hopeless situation.
The reasoning being that guns are so extraordinarily lethal and easy to use that substitute methods would not only be less effective (i.e. cause less death), but would probably be used less frequently (e.g. too risky to the attacker, too awkward, too painful in the case of suicide).
IMO the argument there is more along the lines of the lethality, and not so much frequency.
You get in an argument with someone, everyone gets their blood up. If there is no gun, it’s a punch-up. If there is a gun, somebody’s dead.
Not trying to speak for other people, but I think that’s the general sense of it.
I’m not sure prostitution is really victimless, at least in many cases, but that nit aside I’m down with Brett’s 11:55.
I’d also say that it might be useful to take the CCC alumnae and grub-stake them back in their old neighborhoods, if they are interested in doing so, to inject a little hope.
But net/net, all good suggestions, and on point.
Gun control is effective in Australia:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-australians-gave-back-their-guns/2013/08/23/108458dc-0c09-11e3-8974-f97ab3b3c677_story.html
…. if you want to cut murder rates, police shootings, etc.
The larger question is why are gun-related deaths so high in America when many other industrialized countries seem to better cope?
My respectful request is that in the brochures we hand out extolling our national exceptionalism, this needs to go on the list of features.
Truth in advertising does not punish the innocent.
I’m all for Brett’s suggestions of 11:55 as well. A little amazed that he would be willing to reinstitute the CCC (being another big government program), but I suppose that it is a case of the alternative being worse.
Russell, I think that the reason that prostitution is not a victimless crime has a lot to do with it being a crime. If it were legal, the leverage that pimps have, which is mostly what makes prostitutes into victims, would be largely gone. It might be a complete solution. But legalization would drastically reduce the problem.
Gun control is effective in Australia
Yes, and to the degree that folks who are against gun regulation want to claim that reducing the number of guns would not also reduce the level of violent crime, they need to somehow account for Australia’s experience.
“Accounting for Australia’s experience” might simply amount to stating, or noting, that Americans aren’t like Australians, but to some degree that seems to beg the question.
My understanding of the Australian gun buyback, is that they inflated the compliance rate by the simple expedient of lowering their estimates of how many such firearms existed. Which is apparently a remarkably effective way to make it look like you got most of the guns, but the actual compliance rate was pretty low, likely in the 10% range.
The effect on actual murder rates doesn’t look very impressive.
Russell, I’ll observe your request for moderation.
Like the NRA mandating that all weapons on display at their latest fete be disabled, your request sounds like good policy …. everywhere.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/10/1376927/-If-guns-don-t-kill-people-why-demand-inoperable-weapons-at-NRA-convention
Brett- my point wasn’t that we should create a mental health registry and stop those on it from owning guns. My point was that the NRA proposed creating a mental health registry. Why?
It could be to prevent those on it from owning guns. But they say that’s morally wrong.
Another option is that it could be to allow people to identify the mentally ill in their neighborhood, like a sex offender registry.
The third is that they had no intention of this ever happening, and were just using the mentally ill as human shields for their politics.
My point was that insincerity seems the most likely explanation. My point was that we need to keep in mind when talking to gun advocates that we are talking to people who cannot be trusted on this issue. That when they talk about mental illness, it isn’t because they care about the mentally ill- as evidenced by their willingness to demonize them and advocate for their public shaming as a political tactic.
Might as well ask why car dealers don’t leave the keys in all the cars on the lot. Do they believe cars are murder machines? Why would all the guns on display be functional, when there was no provision for firing them safely?
They let people carry functional guns everywhere the actual owners of the properties permitted it, which was most of the event. What did you want, every dealer’s table to have a firing range attached?
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/nra-convention-feature-nonoperational-guns-floor
They will allow concealed/loaded carry on the convention floor, even around the Presidential candidates scheduled to speak.
I guess none of the candidates plans to announce reasonable gun control measures if elected.
Must be a coincidence.
An armed society is an agreeable society.
“The effect on actual murder rates doesn’t look very impressive.”
Where in your link does it say that?
The people not murdered are impressed as hell.
Now, if you want to raise the question of how stricter gun control measures seque into the longer term decline in murder rates, make the case.
In the US, about 12,000 people a year are shot dead by other people. In the UK, the number is about 30. (The US population is about five times larger)
The UK has achieved this by fantastically restrictive gun control. (A tiny part of which is that we’ve decided to use mallets instead of semi-automatic weapons to hammer in tent poles.)
I don’t think the US could make those sort of gun controls work, even if it wanted to. There are too many guns in circulation.
The realistic (ok, perhaps not very realistic) alternative to just accepting the death toll as a price worth paying for freedom would be to introduce some sort of strict liability on gun owners. If a gun registered to you shoots someone – in whoever’s hands and whether by accident or design, you would be civilly liable. And anyone registering a gun would be required to carry insurance to cover claims against them. The point of this is that rather than the government deciding what guns and practices are relatively safe, the insurance market would.
One thing I’m taking away from this discussion is that much of the rest of world wonders if we here in the US are off our freaking nut.
FWIW.
“Why would all the guns on display be functional, when there was no provision for firing them safely?”
Why is the street any different?
“Do they believe the cars are murder machines?”
You’ve made that case in the past. No, I think you can outfit the cars with skis and go snowmobiling.
That was moderated sarcasm.
Russell, they don’t wonder. They are sure we are.
