What is better, no guns, or more guns?

[SoCal Deek]

10 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Oh so you want more specific talking points?    BTW I've seen nothing from you either.  You're free anytime you like to list your specific proposals.  

 

Ok here you go.

 

1.  A universal background check instead of state by state.  You asked for who?  Anyone purchasing a weapon.  Any future weapon purchases.  And must be renewed bi-annually.  The process?

     A.  Criminal Background.  Any violent felonies equals immediate decline

     B.  Mental health background check.  I'm not in a position to determine what specific mental illnesses should be looked at but I'd look at schizophrenia and major depression.  You have major depression you'll likely be denied life insurance.  Why?  You go off your meds you are a candidate for suicides.  We want to reduce those too don't we?

     C.  A weapons course certificate before applying.  Renewed bi-annually in order to renew permit.  

2.  Scan of all social media posts via an AI system that will need to be developed for red flags.  Once permit is issued the scan is reran constantly.  This shouldn't be hard to develop.   Hell TikTok's AI is freaky accurate.  

 

That's a start.  Feel free to add anything.  Or you can continue to B word.  

 

I’ve made a very specific suggestion multiple times on here. I want them to raise the age to purchase any firearm to 21. Simple, done. 

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

Chef….by page 353….we should be beyond talking points. I’d like to hear more specific proposals. Like, what kind of background checks and for who and when? 

 

Here were some things I suggested several pages ago:

• License and regulate guns like we do automobiles

• National red flag laws

• Repeal PLCCA

• Safe storage laws

Also, I find this article helpful on understanding some of the facts around gun violence and possible ways to mitigate it: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/06/opinion/how-to-reduce-shootings.html 

 

For those who may not have access, here are some highlights (stats are from 2017):

• America has ~120 guns per 100 people, far more than other advanced countries like Canada (34.7), Switzerland (27.6) or England (4.6)
• America has 3.4 gun murders per 100,000 people, much more than peer countries like Canada (0.6), France (0.4) or Switzerland (0.2)
• There is a correlation between the prevalence of guns in a state and the rate of gun deaths. More guns means more gun deaths
• There is also a correlation between how heavily regulated guns are in a state and the state's gun death rate. States with stricter regulations have lower rates of gun deaths
• Causes of gun deaths in 2016:
  • 22,000: Suicide
  • 11,760: Homicide
  • 589: Self defense (good guy with a gun scenario)
  • 456: Mass shootings
  • 3,500: Other or uncategorized
• When Connecticut passed stricter gun laws in 1995, the rate of gun homicides went down by 40% and the rate of gun suicides went down by 15%
• When Missouri repealed its licensing requirement in 2007, the rate of gun homicides went up 25% and the rate of gun suicides went up 16%
• The CDC barely studies gun violence despite how many Americans die via guns. When they wanted to, Congress cut their funding. Having good scientific research into firearm deaths would help identify better solutions to the problem.
• NRA training, which used to focus almost entirely on safety, now promote NRA talking points

Some things the author suggests for gun laws:

• Better background checks (22% of guns are obtained without one)
• Protection Orders (similar to red flag laws): prevent people who are subject to domestic violence protection orders from having guns
• Ban purchases for people under 21
• Safe storage
• Tighter enforcement on straw purchases
• Background checks on ammunition
• Repeal PLCCA
• Ban bump stocks (this has been done since the article came out)
• Research smart guns

[Chef Jim]

11 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’ve made a very specific suggestion multiple times on here. I want them to raise the age to purchase any firearm to 21. Simple, done. 

 

Well I've missed your VERY specific suggestions.  What will raising the age do?  I'll answer that.  Not a goddamn thing.  But you'll feel good about it so I guess it's something.  It ain't the age.  It's the mental state of the person purchasing and holding a weapon.  That needs to be checked and monitored.  

6 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

• Causes of gun deaths in 2016:
  • 22,000: Suicide
  • 11,760: Homicide
  • 589: Self defense (good guy with a gun scenario)
  • 456: Mass shootings
  • 3,500: Other or uncategorized

 

And there's our problem right there.  When mental health causes twice as many deaths via firearms (how many suicides use other means?) this NEEDS to be the major focus of any gun legislation.  

[ChiGoose]

6 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

And there's our problem right there.  When mental health causes twice as many deaths via firearms (how many suicides use other means?) this NEEDS to be the major focus of any gun legislation.  

 

Agreed. We don't have one gun problem, we have many gun problems: suicides, homicides, mass murders, accidents, etc. A law that mitigates one of them likely won't mitigate all of them.

 

90% of people who survive suicide attempts do not end up dying by suicide. But people who attempt suicide by firearm are far more likely to die than survive because it is an exceedingly lethal method of suicide.

