Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 08 Nov 2017, 2:57 pm

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Fate,

Please do me a favor. I liked what Bbauska had to offer. I'm not hip to the death penalty but the harsh penalties he laid out I can live with for sure. Thank you BB.

The favor is this....can you outline for me a plan for gun control that could be implemented on the national level that would walk between the raindrops of the various positions out there and be something both sides could live with? It would have to be an improvement on what we currently have in place but still respect a citizen's right to a gun for hunting, sports and self defense.

I know my strengths and having anything of depth on this topic to offer is not one of them.


If by "both sides," you mean the NRA and the gun confiscators, no.

I believe a large-scale education needs to take place. For example, there is a chasm of difference between "semi-automatic" and "automatic." Also, "open carry" does not mean people are not responsible for their actions. We have more deaths via vehicles than we have murders by guns, yet no one is suggesting we ban cars.

Guns are not the problem. Let me quote a friend and Dip player (and a libertarian):

The United States has always been awash in firearms, since long before the establishment of the nation or the writing of the 2nd amendment. Historically, firearms have been a common household tool for both hunting and self-defense, and as late as the mid-20th century, school children would often bring their firearms to school with them, as many would end their days with hunting or marksmanship training. Yet, despite the availability and number of firearms in the nation, mass shootings of the modern type are a relatively new phenomenon. That’s not to say that there weren’t mass shootings historically, but up until the 1960’s or so, mass shootings were relatively rare, and tended to be familicides or felony-related killings (there was a “modern” mass shooting in New Jersey in 1949, but that was against neighbors with whom the shooter had issues). The first generally recognized modern-style mass shooting in a public place against unknown bystanders with the goal of a high body count was the UT Tower shooting which killed 18 and wounded 31 in 1966. The next of these types of shootings didn’t occur until the 1980’s, but have been increasingly occurring since then.
In order to understand the causes and effectively address the problem, the first question we need to ask is; what’s changed? Access to firearms by Americans has not significantly changed, with the exception that since the 1930’s access to fully automatic weapons has been severely restricted, and their production for private sales was banned in 1986. Guns themselves haven’t changed much, either … there hasn’t been a significant innovation in firearms since World War II. So, what has changed?
There are two things that are significantly different in the modern era that may be contributors to the mass shooter epidemic that we currently face. The first is deinstitutionalization and increased reliance on psychiatric drugs. In 1955, nearly 600,000 Americans (out of a population of 165 million) were institutionalized for psychiatric care. That year, the first real anti-psychotic, Chlorpromazine (Thorazine), was introduced, starting the policy of deinstitutionalization aimed at replacing long-stay psychiatric hospital stays with community-based alternatives. By 1998, the institutionalized population in the United States had been reduced to just over 57,000 (out of a population of 275 million). Today, according to a 2013 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 1 in 6 Americans takes some kind of psychiatric drug … that’s 54 million people; 90 times more people than were institutionalized in 1955, in a population that is only twice as large. This includes early and significant medication of children; a situation that many in the mental health field consider a crisis of over-medication. All during the period of deinstitutionalization, where the numbers of institutionalized people were reduced, while the promised community-based alternatives were either under-funded or non-existent.
A second difference between modern America and the past is the rise of mass media and the 24-hour news cycle. Tragedies and disasters are no longer regional events, but are pumped into our consciousness relentlessly by infotainment news media that exploits such events for ratings. Today, a disturbed loner who feels isolated and unseen can become an instant anti-celebrity with a few pulls of the trigger.
As I said at the start, correlation is not causation. But we should be mindful and cautious about any infringement on Constitutionally-guaranteed rights; even those with which we may not agree. If our right to bear arms is threatened by emotions or majority opinions, then all of our rights … speech, assembly, trial by jury … are equally threatened. In light of that, any calls for restricting gun rights should be backed up by accurate knowledge and reasonable assurance that it will have the desired impact. Today’s arguments are often based in ignorance, with no agreed upon definition of what constitutes a “mass shooting,” and made up terms like “assault weapon” being thrown around as though they had any useful meaning. Calls for more laws and restrictions are made with no regard for whether or not they would actually solve anything (the so-called “assault weapon” ban only bans a small number of rifles which are functionally no different than other rifles that would not be banned, and rifles only account for less than 3% of the shootings in America in the first place), and often ignorant of the fact that the laws being called for are actually already on the books (at least 3 existing federal laws were broken or disregarded in the recent Texas shooting, including existing laws that I’ve seen Facebook petitions calling for as though they don't already exist). Other commonly floated ideas are to treat firearms like cars, requiring testing, licensing, and insurance ... but this ignores the fact that firearms ownership is a Constitutionally-protected right, while driving is a legal privilege. We would have to repeal the 2nd amendment before that would even be feasible ... and lets not forget that even with the licensing, testing, and insurance, cars kill more Americans than guns do. Before we restrict Constitutional rights, aren’t we obligated to a) know what we’re talking about, and b) show some evidence that the restriction called for will have the desired effect (and doesn't already exist)?
One more time, correlation is not causation; but if we are serious about ending mass shootings in America, doesn’t it make sense to consider all possible causes? The way the media deals with mass shootings, and the effects of deinstitutionalization and the rise of the use of anti-psychotic medications, seem to me to be reasonable things to look at in addition to the access to guns argument.