It’s a water boarding convention too.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sarah-palin-talks-waterboarding-guns-at-nra-convention/
It says that in the graph, Count. You DO know how to read graphs, right? Look particularly at the “Homicides involving firearms as a percentage of total homicides, 1915-2003” graph.
The drop in firearms homicides started back in the 70’s. That’s one effective buyback, that has it’s effect decades before it happened.
A regulation, an imposition on the public, is a cost. If you see no additional benefit from imposing that cost, compared to not imposing it, then it is irrational to impose the cost.
In a very general sense, maybe. Do you contend that there is no cost to *not regulating*? There is ample evidence that some regulations do far more good than harm. As someone who flies commercially all the time, I’m grateful for the rules and regs. As a taxpayer, I find a lot of the tax code and regs are way overdone and are stupid. So, context matters a lot. In my view, there are certain activities where we can reasonably intuit that a minimum skill level is involved and we don’t need decades of stats to lead us to the notion that (1) minimum competence on the highway should be determined before and not after turning someone loose and, as another example, (2) doctors ought to establish minimum levels of competence to be allowed to practice medicine.
Requiring safety training as prerequisite to owning firearms isn’t onerous and the cost is minimal. And, if it, along with other middle ground compromises produced true consensus and resolution of this issue, it would be well worth it.
More generally, addressing this topic by inserting the why’s and how’s of violence in America is pointless and a bit of a threadjack. The topic at hand is gun control, or not, and how much or how little.
Russell’s device of per-emptively discouraging hyperbole and distractions was quite clever and now that it’s been employed, long overdue.
Discussions generally would be more civil and more productive if the discussion leader would first filter his/her own views, give reasonable consideration and deference to competing views, and then lay out the talking points. I realize I as much as anyone should take these words to heart.
I don’t care if the rest of the world thinks the US is nuts. We think the rest of the world is nuts, so the lack of respect is mutual.
No guns will be permitted on the floor of the convention during performances by singer Alan Jackson and comedian Jeff Foxworthy.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/nra-convention-feature-nonoperational-guns-floor?cid=sm_fb_maddow
Foxworthy, I can understand. He deserves a rough crowd.
But, what makes those two so special?
I can’t request people not carry weapons around me in public.
That’s a serious question.
FWIW, I think civil (and, ultimately criminal) liability for gun misuse is warranted. My understanding, similar to McK, is that is how it currently is.
I also agree, relaxing laws involving drugs and prostitution would go a long way to reducing gun violence. Also giving people work, either through CCC or other means.
Also, Icarus has really provided a lot to the discussion, and I appreciate it.
“Do you contend that there is no cost to *not regulating*?”
I contend that we should respond to evidence, rather than just reasonably intuiting things. The evidence shows that strict regulation of who can have a concealed carry permit produces no particular benefit. By now almost every state has experimented with concealed carry reform, ranging from states that just let you carry concealed without a permit, to states that only issue permits to the politically connected.
A massive experiement which has produced no evidence that the regulations confer any benefit. Since they do have costs, they should not be imposed.
I recall when Florida first tried out concealed carry reform, and it was predicted that blood would flow in the streets. It didn’t. It didn’t the next 47 times, either.
At some point you’ve got to admit your intuitions are faulty…
Again: this post is not about Sarah Palin, the NRA, Sam Brownback, Republicans, Democrats, the UK or any of the rest of the world. Or politics. Or who is secretly conspiring to take away everyone’s gun/amass so much firepower that they can outgun some small countries.
Can we keep it on topic? Can we?
This isn’t so much about what’s fncked up, or who fncked it up, as about what if any conditions on firearm ownership are both widely acceptable and effective.
Back to your regularly scheduled program. I don’t want to be the heavy, here; I just want people to remember how this thread got started, what the intention was, and whether it might not be a good idea to honor those things.
It’s a water boarding convention too.
Please, off topic.
I’m going to ask that the NRA convention be basically off the table.
Stipulated that, yes, the combination of “NRA” and “non-operable firearms” seems weird.
Also stipulated that early claims of no-guns events have turned out to be largely incorrect.
But the purpose of the thread is to let people discuss *their* concerns about guns, and/or gun regulations and the lack thereof.
Thanks!
I think I will probably wind this thread up at around 200 comments, if it gets that far.
Not trying to shut off conversation, it’s just starting to look like most folks have had a chance to make their main points.
I’d like to quit while we’re ahead. 🙂
One thing I’m taking away from this discussion is that much of the rest of world wonders if we here in the US are off our freaking nut.
But, that is not the discussion you laid out. Our relatively recent history is unique in a meaningful way. In my youth, I knew people whose parents went armed due to Comanches and Apaches and outlaws. Many of us have ancestors who fought in the Civil War. We retain portions of our frontier mentality because, there *was* a frontier for some of our parents or our parents’ parents. Also, unlike Europe, hunting was not reserved here as the sport of the ruling elite. Hunting in the US has always been, in belief if not in practice, every person’s sport. So, we are different in several material respects. Europeans fussing because we aren’t more like them get really pissy when some loudmouth American gets bitchy and complains that they aren’t more like Americans. In that respect, hypocrisy is definitely a two way street. On balance, I find our egalitarian approach to government and life far superior to the European deference to entrenched elites. Tastes may vary on that point.
We think the rest of the world is nuts, so the lack of respect is mutual.
Many of us don’t think the rest of the world is nuts.
Just saying.
