The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
So, it is time to talk about [Gun Control in the United States] yet?
The Ender
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Thread created so that perhaps we can have a discussion about control control distinct from offerings of condolences & expressions of grief / shock over the live-on-camera deaths of Alison Parker & Adam Ward.
So, every year, about 10,000 people in the United States are murdered with a firearm. Overwhelmingly (about 7,000 of the offenses), handguns are weapon of choice for this deed. About 20,000 people in the United States take their own lives with a firearm in that same period of time (if the suicide rate and easy access to what is seen as a quick & effective means of committing suicide seem decoupled to you, you may want to read the relevant research).
There is at least one annual mass casualty shooting in the United States every single year, with 10 or more fatalities. After the ball drops in NYC, it's only a question of when.
At current rates, with gun homicide & gun suicide holding steady while automobile fatalities decline, death by gun is set to become the leader in unnatural causes of death in America.
Do gun control laws reduce the number of gun related deaths per year?
Even if we restrict an analysis to only the laws implemented at the state level in different parts of the United States, and control for poverty, unemployment and ethnic differences in those parts, the academic literature clearly says 'Yes, the laws have an impact'. Are current laws perfect solutions? Of course not. Will they totally eliminate all gun related tragedies? Of course not. Should 'perfect' be the enemy of 'good'? Probably also not.
Can the American guarantee of firearm ownership as a right be reconciled with gun control laws?
If we're being realistic, probably not. Not all persons should have ready access to a firearm, at least as far as public health & safety is concerned (and this does not merely extend to persons with severe mental illness; mental illness is not the only reason that an otherwise benign person can be put at risk by having access to a firearm).
The Second Amendment simply did not appreciate when it was written how military structures would form in the future, how weaponry would evolve or how unwieldy state-based military operations would become vs a larger nationalized force. It was poor policy.
I like guns! I shoot things at a range! Don't take my guns away!
Most of the gun control laws being discussed involve basically the following:
- You go and get a license for the gun or gun class you want to buy.
- You buy your gun.
- You wait out what's called a 'cool-down' period, intended to prevent people from impulsively buying a gun in a moment of personal crisis.
This may be less convenient, but nobody is going to take away your weapons or prevent you from buying a weapon (unless you don't meet the standards for being licensed, in which case, tough noogies). But, again, these policies demonstrably impact the number of gun related deaths per year, so anyone who wants to claim responsible gun ownership & respect should probably be okay with the inconvenience such policy may create.
But what about gun bans? Some people want gun bans
Some people do want gun bans, either a blanket ban or a ban of certain weapon types (and some guns or ammunition types are already banned or very heavily restricted anyway, like anything fully automatic, anything packing .50 caliber or better, anything designed to penetrate body armor or inflict massive wound damage, etc).
This is a minority of gun control proponents (although their arguments are hardly without merit), and it is not terribly reasonable to assume that reasonable gun control measures will be the slippery slope that leads to Uncle Sam marching his goons through your front door to confiscate your guns. This isn't what has happened in places like Canada, anyway, where we have cool down periods and a licensing process (and even a national gun registry program), and yet about 30~ percent of Canadian households possess firearms.
But the overall goal of these licensing schemes and control mechanisms is to have less guns around, right?
Yes. As was said earlier, it is not a good idea for many households to have easy access to firearms.
With that, I leave you with the finest piece of footage I think President Obama has left us with:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS3Fkk3IbUA
So, every year, about 10,000 people in the United States are murdered with a firearm. Overwhelmingly (about 7,000 of the offenses), handguns are weapon of choice for this deed. About 20,000 people in the United States take their own lives with a firearm in that same period of time (if the suicide rate and easy access to what is seen as a quick & effective means of committing suicide seem decoupled to you, you may want to read the relevant research).
There is at least one annual mass casualty shooting in the United States every single year, with 10 or more fatalities. After the ball drops in NYC, it's only a question of when.
At current rates, with gun homicide & gun suicide holding steady while automobile fatalities decline, death by gun is set to become the leader in unnatural causes of death in America.
Do gun control laws reduce the number of gun related deaths per year?