 

Finding ways to reduce the chance that someone in that moment of crisis will have access to a firearm would be a good place to start.

[Tiberius]

 

[SoCal Deek]

21 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Well I've missed your VERY specific suggestions.  What will raising the age do?  I'll answer that.  Not a goddamn thing.  But you'll feel good about it so I guess it's something.  It ain't the age.  It's the mental state of the person purchasing and holding a weapon.  That needs to be checked and monitored.  

 

 

You’re clearly very emotional about this topic. I’m not. I see no problem with my suggestion and I believe it should be an easy step to take and monitor. I’m also not opposed to background checks but our collective national experience is that relying huge federal agencies to accomplish these type of checks without them either becoming totally useless or super simple to get around is yet another ‘feel good’ answer but will accomplish very little other than providing another way for Washington to monitor the citizenry….but that’s just me. 

[Chef Jim]

14 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

You’re clearly very emotional about this topic. I’m not. I see no problem with my suggestion and I believe it should be an easy step to take and monitor. I’m also not opposed to background checks but our collective national experience is that relying huge federal agencies to accomplish these type of checks without them either becoming totally useless or super simple to get around is yet another ‘feel good’ answer but will accomplish very little other than providing another way for Washington to monitor the citizenry….but that’s just me. 

Emotional?  Nope!  Logical.  You focus on age I’ll focus on mental/psychological instability. You know the real problem.   
 

Monitor away. If that’s your worry that the government will drop the ball?  If they do on this one they lose their ***** jobs.  We hold their cushy lifestyle in our hands.  
 

And just so you know this is a problem that will NEVER be solved.  

[Warcodered]

22 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Emotional?  Nope!  Logical.  You focus on age I’ll focus on mental/psychological instability. You know the real problem.   
 

Monitor away. If that’s your worry that the government will drop the ball?  If they do on this one they lose their ***** jobs.  We hold their cushy lifestyle in our hands.  
 

And just so you know this is a problem that will NEVER be solved.  

I mean what's the increased monitoring the background checks? If it's the social media scan AI thing, odds are they do that anyway just not for that specific purpose. I mean it's information people volunteer to the internet of their own accord.

[SoCal Deek]

20 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Emotional?  Nope!  Logical.  You focus on age I’ll focus on mental/psychological instability. You know the real problem.   
 

Monitor away. If that’s your worry that the government will drop the ball?  If they do on this one they lose their ***** jobs.  We hold their cushy lifestyle in our hands.  
 

And just so you know this is a problem that will NEVER be solved.  

You are correct....to see major change you have to change the Constitution. But, age/maturity is definitely a factor though, and it's easy to enforce. Age is not subjective (even if apparently gender now is). I'm willing to start with raising the age and I'm guessing the vast majority of the American people would agree with me.  Instead, nothing is going to happen...and we should all be ashamed of that.

[Chef Jim]

14 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

I mean what's the increased monitoring the background checks? If it's the social media scan AI thing, odds are they do that anyway just not for that specific purpose. I mean it's information people volunteer to the internet of their own accord.

People who commit mass murder almost always telegraph it.  

[B-Man]

 

 

That Tulsa mass shooting story sure went away quick.

 

 

 

[reddogblitz]

6 hours ago, LeviF said:

 

With a couple exceptions, every gun of mine is locked in a safe that is bolted into the concrete floor in my basement. If some enterprising thief manages to cut it out of the floor and haul it out of my house, I should be responsible for whatever happens with those guns?

 

lol go ***** yourself

 

Sounds like you are a responsible gun owner and should have nothing to worry about.

 

And yes, you should be responsible for your guns period.  Everyone needs to take personal responsibility for their own guns.  

 

Just curios.  Why do you own guns?  Hunting? Target practice?  Obviously not for protecting your home since if someone breaks in or does a home invasion there is little to no chance you'll have time or opportunity to get to and open your gun safe bolted to the floor.

 

But if you ever leave it out of the safe or leave it in your car and its gets stolen and used in a crime you should bear some responsibility and do some jail time IMHO.  Keep it locked up like you do and you have nothing to worry about.

[Buffarukus]

11 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

I'm all in on this.  I've been thinking for a long time that if you buy a gun, you are responsible for it.  If it is used in a crime or injures or kills someone you are responsible and do some jail time.  If someone steals your gun out of your car and holds up a liquor store and shoots someone, you are responsible for paying for injuries and do some jail time.

 

I would even go so far as to say if you have a gun you should have to have insurance to pay for the care of anyone that gets shot by it.

 

first id like to keep from creating a tier list for those that can afford self protection which is why i emphasized cheap on licensing. adding insurance or repeated pricing that can be manipulated would essentially lead to have and have nots imo so we have to be careful.