I’m happy to leave it as a point on which people may disagree.
But, that is not the discussion you laid out
Yes, quite right.
It wasn’t intended to be a substantial point, it just struck me how many of the commenters here from other places seemed to be gobsmacked that this was a thing, here.
I can see that the comment was a distraction, I withdraw it.
Sorry to have been disruptive.
Brett, the third graph down (the others too) on the page show a renewed decline, after an initial pop, in homicide via gun since the Port Arthur Massacre, after which restrictions were put in place.
Maybe a continuation of the longer trend, maybe a renewed emphasis refreshed the long-term trend.
I have a question for the lawyers (or anybody else) here: Does civil liability for gun misuse extend to the person to whom the gun is registered? Or just to the person doing the misuse?
The evidence shows that strict regulation of who can have a concealed carry permit produces no particular benefit
Brett, can you point us to that evidence?
Not intended to be a challenge, I’d simply be interested to read it.
Thanks!
I think worn’s Dad and Uncle were preparing for Comanche war parties in West Texas.
OK, since hyperbole is my game, I’m no good here.
Carry on.
Yeah, they all show declines. Nothing impressively tied to the time of the buyback. Though considering the response rate was pathetic, even if gun buybacks worked, you wouldn’t have expected much effect.
Just nothing there showing it really did anything.
“America has a higher level of violence than many other countries. Maybe if we had fewer guns, we’d have less of that violence involving guns. “
Maybe? And please note that international comparisons of violent crime rates in general are dubious. Those who do seriou sresearch inthis area tend to regard homicides as the best index ov=f overall violent crime, because the data is more accurate, definitions are more consistent, and reporting is more reliable.
And of course guns turn fistfights and road rage incidents into homicides. As to the argument that those with CC permits commit far less abuse than police, I’m sure that’s true, as an isolated fact. But the number of potentially violent incidents an average privte citizen encounters with the same number for police. I thinkthat comparison renders the isolated fact meaningless as useful information.
The evidence shows that strict regulation of who can have a concealed carry permit produces no particular benefit.
Actually, it is just as likely that it is the strict regulation that yields the positive benefits. I don’t want just anyone getting licensed to pack. Come to Texas. We have an abundance of people who really should not be packing in public. Keep a gun at the house, fine. Go hunting or shooting, fine. Going someplace where things might get rough but you have no choice, ok (kinda/sorta ok, but I’d question the need–seems to me to be easier to stay home in most cases, but then I have had the experience of being called by a neighbor who thought she was being burglaized). But, driving around at midnight after some quality time at the saloon. No, I don’t think so.
Purity of thought is all well and good. I’ve pushed back as hard as anyone on almost every proposed gun reg ever. Russell has changed the conversation. He is asking, in effect, can we reach a compromise consensus? That is a fair question and a worthy goal. If your vote is “Sure we can, provided we do it my way”, it’s a short conversation. If the vote is “Done deal, we’ll go with the Australia plan”, the conversation is equally short.
Rigid views seldom advance the ball. Some things can’t be compromised, but we aren’t talking about rescinding trial by jury or the presumption of innocence. We are talking a balance of interests by making limited tweaks at the margins–non-felons who demonstrate minimum competency and safety knowledge get their guns. How bad is that, if we could make that deal with the folks on the other side?
In my youth, I knew people whose parents went armed due to Comanches and Apaches and outlaws.
Just to return to this briefly – IMO this is an interesting and apt point.
There are parts of the US where “frontier days” – times when public services like police etc. either did not exist locally, or were quite thin on the ground – are only a couple of generations back. In a lot of those places, those kinds of services and infrastructure are often still not immediately available.
There are still places where carrying a firearm around is just good sense.
Folks in my extended family live in a fairly rural area of OR, on an 80 acre holding, with nearest neighbors a half mile or so away. They share their land with large predators.
If they don’t have guns, they really should.
I have similar stories to tell about family who’ve lived in relatively remote parts of AZ.
I don’t know how unique that is as a set of modern-day experiences, but it is a reality here, at least in parts of the country. And, I’m sure it shapes many people’s thinking about firearms.
Russell, I suppose you’d be alleric to John Lott? Here’s Dave Kopel
Does civil liability for gun misuse extend to the person to whom the gun is registered? Or just to the person doing the misuse?
Probably not ‘registration’ per se, but ownership or control would be relevant. Then, you would segue into the issue of negligent entrustment. Lending or giving a car to a known incompetent driver renders the loaner/donor potentially liable if the incompetent driver has an accident and injures/kills a third person.
Similarly, with a firearm, if one in control of a firearm allowed an incompetent person to possess that firearm resulting in harm to a third person, that would likely give rise to civil liability. Lending or giving a gun to an untrained child or adult would be a prima facie case. I was well trained in firearms safety by the time I was ten. So were our kids. As a teenager, I hunted with friends. So did our son (our daughter did not hunt with her friends, although she did hunt). I don’t think age alone would be outcome determinative. I was a more competent and safer hunter at age 12 than many adults I know today.
“Actually, it is just as likely that it is the strict regulation that yields the positive benefits.”
Well, just as likely if you ignore the actual outcomes in various states. But, yeah, aside from the evidence, it’s just as likely.
This: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20
is interesting. There are some states where murder is committed by some other means more frequently than by guns. I find that Montana being one such state is fascinating. I lived in Montana for a while and everyone I knew owned at least one gun. People drove around with guns on racks in their pick-up trucks. They maintained high caliber handguns in their vehicles and homes. Yet they weren’t – and aren’t – shooting each other.