Even if we restrict an analysis to only the laws implemented at the state level in different parts of the United States, and control for poverty, unemployment and ethnic differences in those parts, the academic literature clearly says 'Yes, the laws have an impact'. Are current laws perfect solutions? Of course not. Will they totally eliminate all gun related tragedies? Of course not. Should 'perfect' be the enemy of 'good'? Probably also not.
Can the American guarantee of firearm ownership as a right be reconciled with gun control laws?
If we're being realistic, probably not. Not all persons should have ready access to a firearm, at least as far as public health & safety is concerned (and this does not merely extend to persons with severe mental illness; mental illness is not the only reason that an otherwise benign person can be put at risk by having access to a firearm).
The Second Amendment simply did not appreciate when it was written how military structures would form in the future, how weaponry would evolve or how unwieldy state-based military operations would become vs a larger nationalized force. It was poor policy.
I like guns! I shoot things at a range! Don't take my guns away!
Most of the gun control laws being discussed involve basically the following:
- You go and get a license for the gun or gun class you want to buy.
- You buy your gun.
- You wait out what's called a 'cool-down' period, intended to prevent people from impulsively buying a gun in a moment of personal crisis.
This may be less convenient, but nobody is going to take away your weapons or prevent you from buying a weapon (unless you don't meet the standards for being licensed, in which case, tough noogies). But, again, these policies demonstrably impact the number of gun related deaths per year, so anyone who wants to claim responsible gun ownership & respect should probably be okay with the inconvenience such policy may create.
But what about gun bans? Some people want gun bans
Some people do want gun bans, either a blanket ban or a ban of certain weapon types (and some guns or ammunition types are already banned or very heavily restricted anyway, like anything fully automatic, anything packing .50 caliber or better, anything designed to penetrate body armor or inflict massive wound damage, etc).
This is a minority of gun control proponents (although their arguments are hardly without merit), and it is not terribly reasonable to assume that reasonable gun control measures will be the slippery slope that leads to Uncle Sam marching his goons through your front door to confiscate your guns. This isn't what has happened in places like Canada, anyway, where we have cool down periods and a licensing process (and even a national gun registry program), and yet about 30~ percent of Canadian households possess firearms.
But the overall goal of these licensing schemes and control mechanisms is to have less guns around, right?
Yes. As was said earlier, it is not a good idea for many households to have easy access to firearms.
With that, I leave you with the finest piece of footage I think President Obama has left us with:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS3Fkk3IbUAWith Love and Courage
+5
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
Dragging in from the other thread
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'd like to see sweeping "soft" changes:
A buyback program. Bring in a gun, get money.
Making the sale of guns illegal, or at the very least much more restricted. I don't think this even needs to be heavily enforced, we just need guns to not be on the shelves at Walmart or whatever. Something to make them less of an everyday item.
I realize that second is still pretty far-fetched but I dunno. Might be workable in some form.
I'm personally in favor of keeping the right to have a firearm, for protection and/or hunting. Reasoning being, it makes no sense to disarm good citizens while leaving the bad ones armed. And there have been some incidents of armed citizens protecting the public from armed bad guys.
That said, the limitations described in the OP seem reasonable, and if it means less incidences of shootings (including mass shootings) then I'm on board. Where do I sign up?
Mostly filched from Wikipedia because I'm lazy, these are the categories of firearms set out by federal legislation. Consider this to be effectively the minimum, with each state having small additional restrictions and standards on top of these:
Category A: Rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles, and paintball gun. A "Genuine Reason" must be provided for a Category A firearm.
Category B: Centrefire rifles (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901. Apart from a "Genuine Reason", a "Genuine Need" must be demonstrated, including why a Category A firearm would not be suitable.
Category C: Self-loading rimfire rifles holding 10 or fewer rounds and pump-action or self-loading shotguns holding 5 or fewer rounds. Category C firearms are strongly restricted: only primary producers, occupational shooters, collectors and some clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.
Category
Category H: Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns. Neither South Australia nor Western Australia require deactivated handguns to be regarded as handguns after deactivation. This class is available to target shooters and certain security guards whose job requires possession of a firearm. To be eligible for a Category H firearm, a target shooter must serve a probationary period of 6 months using club handguns, after which they may apply for a permit. A minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun and be a paid-up member of an approved pistol club.
Replica non-functional guns are banned in most states, and suppressors are banned outside of government agencies. As a side note, seeing festival stalls in Japan selling amazingly accurate toy guns to kids was a bit of a culture shock.