 

second i think your suggestion is somwhat extreme. someone else commits a crime by stealing your weopon and then another and you bare full responsability? im more in line in forcing people to understand their responsibility ( situationally ) guns at home not in use a saftey measure should be used. you leave a gun in your car same thing. having loaded firearms at the ready when you are not even paying attention to them or in a situation it has no use THEN you are fully responsible.

 

[LeviF]

18 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

 

Just curios.  Why do you own guns?  Hunting? Target practice?  Obviously not for protecting your home since if someone breaks in or does a home invasion there is little to no chance you'll have time or opportunity to get to and open your gun safe bolted to the floor.

 

 

You may note that there are a couple exceptions to the basement safe. One of these is in a quick-access safe on my nightstand. And yes, I hunt and I shoot in local competitions. 

 

Our legal system hinges on several common-law holdovers that would be upended if we starting pinning crimes on people who are actually victims. 

 

Let's take your logic all the way to the end here and (if you feel it necessary) walk back to a point that you think is reasonable. Say a police officer gets the ***** kicked out of him on the street and his duty gun is stolen and then used to murder more cops. Should that officer be prosecuted?  Does there need to be negligence? Or maybe recklessness? If both involve criminal culpability then how do you structure the penalties for each?

 

Even the toughest state in the union on this matter (Hawaii) absolves you from liability as long as you report the theft. This seems less like a "common-sense" measure and more of a "find more ways to punish gun owners of lesser means simply for the audacity to exercise their rights."

Edited June 9, 2022 by LeviF

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

The View says more guns!!! 

 

https://www.newsweek.com/joy-behar-gun-laws-black-people-panthers-shooting-1714196?amp=1

 

 

Quote

 "Here's the thing: once Black people get guns in this country, the gun laws will change. Trust me," Behar said.

 

[ChiGoose]

48 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

The View says more guns!!! 

 

https://www.newsweek.com/joy-behar-gun-laws-black-people-panthers-shooting-1714196?amp=1

 

 

 

To be fair, that’s why Reagan signed the gun control law that banned automatic weapons. Black people started getting guns to protect themselves and that was a bit “no-no” for the GOP. 

[reddogblitz]

11 hours ago, LeviF said:

Let's take your logic all the way to the end here and (if you feel it necessary) walk back to a point that you think is reasonable. Say a police officer gets the ***** kicked out of him on the street and his duty gun is stolen and then used to murder more cops. Should that officer be prosecuted?  Does there need to be negligence? Or maybe recklessness? If both involve criminal culpability then how do you structure the penalties for each?

 

Even the toughest state in the union on this matter (Hawaii) absolves you from liability as long as you report the theft. This seems less like a "common-sense" measure and more of a "find more ways to punish gun owners of lesser means simply for the audacity to exercise their rights."

Edited 9 hours ago by LeviF

 

First off your argument about if a cop has his/her gun stolen and it kills someone reminds me of pro choice advocates argument about the life of the mother and  I n c e s t.  Edge cases that rarely happen.

 

Here's what I'm talking about.  13,000 guns were stolen from cars in 271 cities studied in 2020.  Here's what can happen:

 

Quote

On Aug. 3, 2021, Caroline Schollaert was inside her Jacksonville, Florida, home when she witnessed a man breaking into her car. 

Known by many for her fearless disposition, Schollaert, an off-duty U.S. Coast Guard member, reported the burglary by phone to the local sheriff’s office, then walked outside and confronted the man at gunpoint herself. 

 

She ordered him to stay put until authorities arrived. But while she was still on the phone with a police dispatcher, the suspect pulled out a gun of his own and opened fire. Schollaert, 26, who had just gotten engaged three days earlier, died from her injuries.

 

The handgun used to kill her, the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office said, had been stolen from an unlocked vehicle in the same neighborhood 11 days before the shooting. 

 

The person whose gun was stolen from an unlocked car should be at least partially responsible IMHO.  A year in jail sounds good to me.  Do you really think they should bear no responsibility?

 

Quote

“It is exceedingly rare that we investigate a gun crime, and the gun was possessed lawfully,” Talbot said. “Very often we find out it was taken from a theft from auto.”

 

As @B-Man would say, read the whole thing.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/guns-are-stolen-cars-alarming-trend-nation-rcna26691

 

 

 

Quote

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program, which compiles crime stats submitted by 15,875 of 18,674 U.S. law enforcement agencies around the country, estimates that more than $135 million worth of firearms were reported stolen by gun owners in 2020, the most recent year data is available. If we say each gun was valued at about $450 each (the Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates the average price per stolen gun is between $400 and $500), that comes out to about 300,394 guns reported stolen from private owners in 2020.