I think that what gets lost in the gun debate is the contribution of geography and local culture; suggesting that a national one size fits all solution probably isn’t the answer.
“That said, most of the successful efforts to expand civil rights and political freedom in the US have occurred through peaceful means. No guns.”
Perhaps on the surface.
How ‘Crazy Negroes’ With Guns Helped Kill Jim Crow: Civil rights and armed self-defense in the South
Russell, I suppose you’d be alleric to John Lott? Here’s Dave Kopel
Thanks Brett, I will check it out tonight.
suggesting that a national one size fits all solution probably isn’t the answer.
IMO that is a fair point.
The gun laws here in MA would likely make folks in many other places go nuts. You can’t get a license to carry if the local police chief says no? But here, they seem totally reasonable.
Different strokes, I’m sure most folks are fine with some amount of local variance.
As McK notes, what I’m mostly curious about here is trying to understand where the common ground might lie.
Also, I just wanted to give people a venue for articulating the things that were most important to them in the debate.
Does civil liability for gun misuse extend to the person to whom the gun is registered? Or just to the person doing the misuse?
I think it depends on state law. There are state laws that impose liability on misuse of vehicles to the registered owner, with varying degrees of constitutionality/success depending on the context, under the theory that as the owner of the car you are responsible for what someone else does with it, authorized by you or not.
So, something similar could be (and probably is somewhere) applied to guns. Or treat them as inherently dangerous objects.
Well, just as likely if you ignore the actual outcomes in various states. But, yeah, aside from the evidence, it’s just as likely.
In Texas, we have fairly strict requirements for CC licenses. The universe of CC licensees is the most law-abiding group in the state. You say there is no evidence of a cause/effect between limiting who can get licenses and the licensees aggregate criminal activity? It’s just the opposite–you can’t get a CC license unless your criminal history is pure. It would be expected that people with no history would continue to behave that way.
“You say there is no evidence of a cause/effect between limiting who can get licenses and the licensees aggregate criminal activity?”
No, I’m saying that beyond that minimal requirement, that you not have a criminal record, additional regulations seem to have minimal impact. The returns seem to diminish remarkably fast beyond that point.
I think that what gets lost in the gun debate is the contribution of geography and local culture; suggesting that a national one size fits all solution probably isn’t the answer.
That is a reasonable surmise. Montana has a small and relatively widely dispersed population. Hunting is a “way of life” for the locals (and visitors dropping money into the economy). I, for one, would not see much value in highly restrictive gun regulations in that milieu. This also dovetails nicely with “local control” or control at the “lowest level”….a fairly common talking point with political conservatives on just about any other issue.
So why can’t a place like Washington, D.C. democratically make its rules in this regard? If this is an “urban” problem, why are urbanites held to account for seeking to adopt measures to curb gun violence in their communities?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/federal-judge-overturns-dc-handgun-ban/2014/07/26/906bc366-1534-11e4-98ee-daea85133bc9_story.html
Sometimes I think if there were no 2nd Amendment, these issues would have been freely handled at the local level some time ago. I mean, didn’t wild west Tombstone have some, by today’s standards, rather strict gun regs?
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/23/nation/la-na-tombstone-20110123
“So why can’t a place like Washington, D.C. democratically make its rules in this regard?”
I see you answered that one yourself. Same reason cities down South can’t settle the whole segregated drinking fountain issue themselves: No local option on the Bill of Rights.
“Sometimes I think if there were no 2nd Amendment, these issues would have been freely handled at the local level some time ago. I mean, didn’t wild west Tombstone have some, by today’s standards, rather strict gun regs?”
Well, the problem is that there is a lot of violent crime in those urban environments (there on links to the statistics by geography at the link I posted on my last comment). How are people to defend themselves against thugs if they are disarmed?
Seriously, a roving criminally minded group of “youths” can assault, batter, stab, bludgeon, cripple, kill, rape, etc. a weaker individual even if they don’t have a gun. Happens all the time. How can we ask innocent citizens to expose themselves to that risk without any viable means of self defense?
If that kind of very real risk could be reduced to insignificant levels, I’d be more for gun control in urban areas.
This is why I think, ultimately, the answer to reducing gun violence – or any violent crime – lies not in reducing guns, but in reducing the dysfunctional social conditions that lead to violent crime on the one hand and the perceived need to own guns to protect oneself from it on the other. Brett’s solutions (e.g. CCC) seem apropos to me.
I mean the idea here is to stop people from getting killed or maimed, right? It’s not to just go after guns because they are icky or something, right?
I think that’s actually how you can tell the real gun controllers from their misguided allies: Whether they let an approach to reducing violence that might actually work distract them from attacking gun ownership.
Could we require gun owners to post signs on their property warning of the presence of guns, and impose fines for failure to comply? Plus statutory damages in special cases even if nothing goes wrong
E.g., you’re having other children over to your house and you don’t warn their parents you own a gun – $1,000 fine per child per occurrence? It certainly would set up some interesting social dynamics.
Inspired by this article.
I put this on the wrong thread. Poor aim.
If I’m going to retreat, I shouldn’t lurk, but in response to Icarus’s invocation of Montanans not killing each other with guns, yes, in absolute numbers (you’ve got to get in your truck and drive a ways find somebody to fight with), but per capita they rate in the top five.