These laws came about after the Port Arthur shooting, where 35 people were killed and 23 injured after a man went on a shooting rampage in Tasmania with semi-automatic rifles. This was an event that any Australian alive at the time would remember, with a massive cultural shift away from general acceptance of firearms occurring overnight. The conservative government of the day moved fairly quickly to enact these laws, which were met with popular approval, and a buyback scheme implemented to remove the existing body of firearms (since confiscation of property without just compensation is against the constitution).
Today, people still do own firearms in Australia. Sports shooting clubs allow range shooting, either with club guns or with privately-owned guns. In general, to own a gun for sports shooting, one needs a license and a secure method of storage (which basically come down to a safe secured to concrete, with inspectors having a look before approving it). This is not exactly cheap, but I know a couple of people who shoot as a hobby and do so fine, and have been tempted from time to time to take it up myself. Other people owning firearms tend to be farmers needing them against pests such as rabbits, who are again subject to the same restrictions.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
This seems perfectly reasonable to me. But I'm not a gun owner, so maybe there's something I am missing outside of "I like to shoot guns"
As someone who was initially on board with the idea of limitations on magazine capacity, re-examination of the idea caused me to just drop it. I mean, to an extent, the argument was, "Okay, we will accept that mass shootings occur, but hope that the shooter has to reload often enough that they can be jumped,"
Which is just kind of dumb.
So, yeah. Overall licensing systems & cool off periods are what I like to aim for.
...And I'm really surprised at the number of people on board with the idea. Like, @mcdermott is board? Really?
Perhaps there is more political capital here than the pessimists suggest.
I don't really think that protection is a real issue, you're just increasing the easy availability of guns for the bad guys (who can either use their own 'protective' guns or just use stolen ones), making it more likely that the bad guys will have guns and starting any confrontation with a bad guy at a lethal level, where backing down may well get one of you killed. If the gun is stored safely or in any way responsibly its not like you're going to be starting on an even footing with an armed bad guy assuming you both have an equal chance of becoming aware of the other (as opposed to you being asleep, or focused on an activity other than mugging or burglary).
Anecdotal stories of armed bystanders preventing a tradegy are probably not going to wildy outnumber the times unarmed bystanders did (such as the French train this week, or when a bystander calls the police after noticing something suspicious).
You might feel better with one, but you're not safer with people having guns for protection.
I find this argument problematic on a few levels.
First, the idea that there are 'good guys' and 'bad guys' and we don't want the bad guys to have exclusive access to firearms, ergo we should let everyone have access to firearms. Most people exist on a spectrum in terms of their attitudes & behavior, and in fact can shift on that spectrum from a day to day basis.
Second, the idea that villains will simply acquire their guns via theft anyway. Police tend to notice things like theft of firearms, and so this already gives a community early warning that someone who shouldn't have weaponry now has it, and give law enforcement a chance to step in before said person can commit a shooting. Theft is also a barrier to entry; many people will be unable to succeed at stealing a weapon for themselves, and many more will consider the act to be too risky or too much effort whereas buying the gun wouldn't be (again, many instance of gun violence happen on impulse in a moment of crisis on the part of the shooter).
Nbsp challenged me on it via PM, which he has a right to do. And it was a tangent from the thread topic, I admit it.
But I want to clarify where I was coming from with that post (besides mocking NRA bullshit).
I don't oppose private firearms ownership or concealed carry laws. However, I think that the average untrained (or minimally-trained) civilian has a far lower chance of using a gun successfully in self-defense than the NRA portrays. I believe the evidence that says that both carrying a gun on your person and keeping one in the home increase risk rather than decrease it...
...but I think that can be largely ameliorated by proper training and licensing. To give an example how not to do it, California hunter's safety courses (necessary for a hunting permit, not for firearms ownership) involve 10 hours of classroom instruction in firearms safety. No hands-on experience required at all. New York handgun licensing requires four hours of classroom instruction. Hands-on training is limited to cleaning and maintenance, no shooting experience required.
That strikes me as irresponsible.