I'm not open to much, tbh. Ban bumpstocks. Fine. The rest of the suggestions I've seen so far won't help. In fact, I think more open carry and more education would be much better.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 08 Nov 2017, 3:43 pm

NRA+gun fetish+more social disconnectedness+internet+15 minutes of fame+copycat=causes

I don't buy this mental illness stuff/people are overly medicated as being the main cause. That's a reach. Guns are more powerful. The NRA and the gun industry make money off of selling them. There are a lot of people who like guns not for protection from burglars but because they like the power of guns. People who hunt or want to protect their families...don't need semi-automatic assault rifles with 30 round clips.

I don't know what you can with the fact that people can interact with the internet through their phone rather than real people and that creates disconnections between people. It's one thing for someone to shoot someone because of a grudge; it's quite another to shoot a bunch of innocent people. You really have to not feel connections to other people to do that. And then a gun nut knows he will be famous if he shoots enough people. So you have that got kind of "reality TV syndrome" where everyone needs to be famous.

And I have certainly run into people who have an unnatural attachment to guns. That's the gun fetish part of it. That sub-set of people who own guns are never, ever going to agree to any gun control, no matter how valid the reasons are. (By the way, I'm not implying that DF belongs to that group of people).

With Trump and Republicans in control on Congress...there is no real point in talking about this stuff. We're just going to aggravate one another. Want to talk about abortion too?
Last edited by freeman3 on 08 Nov 2017, 3:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 08 Nov 2017, 3:44 pm

Fate
We have more deaths via vehicles than we have murders by guns, yet no one is suggesting we ban cars.


So why are you comparing only murders by guns and not all deaths caused by gunfire? In 2013, there were 33,636 Americans killed by guns versus 33, 782 fatal crashes.
In 2017???


Cars keep getting safer. Because of sane sensible regulation that restricts some people from driving, restricts certain kinds of vehicles from roads, makes manufacturers make cars safer to operate and capable of protecting passengers better...
To own and operate a car a person must be of a certain age, be insured, pass a drivers test, register the car, pay a yearly licensing fee for the car and for the operating license. Since 1972 when the US had 26 deaths in car crashes per 100,000 people cars have become safer and safer. In 2016 the deaths per 100,000 people is down to 11.59.
In 2017 the gun deaths per 100,000 is 12.0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... S._by_year
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/04/us/g ... rates.html


This isn't an experiment. Its actual experience of making vehicle operation safer . If exactly the same kinds of regulations were enforced on guns and gun ownership ..... the same kind of decline would be seen over time.
So; eliminate weapons not intended for sport or personal protection. (The same way cars designed for racing are not allowed on streets) Eliminate personal ownership of weapons designed for combat ...
Allow ownership of weapons only by adults, who are licensed and have passed a rigorous exam on the safe operation of firearms. Maintain a national list of fire arms restricted persons. Including on this any persons with a conviction for domestic violence.
Firearms sales should only occur when a licensed retailer has a certified clearance of each purchaser, their insurance certificate and their ownership license. Retailers that fail to certify each sale are fined, and if the situation is repeated on more than 4 occasion have their license to sell revoked.
Persons who are found to be carrying a weapon must produce their licenses. If not their guns are
confiscated. They are charged with an offence of failure to carry required documentation. If they become repeat offenders, their license to own a firearm is revoked and all firearms confiscated.
This is similar to what brought down car deaths.
Plus .... insurance companies making money from gun ownership insurance will certainly push incentives for safer guns... Just as law suits and insurance settlements pushed for safer cars...
Nothing suggested here, is anything particularly onerous if compared to what car drivers/owners currently have to do.
Now, if you make the argument that car driving is a privilege and gun ownership is a right....
Do remember that society has a right to restrict the rights of people where the exercise of those rights encroach on others rights or on public safety. You can't hide behind the 1st amendment if you've yelled "fire" in a crowd, falsely..
The 2nd amendment does refer to a "well regulated" militia.