Wyoming too is in the top five per capita and their gun homicides outnumber homicides by other means.
I live in Colorado and have traveled extensively in both states.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/20/1308465/-New-Study-Ranks-50-States-By-Gun-Sense-And-Gun-Violence-Deaths
Massachusetts, referred to by Russell as a strict state regarding guns, ranks in the bottom five states for per capita gun homicides.
As does New Jersey.
Maybe Montana and Massachusetts could switch gun regulatory schemes for awhile and we’ll see what happens.
“Top” meaning most deaths per capita; “bottom” meaning least deaths per capita.
Posted by: Countme-In | April 14, 2015 at 02:15 PM
By the way, I favor technological advancements which would program the guns of the future to disable themselves if pointed at human flesh, from any distance.
That way, everyone could keep and bear arms, and carry, to their hearts’ delight.
The verb “to fire” in not in the Second Amendment.
I think that’s actually how you can tell the real gun controllers from their misguided allies: Whether they let an approach to reducing violence that might actually work distract them from attacking gun ownership.
Dude, speculating about other people’s motives is bad form.
Please don’t, at least on this thread.
How are people to defend themselves against thugs if they are disarmed?
Seriously, a roving criminally minded group of “youths” can assault, batter, stab, bludgeon, cripple, kill, rape, etc. a weaker individual even if they don’t have a gun. Happens all the time. How can we ask innocent citizens to expose themselves to that risk without any viable means of self defense?
Well, how much are they defending themselves against those thugs now? Mostly, they are not — which is why those criminally minded group of “youths” exist in the first place.
So how would more gun control change things for those innocent citizens?
The count makes an excellent point. Any time we start on statistics (on this or any other subject) we need to make sure we are looking at per capita numbers. Otherwise the difference in population numbers is going to seriously skew the conclusions.
Seriously, a roving criminally minded group of “youths” can assault, batter, stab, bludgeon, cripple, kill, rape, etc. a weaker individual even if they don’t have a gun. Happens all the time
Yes, just to circle back to this.
I’m not sure that this happens “all the time”. To the degree that there are roving criminally minded groups of “youths” roaming the streets attacking people, my understanding is that they are primarily attacking each other.
Can you try to quantify “all the time” for us a little more clearly?
Count:
Maybe Montana and Massachusetts could switch gun regulatory schemes for awhile and we’ll see what happens.
According to the tables, Montana and MA have pretty similar overall murder/manslaughter rates, per capita:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-4
And Jersey is, to the surprise of everyone, I’m sure, higher.
Overall, I’m pretty skeptical that the difference between those 3, or all 50 states, is really driven by gun control.
Quite a bit, actually, since gun control would disarm them, but not the thugs. Thing about thugs is, they don’t obey laws. So you’d have to expect the gun control to be about as effective as narcotic control.
See you might like the UK’s murder rate, but you probably wouldn’t like their “hot burglary” rate. “Hot” burglary is where the burglar makes a point of breaking into the house when the owner is present. Very risky for the homeowner, very rare in the US, very common in the UK.
According to interviews with actual burglars, it’s rare in the US because they don’t want to be shot by homeowners.
But Count, really now,I understand normalizing data by calculating rates, but we are talking about 11 gun deaths in Montana in 2011 – a state where everyone is walking around with guns. At the same time we have these Montana statistics (from 2010):
Total Fatal Car Crashes: 161
Total Traffic Deaths: 189
Drunk Driving Deaths: 73
Total Pedestrians Killed: 8
CDC 2013 data for Montana:
Deaths from falls = 73
Death by poisoning = 23
Death by fire = 40
Death from measles = 44
Death from tetanus = 45
Death from drowning = 41
So it – the gun “problem” gets back to a matter of perception and politics.
Quite a bit, actually, since gun control would disarm them, but not the thugs. Thing about thugs is, they don’t obey laws. So you’d have to expect the gun control to be about as effective as narcotic control.
Well, no. This ignores the rather obvious differences between guns and narcotics, their ease of conceal-ability and discreet use, and the resulting impact on their utility.
That’s not to say that the criminals or would-be criminals will just turnover their guns upon request, although many probably would given the right conditions, just that gun prohibition would look significantly different than alcohol prohibition.
That’s not to say it would be a good idea or at all manageable, just that the comparison to narcotics is, ISTM, not at all apt.
“Well, no. This ignores the rather obvious differences between guns and narcotics, their ease of conceal-ability and discreet use, and the resulting impact on their utility.”
Fair enough, You’d expect gun control to be LESS effective than narcotic control, since guns don’t get used up the same way, and while drugs are a luxury good, for criminals guns are a useful tool.
Quite a bit, actually, since gun control would disarm them, but not the thugs.
That would seem (unless I am missing something) to suggest that those innocent citizens actually have guns now. And are using them to defend themselves against the thugs. But is that really the case? I’m betting that they are not, in fact, using their guns (if any) to defend themselves. Got any evidence that they are?
Now if you want to argue that we should be providing those innocent citizens with guns, so they can defend themselves, fine. But that would take a pretty massive government program (“government handout”?), wouldn’t it?
Russell, In 2013, U.S. residents age 12 or older experienced
an estimated 6.1 million violent victimizations and
16.8 million property victimizations, according to
the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS). After two consecutive
years of increases, the overall violent crime rate
(which includes rape or sexual assault, robbery,
aggravated assault, and simple assault) declined
slightly, from 26.1 victimizations per 1,000 persons in
2012 to 23.2 per 1,000 in 2013 .