I don't know if requiring extensive hands-on training for firearms ownership is Constitutionally-permissible in the District of Columbia v Heller era. I'm certain it's permissible for carry permits and I see nothing wrong requiring extensive training not just in firearms safety but in tactics and, hell if I can have my whole Dear Santa list, conflict resolution. In a bona fide massacre or terrorism situation, I don't want some undisciplined gun nut of unknown level of skill waving around a gun of unknown quality and maintenance. But if a decorated ex-Marine who passed a psych eval and goes target shooting and cleans his gun every week wants to concealed carry, I'm okay with that.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yep.
Additionally, theft requires premeditation, which many shootings do not involve. A stereotypical abusive spouse who shoots their victim in a moment of anger isn't necessarily going to steal a gun. (Without a gun, they might turn to a blunt instrument or blade. Run subroutine StupidArgumentAboutWhetherKnivesAreMoreDangerousThanGuns(); )
(The output of that subroutine is always "no they are fucking not, shut up.")
Looking at it as a public health issue, theft is also a function of availability. Fewer guns; fewer households with guns; that's fewer guns to steal. Reduce the overall prevalence of guns in the home, and you reduce thefts.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
If taken at her word here, it does seem she wants to make this a thing we work on in this country.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
As someone who is a firearm & general weapons platform enthusiast, albeit one who thinks that such things belong nowhere near civilian hands, I use the popularity of the Glock as my face-value barometer for how prepared the general population is for gun ownership.
The Glock is a piece of shit, with a wholly undeserved reputation due to it's portrayal in film (largely because it's an easy gun to make a replica of, because the gun is a plastic piece of shit). But everyone wants one, because everyone also has no idea what a headache they are getting into because they don't know jack shit about firearms or weaponry in general.
So, yeah. Licensing requirements with subsidized classroom time, cool down periods, and possibly a mandatory foam bat mechanism that automatically slaps people upside the head every time they enter a store and say, "I would like to buy a Glock,"
Off the top of my head, there are a nontrivial number of people who carry for protection from large, angry wildlife, or who like to hunt the same (or even not-so-angry wildlife).
Just about anything they're going to be using is going to fall into Category D in the above schema. Just about the only thing out there in common usage that I know of, that's still rimfire, is .22 ammunition. (EDIT: Some small shotgun ammunition, too, maybe? Bird loads / varmint loads?) That's great for target shooting, but I wouldn't want to hunt anything actually edible with it. I'm pretty sure that shooting a bear with a .22 will only make it angry.
Most bird-hunting shotguns look like they're going to be Category C, which is also fairly heavily restricted.
If you're hunting deer, for instance, you're probably doing it with a centerfire round and you want to have more than one shot quickly available, in case your first shot doesn't kill the animal. So a class B weapon is not ideal.
Apart from the physical aspects, the other major objection to schemes like the above is the definitions of "Genuine Reason" and "Genuine Need." Already, in gun-permissive America, we've seen states that have laws re: concealed carry, for instance, where they "may issue" licenses. Someone in power at the state says, "Yes, we may issue licenses, but we choose not to. Sorry!" C.f. Washington, D.C., and their "You can totally get a gun but only with a particular stamp and we just won't ever stamp your permit" kind of thing.
So, all it takes is someone at the top to decide that they're going to enforce their particular vision of "Genuine Need / Reason" and suddenly everyone's 2nd Amendment rights are being taken away (maybe "suppressed" is a better word?) without due process.
And that's the sort of thing that makes lawful gun owners worried, and unwilling to sign on with otherwise reasonable-sounding restrictions.
I don't own a gun, I don't anticipate ever owning a gun. I have a couple friends who are hunters and go target shooting at their lake house, though.
I just get a little leery when people want to start taking away rights - especially when those who argue most stridently for it (not necessarily here, mind you) have no skin in the game.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
I think it's possible, because the political capital is clearly available. Gun enthusiasts also, by and large, feel that licensing requirements and cool off period are reasonable. Ergo, in my opinion, legislative movements with those issues have a chance at passing & making an impact. @So It Goes mentioned in the WDBJ7 thread that we should not be defeatist, and I agree with that; this is precisely what the NRA wants to cultivate - an outlook that they cannot be stopped, so why bother even trying?
I think everyone for more gun regulation consider themselves as having skin in the game.
If you are going to have laws as permissible as the US's you need to have at least *some* mandatory training. You may need to make private sales illegal, or police monitored as in the UK in order to achieve this.