Bbauska what good does the death penalty do? Almost every one of these mass shooters is looking to die when they set their plans in motion. Even the ones who aren't killed by police shoot themselves... The deterrence value is zilch.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 08 Nov 2017, 3:48 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
We have more deaths via vehicles than we have murders by guns, yet no one is suggesting we ban cars.


So why are you comparing only murders by guns and not all deaths caused by gunfire? In 2013, there were 33,636 Americans killed by guns versus 33, 782 fatal crashes.
In 2017???


Cars keep getting safer. Because of sane sensible regulation that restricts some people from driving, restricts certain kinds of vehicles from roads, makes manufacturers make cars safer to operate and capable of protecting passengers better...
To own and operate a car a person must be of a certain age, be insured, pass a drivers test, register the car, pay a yearly licensing fee for the car and for the operating license. Since 1972 when the US had 26 deaths in car crashes per 100,000 people cars have become safer and safer. In 2016 the deaths per 100,000 people is down to 11.59.
In 2017 the gun deaths per 100,000 is 12.0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... S._by_year
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/04/us/g ... rates.html


This isn't an experiment. Its actual experience of making vehicle operation safer . If exactly the same kinds of regulations were enforced on guns and gun ownership ..... the same kind of decline would be seen over time.
So; eliminate weapons not intended for sport or personal protection. (The same way cars designed for racing are not allowed on streets) Eliminate personal ownership of weapons designed for combat ...
Allow ownership of weapons only by adults, who are licensed and have passed a rigorous exam on the safe operation of firearms. Maintain a national list of fire arms restricted persons. Including on this any persons with a conviction for domestic violence.
Firearms sales should only occur when a licensed retailer has a certified clearance of each purchaser, their insurance certificate and their ownership license. Retailers that fail to certify each sale are fined, and if the situation is repeated on more than 4 occasion have their license to sell revoked.
Persons who are found to be carrying a weapon must produce their licenses. If not their guns are
confiscated. They are charged with an offence of failure to carry required documentation. If they become repeat offenders, their license to own a firearm is revoked and all firearms confiscated.
This is similar to what brought down car deaths.
Plus .... insurance companies making money from gun ownership insurance will certainly push incentives for safer guns... Just as law suits and insurance settlements pushed for safer cars...
Nothing suggested here, is anything particularly onerous if compared to what car drivers/owners currently have to do.
Now, if you make the argument that car driving is a privilege and gun ownership is a right....
Do remember that society has a right to restrict the rights of people where the exercise of those rights encroach on others rights or on public safety. You can't hide behind the 1st amendment if you've yelled "fire" in a crowd, falsely..
The 2nd amendment does refer to a "well regulated" militia.

Bbauska what good does the death penalty do? Almost every one of these mass shooters is looking to die when they set their plans in motion. Even the ones who aren't killed by police shoot themselves... The deterrence value is zilch.


Shut up.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 08 Nov 2017, 3:55 pm

freeman3 wrote:NRA+gun fetish+more social disconnectedness+internet+15 minutes of fame+copycat=causes

I don't buy this mental illness stuff/people are overly medicated as being the main cause. That's a reach. Guns are more powerful. The NRA and the gun industry make money off of selling them. There are a lot of people who like guns not for protection from burglars but because they like the power of guns. People who hunt or want to protect their families...don't need semi-automatic assault rifles with 30 round clips.


Why are liberals always so quick to dismiss:

1. Mental illness. In most mass shootings, this has been a major factor. Of the causes or contributing causes we can nail down, this is way up there.

2. Freedom. How many lives would be saved by smaller magazines? Really. How many? Prove it.

3. The effect of media. As the author noted, America has always been awash in guns. Why have mass shootings become so prevalent in the last 30 years?

I don't know what you can with the fact that people can interact with the internet through their phone rather than real people and that creates disconnections between people. It's one thing for someone to shoot someone because of a grudge; it's quite another to shoot a bunch of innocent people. You really have to not feel connections to other people to do that. And then a gun nut knows he will be famous if he shoots enough people. So you have that got kind of "reality TV syndrome" where everyone needs to be famous.


And yet you "don't buy this mental illness stuff/people are overly medicated as being the main cause." This need to be famous is what? Normal?

And I have certainly run into people who have an unnatural attachment to guns. That's the gun fetish part of it. That sub-set of people who own guns are never, ever going to agree to any gun control, no matter how valid the reasons are. (By the way, I'm not implying that DF belongs to that group of people).