 

https://www.thetrace.org/2021/10/firearm-average-lifespan-how-many-lost-stolen-broken-guns/

 

300,000+ stolen guns. according to the FBI.  And that's only the reported ones.   Tough penalties for people negligent about their firearm would cause some people at least to wise up if they knew a year in jail would result if their firearm is stolen and used in a crime.  This would be a good way to keep guns out of the hands bad guys/gals.  We all wanna do that, right?  

 

Take personal responsibility for your gun or else don't pick up the soap for a year.

Edited June 10, 2022 by reddogblitz

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 6/8/2022 at 11:31 PM, Buffarukus said:

my compromise.

 

1) strict classes, cheap, that one must take to get a license. 

 

2) every gun should come with a saftey devise. lock, safe ect. no device, no gun.

 

3) gun sale come with paperwork buyer signing they are legally responsible for the weapon so they better take ownership responsibility and saftey very serious?

 

good start?

 

I agree with your first two recommendations, but not the third. Enforcing full legal responsibility for a gun’s use is not practical and opens a Pandora’s box of draconian punishments in any number of less typical criminal situations.

 

At the moment, here is what I generally support with regard to gun control: mandatory classes/training/licenses for gun ownership (obvious exemptions for military or law enforcement experience), mandatory safety devices and safe storage laws, raising the age to 25 (not 21!) for all semi-automatic rifles, enhanced and universal background checks (particularly around DSM-5 mental health issues), increased spending for local community mental health programs, sensible augmentations to school security measures, red flag law implementations, closing gun show loopholes, banning high-capacity gun magazines, banning ghost guns, and banning bump stocks or other firearm conversion devices.

 

I carefully read everything else you typed, but I’m only going to respond to a couple parts because I don’t really disagree with any of the points you raised. Sorry to disappoint or bore…but as you may recall, I’m a centrist on the Second Amendment issue!

 

1. Gun control research references: The study that I was mainly thinking about when typing my post was “What Do We Know About The Association Between Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Injuries?” (Epidemiologic Reviews, January 2016) by Professor Julian Santaella-Tenorio of NYU, published while he was at Columbia U. It was somewhat of a landmark paper because it prompted a flurry of research that uses international data and isolates a host of statistical variables (a.k.a. right-wing excuses for gun violence) like video game violence and religious affiliation. In my admittedly very non-expert opinion, we need to see more conclusive research done on the link (or lack thereof) between fatherlessness and inner-city gun violence as well as between mental health and gun violence. If you do decide to delve into all this wonky academic stuff, bear in mind the distinctions made between mass shootings and general gun violence.

 

2. Progressive political strength in the United States: Okay, so I should have clarified what I mean by political strength. Progressives are presently thought to be roughly 40-45% of the Democratic Party electorate. The Democratic Party needs to court their votes in order to win anything, so in that respect progressives ARE powerful and have some degree of influence. However, I tend to think of political strength mainly in terms of legislation that actually gets passed, politicians that actually get elected to office, or even just platforms on which candidates actually run. The Democratic Party certainly does lean into identity politics rhetoric and some of the anti-police rhetoric in order to stitch together their voting bloc, but us sad progressives can’t get hardly any of our domestic economic agenda, none of our foreign policy/anti-MIC agenda, and much of our environmental/energy/civil infrastructure demands met at the national level. The reason? Corporate influence on moderates/centrists. Corporatists hate the pro-worker pro-Main Street politics of progressives. As I think I mentioned earlier here, we only have 7 true progressives in all of Congress. That is to say, we only have 7 politicians in Congress who don’t accept big money campaign donations.

[LeviF]

6 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

First off your argument about if a cop has his/her gun stolen and it kills someone reminds me of pro choice advocates argument about the life of the mother and  I n c e s t.  Edge cases that rarely happen.

 

Here's what I'm talking about.  13,000 guns were stolen from cars in 271 cities studied in 2020.  Here's what can happen:

 

 

Maybe so. But the point remains: you need to prop up a legal framework that doesn't already exist. You're talking about turning victims of crime into criminals based on what happens with the fruits of their victimization. This flies in the face of our legal tradition. I understand and agree that people need to be responsible about how they store their firearms, but we don't penalize people who are victims of theft of other things they were irresponsible with. 

 

It's nice that I prioritize and can afford a $5,000+ safe, but there are folks out there who don't have those options. They opt for a cabinet that locks, basically keeping guns out of the hands of their kids so no terrible accidents happen. But these cabinets won't stop a thief who wants to steal guns. Which brings us back around, again, to the idea that this is just another way to price people out of their rights.

Edited June 10, 2022 by LeviF
Forgot a noun

[B-Man]