So maybe we can say that people are victimized by violent crime frequently, if not “all the time”.
The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.” The study also found that victims of violent crime had a much better outcome if they used a gun in self defense (meaning risk of serious injury or death was significantly reduced)
Quite a bit, actually, since gun control would disarm them, but not the thugs.
I’m not sure that anybody here is interested in any regime that would totally disarm responsible, law-abiding people.
There are folks here who would like to disarm criminals.
Is your claim that it is impossible to reduce the level of firearms among criminals, without also disarming non-criminals?
What makes you think drugs are a luxury good? And note guns’ lack of being potentially addictive.
I’m envisioning (and this is off topic it seems in a thread about realistic possibilities and compromise, AFAICT), an outright ban coupled with some kind of generous buyback followed by destruction. Going forward, gun possession would be criminalized, and hence production of same (and ammunition).
ISTM that having guns in that context, and especially gun (and ammo) production, is a much harder proposition than having narcotics and narcotic production and sale of same under the current system.
Moreover the repeated need to acquire additional narcotics actually leads to a kind of acquired/built-in trust in their distribution, going to see “my dealer.” I don’t see a gun equivalent there.
But, I know nothing of producing guns and ammunition so perhaps it’s much easier than I think it is.
What makes you (Brett) think drugs are a luxury good? It’s not that terribly hard to support a drug habit, and note guns’ lack of being potentially addictive.
I’m envisioning (and this is off topic it seems in a thread about realistic possibilities and compromise, AFAICT), an outright ban coupled with some kind of generous buyback followed by destruction. Going forward, gun possession would be criminalized, and hence production of same (and ammunition).
ISTM that having guns in that context, and especially gun (and ammo) production, is a much harder proposition than having narcotics and narcotic production and sale of same under the current system.
Moreover the repeated need to acquire additional narcotics actually leads to a kind of acquired/built-in trust in their distribution, going to see “my dealer.” I don’t see a gun equivalent there – repeated transactions between the end user and the distributor.
But, I know nothing of producing guns and ammunition so perhaps it’s much easier than I think it is.
Gah. I’ve got a comment in the spam trap (two, actually, but they are a repeat – and yes I’m a front-pager but I’ve never figured out how to login as the super user and clear spam, can only do that for my own posts). Russell can you fix?
“Is your claim that it is impossible to reduce the level of firearms among criminals, without also disarming non-criminals?”
Yes, pretty much that’s my claim. Criminals generally do not obey laws, they’re already connected to black markets, and regard guns as necessary tools rather than luxury goods.
I do not know how you’d go about disarming criminals, while leaving the law abiding still armed, particularly in light of the fact that the legal system doesn’t actually know who all the criminals are, just the ones who’ve already been convicted of something, meaning that many criminals are, for legal purposes, sill “law abiding”.
I just don’t see how it’s supposed to be done, and certainly haven’t heard any proposals that would plausibly disarm criminals while not seriously getting in the way of law abiding people being armed.
“I’m not sure that anybody here is interested in any regime that would totally disarm responsible, law-abiding people.”
Note Ug’s proposal. In what way is it directed at criminals, rather than the law abiding?
Note Ug’s proposal. In what way is it directed at criminals, rather than the law abiding?
It’s also not disarming anyone, just curing information asymmetry.
Perhaps I should say, though, that I don’t know how you’d go about disarming criminals, even if disarming the law abiding was considered an acceptable cost. I don’t know how you’d disarm them, period. The death penality for being caught with a gun if you have a criminal record?
“It’s also not disarming anyone, just curing information asymmetry.”
Maybe so, but it is absolutely not aimed at disarming criminals. It might not be aimed at actually completely disarming people, either. But that’s the direction it’s pointed in.
Regarding self defense surveys- there was a study a while back where researchers interviewed mass amounts of people who claimed to have used guns in self defense, and let them explain the events in their own words and from their own point of view. They eliminated outliers who claimed to have a dozen or so self defense experiences, and eliminated military and law enforcement. Then they gave the transcripts to judges for review. The conclusion was that more than half of the claimed examples of self defense were not self defense, and rather, were typically examples if the criminal use of firearms.
Don’t have the study anymore though. It was posted online, but I didn’t keep the link. Perhaps someone with better research skills could track this down?
I do not know how you’d go about disarming criminals, while leaving the law abiding still armed
Remove background check loopholes.
It would address less than 100% of the problem, and more than 0%.
I’m a pragmatic guy, that would work for me.
Gah. I’ve got a comment in the spam trap
Ugh, I’m really sorry, but I don’t have the superuser password. I just log in to Typepad as me, and I don’t know how to clear the spam trap, or if I can, from that account.
LJ? Slarti?
“There are folks here who would like to disarm criminals.
Is your claim that it is impossible to reduce the level of firearms among criminals, without also disarming non-criminals?”
Apologies for answering a question posed to someone else, but I can’t resist.
What I have seen on this thread is plenty of insinuation that all gun owners are potentially criminals. For example the notion that a guy with no criminal record, who carries, could fly off the handle in a road rage incident and shoot someone. That sort of thing.