That's good. Up to this point, I've never bought a gun. I am, however, a lifetime member of the NRA. I believe the Second Amendment is a good thing.

With Trump and Republicans in control on Congress...there is no real point in talking about this stuff. We're just going to aggravate one another. Want to talk about abortion too?


Just wait until there's a liberal President and Democratic majorities in both Houses! Why, then we'll get real "experiments" on guns!

Wait. Why didn't that happen?
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 09 Nov 2017, 11:04 am

Freeman, it sounds as if you don't have much experience in dealing with folks who are experiencing mental illness. It is a hellova thing and still not entirely understood. I agree with Fate that of all the arguments out there for gun control, restrictions for those who are diagnosed should be at the top of the list.

Here's an idea I thought of and perhaps it already exists on the books....

Can someone purchase a gun if s/he hasn't paid personal property tax? All the talk about cars got me thinking about the various documents one needs in order to be able to drive a car.

It seems reasonable to expect that someone desiring to own a gun should be a tax payer with a history of paying their taxes. That person should also be required to have a picture ID and an address as well.

And here's an idea for you to have a heart attack over Fate. What if we required a family member to co-sign for the person desiring to purchase a gun? That person would act as a witness to the person's mental stability. What would this accomplish? I don't know. But it would be a step toward cutting down on the secrecy that seems to surround the "lone gunner." It would call upon the family/community to be more responsible for one another. It wouldn't stop someone dead set on hurting others but why not try it and see what happens?

Again, maybe all of this is already in place? I don't know. I don't own a gun.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 09 Nov 2017, 11:51 am

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Freeman, it sounds as if you don't have much experience in dealing with folks who are experiencing mental illness. It is a hellova thing and still not entirely understood. I agree with Fate that of all the arguments out there for gun control, restrictions for those who are diagnosed should be at the top of the list.


Aurora, Colorado.
Newtown, Rhode Island
Texas church shooting

How many others are, at their root, mental health issues?

Here's an idea I thought of and perhaps it already exists on the books....

Can someone purchase a gun if s/he hasn't paid personal property tax? All the talk about cars got me thinking about the various documents one needs in order to be able to drive a car.

It seems reasonable to expect that someone desiring to own a gun should be a tax payer with a history of paying their taxes. That person should also be required to have a picture ID and an address as well.


I'm not sure this is a reasonable or workable restriction on the rights of gun owners.

And here's an idea for you to have a heart attack over Fate. What if we required a family member to co-sign for the person desiring to purchase a gun? That person would act as a witness to the person's mental stability. What would this accomplish? I don't know. But it would be a step toward cutting down on the secrecy that seems to surround the "lone gunner." It would call upon the family/community to be more responsible for one another. It wouldn't stop someone dead set on hurting others but why not try it and see what happens?


I'm not sure this is reasonable or workable either. Family has a bias, so do most people. People tend to be pro-gun or anti-gun. There are very few genuinely "neutral" on the issue.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 09 Nov 2017, 12:13 pm

That wasn't my point, Dags. DF's friend was offering an explanation that this surge in mass killings might be due to deinstitionalization and more people taking psychiatric drugs. And I was skeptical of that explanation. But I certainly do not have any problem restricting people from buying guns who have a diagnosed mental illness. Let's not pretend that will solve the problem, however. The guy in Vegas was not diagnosed. Here is an opinion from a psychiatrist about it.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ump-215807

There are more guns out there. More guns are being made, more guns have been sold.Fewer households have guns, meaning those who have guns...have more of them. Fewer people are hunting.

https://www.npr.org/2016/01/05/46201746 ... he-numbers

More applications to buy guns in 2016 than ever before.

https://www.google.com/amp/freebeacon.c ... story/amp/

According to this article, the gun industry has focused on marketing military style weapons to increase profits.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/militarization.pdf

Smith & Wesson noted that there is a 500 million market for assault rifles. They use the euphemism "modern sporting rifle".
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/1 ... erica.html

There a lot more guns than there were 30 years ago. Much more of the guns being sold are particularly lethal guns. This is part of the equation. By the way, the NRA has lobbied since 1975

What is causing people to go out and do these mass shootings is a tough question, particularly since so few do it. How can you come up with a rational explanation for why 1 out of ten million or one out of 50 million do something? We can conjecture but that's about it.