As for criminals still having guns. I was under the impression that most guns used in crimes started life as a legal gun. Does anyone have any info on this?
About 10% of gun crimes use stolen weapons. So, yes, most of contemporary gun crimes use legally bought weapons. I can't find data for gun suicides, but I think it's safe to presume the figure for stolen guns would be even lower.
@Suriko , do you happen to have an example on hand of what Australian law considers a "Genuine Reason" and "Genuine Need" ?
It is incorrect to say that cars are more deadly than guns. The big aspect that makes an action or item deadly is not simply how many people die or how many of the dangerous items exist, but how often people die relative to the use.
Cars do pretty well on this(ditto swimmers i think). Per hour spent using cars very very few people die.
Per hour spent using guns (for hunting, or protection or whatnot) lots and lots and lots of people die. And this would be counting a person who concealed carries as "using" a gun 8+ hours a day. Estimates of driving time is about 90 to 100 minutes of driving per person per day in the U.S. [this does cover passenger stats i believe]
If every concealed handgun permit in the United States carried their gun for 16 hours a day, every day then Americans would "use" guns about 35 minutes a day on average.
I propose that such a usage number is ridiculously high. And that because of this suggesting that "cars are more risky than guns" is patently ridiculous. As is many other things for which the comparison is made.
There isn't an animal in North America that can't be dealt with using either a double-barreled shotgun or a bolt-action rifle. Keep those legal, and you've given the public the tools to deal with pretty much any situation from home invader to rampaging polar bear.
If things get hairier than that, it's time for them to call the law. And if they can't, well I doubt there's much chance an Uzi would have saved them.
This PDF from NSW Police covers it, and has some additional information on the process. EDIT: Another page here from WA Police.
Genuine Need gets tricky, varying based on the firearm category, and is on a much more discretionary basis. Best bet for that is the legislation itself. In general it's a matter of arguing why you need a firearm beyond the category that usually applies for the purpose, and hoping the argument satisfies the Commissioner.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
And that is why I think you are wrong about what you can pass.
Because that is the exact shit mcdermott is talking about when he mentions "may issue" jurisdictions and that stuff pisses off gun owners and potential gun owners.
That will not fly in the US outside of blue states. So long as I am not precluded from owning a gun because of a mental issue or a previous violation of the law I don't have to give you a reason for exercising my constitutional right to own a firearm.
Why do I need to own a gun? Fuck you for asking because it's none of your goddamn business.
I said I thought it was reasonable, not that I thought it would be the appropriate framework to attempt to establish in the U.S.
Also, I don't agree that it's 'none of [the state's] goddamn business' as to why you would want a firearm. It's a public safety concern, and that is very much in the state's wheelhouse.
I'd be fine with more restrictions.
What if someone has had zero training with a gun?
What if someone has recently committed crimes but not yet been convicted?
What if someone is openly part of a hate group calling for genocide of another group?
Those alone seem like pretty good reasons to be concerned as to why someone is buying a gun. I don't doubt there are plenty of other reasons too those are just off the top of my head.
Cars are a shitty comparison (for anti-gun legislation folks) for a couple other reasons as well:
1. We have VINs on each car and we track ownership/registration/address at a state level
2. 49 states require insurance in order to own and operate a motor vehicle (WTF NH? Live free or die is pretty much it)
3. All states require passing both written and operational tests in order to legally drive
4. All operators must obtain and maintain licensing
5. Operators and non-involved owners can be held legally liable for the pain/suffering caused as a result of the ownership/maintenance/use of said vehicle regardless of intent to injure
6. Etc...
Give me this for gun ownership and I won't care if you have a howitzer (is that's gun? I think it is)
I am specifically talking about the state deciding I need to give a satisfactory reason for exercising my constitutional right.
I don't have a problem with required training, or a background check, or a waiting period, but I as a black man who knows the history of this country am very uncomfortable with the state getting to have an extra hurdle before I get to exercise my rights.
Guess what, Australia? If the apocalypse comes and you have to fight hordes of radscorpions, you're screwed.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Why do you need a job?
Why do you need a house?
Why do you need a car?
Why do you need a retirement account?
I mean, the government gets all kinds of information from you for all sorts of things. Apparently guns are sacred, though? Why is that? What sets apart guns from all the other things you have to fill out government forms for?