Secondly, criminals (at least felons) and the mentally ill are allowed by law to own guns today. For that matter, if a restraining order/order of protection has been issued against you, in many states you have to surrender your guns. The laws are there, but undesirables still seem to obtain guns.
So how do they obtain the guns?
Apparently (according to just about all sources I’ve read) they get guns from family members or straw purchases (someone with no record buys the gun for the criminal). Least of all, criminals steal guns. All these methods of obtaining guns, are illegal already and can carry some heavy jail time. Yet it still happens.
So, I can see how, if you’re focusing on the surface of the problem, you’d think the only solution is to toss out the 2A and confiscate all guns because the laws are working.
My focus is on a deeper level; why do they want to make their way in life as criminal in the first place?
shoot….somehow I left out a couple of important “not”s. I guess you know where they should be.
russell – you should be able to clear spam on your own post.
Maybe so, but it is absolutely not aimed at disarming criminals.
Brett, Ugh’s comment that you cite had nothing whatsoever to do with disarming anyone. Nor was it pointed in that direction.
For example the notion that a guy with no criminal record, who carries, could fly off the handle in a road rage incident and shoot someone. That sort of thing.
That wasn’t really an insinuation, it was just an observation that people get angry and get in fights.
It wasn’t applied to gun owners in particular, it applies to everyone.
The only way it’s relevant to the gun question is that the outcome of a fight if you’re armed may include shooting.
So how do they obtain the guns?
They buy them through a private sale and thus avoid background check, or they have a straw buyer buy them, or they borrow them from somone who owns them, or they steal them.
Removing the background check loophole eliminates at least one of those, without removing lawful folks’ access to firearms.
So, I can see how, if you’re focusing on the surface of the problem, you’d think the only solution is to toss out the 2A and confiscate all guns because the laws are working.
For purposes of this thread, it will be helpful to address proposals or suggestions that folks *have actually made*, rather than any proposals that you might be able to conceive of.
Nobody that I’m aware of, on this thread or anywhere, has suggested either tossing out the 2A, or confiscating all guns.
Just as a heads up, I am probably going to close the thread for comments at about 200 comments.
The conversation has been really good so far, but I think most folks who are interested in commenting have made most of the substantive points they’d like to make.
I’m gonna get out while the getting is good.
Thanks to one and all for a thoughtful exchange!
Maybe so, but it is absolutely not aimed at disarming criminals. It might not be aimed at actually completely disarming people, either. But that’s the direction it’s pointed in.
It’s pointed at letting people know there’s a dangerous condition on the property they’re about to enter and, should the property/gun owner refuse to let people know that, imposing liability on that person for the failure.
But let’s put it this way – do you think someone who is coming on to your property (or letting their children on to your property) should know you have guns on the premises, or is it none of their business?
Well, the problem is that there is a lot of violent crime in those urban environments..
Icarus,
Can we just be a little careful about the claims that all that crime is urban thugs killing each other?
I tok a look at some of the tables on the site you link to.
In 2011 the US as awhole had a rate of 4.7 cases of murder and non-negligent manslaughter. Some state rates:
Alabama 6.3
Mississippi 8.0
Oklahoma 5.5
Kansas 3.8
Massachusetts 2.8
New York 4.0
New Jersey 4.3
Rhode Island 1.3
California 4.8
Texas 4.4
Arkansas 5.5
You can look up others, but it doesn’t look to me as if the whole “urban thugs” theory is well-supported here.
russell – you should be able to clear spam on your own post.
Ugh, I’m really sorry, but I did not see any comments from you marked as spam.
Sorry buddy!
“Nobody that I’m aware of, on this thread or anywhere, has suggested either tossing out the 2A, or confiscating all guns.”
IMO, some have been dancing on the edge of scrapping the 2A in comments on this thread. However, I will refrain from utilizing ESP and be more circumspect in my depiction of other’s position.
“The only way it’s relevant to the gun question is that the outcome of a fight if you’re armed may include shooting.”
Sure. That is an observation that is made and I have to wonder why, if it’s merely an observation as opposed to an argument, it appears here.
If an argument, then one does tend to attempt to uncover the ramifications, one of which is banning guns. After all, we don’t think there is a mandatory psychological test that would have to be taken that, upon revealing a potential to fly off the handle, would prevent gun ownership, right?
I’ve done a fair amount of research in the past on how criminals obtain guns and it seems clear that the number 1 method is the straw purchase. The private sale seems to account for a very small proportion of the problem. Any how, cut off the private sales by requiring background checks and that portion of the biz will just move over to the straw man method.
Note that Brett is also an advocate of the thug theory:
Violence in “America” isn’t a problem. Most of the country is as peaceful as you could want. It’s a localized problem, mostly having to do with organized crime and inner city gangs in areas where there is a lack of hope.
As we can see, the problem is much wider than this.
“My focus is on a deeper level; why do they want to make their way in life as criminal in the first place?”
I’m guessing that it’s a career choice that doesn’t require much in the way of education or impulse control. And is hard to get out of, once you’re in it.
“Removing the background check loophole eliminates at least one of those, without removing lawful folks’ access to firearms.”
Tell you what: Let’s make the people who actually DO want to take guns away from the law abiding a crank minority, instead of a fair percentage of the legislature. Let’s establish that gun ownership is a right so firmly that using that registration list the background check is generating for confiscating legally owned guns is a complete non-starter.
Then we can talk about measures that will achieve closer to 0% than 100% disarmiment of criminals, while easing the way for confiscation any time the political winds change for a moment.