But I suspect part of it--again conjecture--is the feeling of power that comes from having such powerful guns. I don't think that guy in Vegas or the guy in Texas would have tried to do what they did unless they had weapons that could put out an awful lot of bullets in a short period of time. And these weapons are all over the place nowadays. And they weren't 30 years ago.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 09 Nov 2017, 12:26 pm

freeman3 wrote:That wasn't my point, Dags. DF's friend was offering an explanation that this surge in mass killings might be due to deinstitionalization and more people taking psychiatric drugs. And I was skeptical of that explanation.

There are more guns out there. More guns are being made, more guns have been sold.Fewer households have guns, meaning those who have guns...have more of them. Fewer people are hunting.

https://www.npr.org/2016/01/05/46201746 ... he-numbers

More applications to buy guns in 2016 than ever before.


And, more people in the US than ever before.

And, fewer mental health centers because funding has dried up.

According to this article, the gun industry has focused on marketing military style weapons to increase profits.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/militarization.pdf

Smith & Wesson noted that there is a 500 million market for assault rifles. They use the euphemism "modern sporting rifle".
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/1 ... erica.html

There a lot more guns than there were 30 years ago. Much more of the guns being sold are particularly lethal guns. This is part of the equation. By the way, the NRA has lobbied since 1975


Sorry, but this is not a serious approach. No gun has ever killed a person without a person first loading the gun, then pulling the trigger. People are the problem.

Semi-automatic weapons which are black and plastic are not more lethal than those which are "silver" and wood. In other words, appearance does not make them more deadly.

What is causing people to go out and do these mass shootings is a tough question, particularly since so few do it. How can you come up with a rational explanation for why 1 out of ten million or one out of 50 million do something? We can conjecture but that's about it.

But I suspect part of it--again conjecture--is the feeling of power that comes from having such powerful guns. I don't think that guy in Vegas or the guy in Texas would have tried to do what they did unless they had weapons that could put out an awful lot of bullets in a short period of time. And these weapons are all over the place nowadays. And they weren't 30 years ago.


The suspicion about the shooter in Vegas is that he snapped after losing a lot. However, he was a loner and not socially-adept before the shooting. I think that is the common theme: people on the fringe of society trying to show that they "matter."

The bump-stock is what let the Vegas madman do so much damage. Go ahead. Ban it.

The problem with all these "bans" is that we are reaching a point wherein technology (3-D printers and the like) will render all weapons bans immaterial.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 09 Nov 2017, 12:27 pm

Shocking news. Countries with the highest rate of gun ownership...have the highest rate of mass shootings! Who would have thought it?

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/w ... ump-215807
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 09 Nov 2017, 12:31 pm

freeman3 wrote:Shocking news. Countries with the highest rate of gun ownership...have the highest rate of mass shootings! Who would have thought it?

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/w ... ump-215807


Yeah, that's a glaring insight.

Thanks so much for it.

Go ahead. Repeal the Second Amendment.

Good luck!
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 09 Nov 2017, 12:39 pm

More guns=more people die from guns
More guns=more mass shootings

It's really quite simple for the most part. We pay a lot for our guns.
Last edited by freeman3 on 09 Nov 2017, 1:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 09 Nov 2017, 12:54 pm

freeman3 wrote:More guns=more people die from guns
More guns=more mass shootings

It's really quite simple for the most part. We pay a lot for our guns.


1. Please. Name all the non-family mass shootings before Texas tower incident.

2. Note well: you've failed to present "experimental" ideas that would help, which was Dag's point. Instead, you've presented nothing but talking points.

3. Please give me one law that would have prevented any of these shootings.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 09 Nov 2017, 12:56 pm

fate
Fate
Sorry, but this is not a serious approach. No gun has ever killed a person without a person first loading the gun, then pulling the trigger. People are the problem


And this is not a serious answer.
Its not people who are the problem.
Its people with guns..
.
If you are serious about keeping people with mental problems away from guns, how do you do that?
And how do you ensure that all the gun owners retain their sanity after they originally qualify for ownership?
The only way is a comprehensive system like the one that exists for cars, drivers and automobile ownership.
Anything less than that is lip service. I'm sure your thoughts and prayers go out to all the victims too.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 09 Nov 2017, 1:07 pm

If guns are the problem...then what can be done? Get rid of guns that are too lethal, get rid of large capacity magazines, put limits on how many guns can be bought. Any other answer is not likely to work.

https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9217163/a ... uns-europe

Otherwise, just accept the fact that we are going to have thousands of more people killed by guns than other western countries due to our gun culture. It does seem particularly reprehensible that this gun culture is being driven in part by gun manufacturers and the NRA making money off of making our society more lethal.