The Lautenburg amendment took people who’d rationally decided to pay fines on misdemeanor charges, instead of incuring the cost of a trial, and decades later subjected them to the same firearm prohibition they’d have gotten from a felony conviction. As a one time ploy to disarm a fair number of people, that probably seemed clever.
But it proved pretty well that you can’t stay ‘law abiding’ by just continuously obeying the law, that some pretext could come out of the blue to disarm you. That the only real defense against confiscation, is the government not knowing what you have to confiscate.
You want to know the dirty secret about gun owners? We’re not all that law abiding when it comes to gun registration. I think most of us are criminals in that regard. I certainly was when I lived in Michigan, and am glad to be in a state where my formerly illegal guns are now legal. Gun registration laws are subject to massive civil disobedience, and we’re not going to comply with your background checks, either.
Because we don’t trust you, and I think we shouldn’t. We’ve spent too long watching the government try to violate this civil liberty.
no worries – it was a comment about how banning guns altogether is not comparable to narcotic prohibition, and thus not really on-topic anyway.
So it – the gun “problem” gets back to a matter of perception and politics.
Well, sure.
This argument has been submitted in a variety of forms on the thread. To wit,
Despite regulations, thousands die annually from “X”, so why pick on guns?
Then would it not follow that since we spend significant funds on national defense and/or law enforcement annually, and yet we still have bank robberies, drug OD’s, embezzlement, and occasional destruction of tall buildings in NYC….why even try?
Try telling somebody in NYC that 9/11 was no big deal…only a couple thousand deaths, right?
Not having read all comments (apologies), I am still persuaded by the fact that where guns are more strictly regulated (other OECD countries) there are significantly fewer gun injuries and deaths any way you care to measure it.
That the political obstacles to adoption of such policies in the US are currently insurmountable is fairly obvious.
Or how about this:
NY Gun Owners Refuse to Register En Masse
Insurmountable is right. You’re talking laws that the people you’d subject to them regard as illegitimate, and won’t obey even if you enact them.
One cannot have a rational discussion if people are assuming “bad faith” by those on the other side of the discussion.
That is what has been “dancing on the edge” throughout this post, and it has to stop, otherwise the entire exercise is pointless.
So far, so good. Too edgy.
I’m willing to presume good faith on the part of the people here, but as to the organized gun control movement, no. The presumption of good faith stands rebutted there.
That is an observation that is made and I have to wonder why, if it’s merely an observation as opposed to an argument, it appears here.
The observation came in a discussion of whether less widespread gun ownership would result in less gun violence.
The relevance of the observation is that conflicts where there is no gun are less likely to result in death than conflicts where there is a gun.
It’s just a point of fact. It’s one thing among many that need to be considered in making choices about whether, and what kind, of regulations may be applied to firearms.
There is, as Snarki notes, no need to assume an ulterior motive or bad faith.
For purposes of this thread, kindly do not.
it seems clear that the number 1 method is the straw purchase. The private sale seems to account for a very small proportion of the problem.
If that’s so, it’s a really useful piece of information, and would point to taking actions to reduce straw purchases as the best way forward, instead of requiring background checks for private sales.
Let’s make the people who actually DO want to take guns away from the law abiding a crank minority
As far as I can tell, that’s where we are now.
Because we don’t trust you, and I think we shouldn’t.
That will be a major impediment to having any kind of public conversation about the topic.
Yes, I think it’s clear that gun owners DO NOT TRUST people who are interested in introducing any kind of regulation on firearms. It’s also clear that many – not all, many – of them DO NOT TRUST the government, full stop.
There are many points on which folks who are interested in regulating firearms in some way DO NOT TRUST people who own guns. And, they have their reasons for that, including the repeated threat of violence and civil insurrection if they dare to try.
So, that’s a problem.
One thing I was hoping to get out of this discussion was to make some tiny dent in the mutual mistrust. It’s been a good thread, I think, but on that count I give it at best a C-.
Ugh, I think I got your comment out of the SPAM trap and published. Either that, or my flailing around got it deleted.
The presumption of good faith stands rebutted there.
Time to shut ‘er down. It was a good try at a nice start. Thanks, Russell.
Here’s my theory of how to create that trust:
Stop.
Just stop trying to regulate guns. For a generation or so. Accept that the efforts during the previous century or so have poisoned the well, made trust impossible, irrational to extend.
Just drop the topic, end the war on gun ownership, let peace reign for a while, tempers cool. Accept that it’s a civil liberty, that it gets treated like a civil liberty.
I said I won’t trust the gun control movement, that the presumption of good faith stands already rebutted for them. A generation of gun owners feel that way, and we’re not going to change our minds.
So just wait for us to die off, while taking care not to convince the next generation of gun owners that nobody who proposes to regulate guns can be trusted.
Not likely to happen, but that’s what it would take.
wj – you did, thanks!
Not likely to happen, but that’s what it would take.
Yes, I think you are correct that it’s not likely to happen, because many people perceive that they have an interest in there being more, or better, or stronger, public control over gun ownership and use.
In other words, there are two sides to it, and telling one side to simply stand down, full stop, is likely to be a non-starter.
You wouldn’t do it. They probably won’t, either.
OK, lights out on this one. I think we’ve just about exhausted our patience on the topic, from all directions.
Overall I’m really pleased with the general lack of rancor, many thanks for that.