The Gun Law Discussion

[chrlswltrs]

I have another thought though: what about mandatory training? Like tiered training based on what you want to do. Basic firearm safety to own any gun, more advanced for carrying handguns, etc.

I would have absolutely no issue with that at all. I think everyone that owns a gun should know about gun safety, how to properly use them, and how to clean them. This is why the NRA does so much for gun safety training. The only stipulation I would have is that the training be waived for military, law enforcement, and veterans of both due to the nature of their job and on the job training. I also think there should be a national CPL valid in all 50 states for military, LE, and veterans that wish to have one. (Unless they can't own a gun due to criminal activity of course)

Here is an example something already in place. If someone goes to buy a handgun there is a mandatory waiting period of 5-7 days for most people. I can walk into a gun store and walk out with a handgun because I have a CPL. That is a license that shows I have already passed more stringent background checks at the state and federal level including fingerprints and I am licensed to carry a concealed pistol anywhere not prohibited by state law. To me, mandatory training would be a common sense approach.

This is especially true when children are in the house. My daughter is 11 and has her own rifle and knows proper gun safety for rifles, shotguns, and pistols. My gun that I carry daily is loaded always and sits beside my bed when I am at home. I have no worries at all about any gun accidents because everyone in my house knows how to properly handle firearms. Not everyone takes that extra step though.

 

[Speed Daemon]

In a nation this "divided"....its not possible to fix them...

I'd prefer to have the liberty to at least try before raising the white flag.

 

[Speed Daemon]

I have another thought though: what about mandatory training? Like tiered training based on what you want to do. Basic firearm safety to own any gun, more advanced for carrying handguns, etc.

I'd like that very much. Even more so if it also applied to automobile drivers as well.

 

[Speed Daemon]

It's not fair to focus on American cities like Chicago and D.C....

Says who? What part of the truth do you find unacceptable there?

...that have large gang populations...

Please prove that, and explain why that should be considered a factor for disqualification.

 

[lightsleeper23]

Says who? What part of the truth do you find unacceptable there?


Please prove that, and explain why that should be considered a factor for disqualification.

Really, I need to prove that there's gangs in these cities? It's a pretty well known fact that the majority of gun violence in these cities is gang related.

My point was this: people point to cities like Chicago and D.C. which have strict gun laws but high numbers of gun violence and say this is proof that strict gun laws or bans don't cut down gun violence, or even make it worse. I don't think that's an accurate assumption though because those are isolated cities with large gang populations for one. So there's criminals that want to get guns. The gun laws inside that city don't really matter when the rest of the country still has so many guns that are so easy to get. The guns flow into those cities from areas all around. For any gun law to be effective, it would have to be nationwide.

 

[chrlswltrs]

The point of singling out places like Chicago, DC, and LA because of their gun laws is simple. All big cities have a gang element. Other big cities like Dallas, San Antonio, Seattle, Denver, Phoenix, etc where there are more reasonable gun laws have lower crime and homicide rates because the gangs don't know when they will face armed opposition. It makes the act of violence much more dangerous for the attacker when the victim might be armed.

 

[lightsleeper23]

The point of singling out places like Chicago, DC, and LA because of their gun laws is simple. All big cities have a gang element. Other big cities like Dallas, San Antonio, Seattle, Denver, Phoenix, etc where there are more reasonable gun laws have lower crime and homicide rates because the gangs don't know when they will face armed opposition. It makes the act of violence much more dangerous for the attacker when the victim might be armed.

I disagree. I don't think when a gang member is thinking about shooting another gang member that he gives any consideration to whether the other person has a gun. In fact they probably assume most of the other gang members do have guns. Maybe if they were considering robbing a non gang member they would worry about who's armed and who's not.

But the gang violence is targeted at other criminals who don't follow the gun laws, so it's not like they assume their target is unarmed and following the law. The gangs that are shooting at each other, know very well that there are tons of guns around and everybody else is going to be packing just like they are.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Like countries with gun bans having the highest violent crime rates and the only reason mainland USA wasn't invaded by the Japanese in WW2 was because of our armed populace.

Wait, what?

The only reason? Really? It wouldn't have made the top 10.

If Nazi Germany couldn't invade the British Isles, Japan didn't have a hope in hell against the west coast of the USA.

EDIT: Also I am pretty sure the US has a higher real violent crime rate than almost every other developed country.

 

[chrlswltrs]

Wait, what?

The only reason? Really? It wouldn't have made the top 10.

If Nazi Germany couldn't invade the British Isles, Japan didn't have a hope in hell against the west coast of the USA.

EDIT: Also I am pretty sure the US has a higher real violent crime rate than almost every other developed country.

Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto -

 

[Speed Daemon]

Really, I need to prove that there's gangs in these cities?

Fallacy: Red Herring

Your claim to back up or back off. Every city has gangs. You're the one claiming that for reasons that you're not sharing, that we all should just ignore the facts about Chicago And DC. Why is that? Because the facts don't support the dogma that you want? Unacceptable!

It's a pretty well known fact that the majority of gun violence in these cities is gang related.

Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity

Great! Then you'll have no problem justifying that claim.

My point was this: people point to cities like Chicago and D.C. which have strict gun laws but high numbers of gun violence and say this is proof that strict gun laws or bans don't cut down gun violence, or even make it worse. I don't think that's an accurate assumption though because those are isolated cities with large gang populations for one. So there's criminals that want to get guns. The gun laws inside that city don't really matter when the rest of the country still has so many guns that are so easy to get. The guns flow into those cities from areas all around. For any gun law to be effective, it would have to be nationwide.

Fallacy: Ignoring a Common Cause

Since I'm the one and only person who said that I've lived in Chicago and DC before and during the gun bans, that is a direct personal attack on me. And that is not acceptable.

You can call me a liar day in and day out, but that does not magically make the things I really and truly saw any different. My story is true.

 

[chrlswltrs]

Speed, if you have taken offense to anything I have posted I'm sorry. I have visited those cities but not lived there. All I know is the places with the strictest gun laws have the most violence and murder, that is based on facts and statistics.

I have been offended by many people here and their perception of gun owners.

This is a very heated topic with a lot of passion on both sides and biases on both sides. I would just like to say that when I posted that I was in favor of common sense gun control (required training before purchase) everyone ignored that even though I am extremely opposed to any current proposed laws being looked at and own enough firearms to arm several people. The only reason this is common sense now is because a lot of parents don't teach their kids about firearms anymore and neither do schools. Times have changed, so there should be a required training, or at least a test for those that were raised right, about firearms before someone can buy one.

 

[Speed Daemon]

Speed, if you have taken offense to anything I have posted I'm sorry. I have visited those cities but not lived there. All I know is the places with the strictest gun laws have the most violence and murder, that is based on facts and statistics.

I appreciate the apology, but to be honest I've had you blocked for some time now. I haven't read a thing you've written.

I agree that the handgun bans have been utter failures, and in fact have accomplished the exact opposite of their intended purpose. I've seen the mechanism of how things went wrong in great detail, especially in Chicago. It's a complex issue, but IMO it's enough to conclude that the bans did fail.

I'm all for some solution that can undo past wrongs, and keep gunfire off of public streets. By the same token I recognize that repeating the same policies that made things worse is not a solution. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different outcome.

I have been offended by many people here and their perception of gun owners.

I urge you to keep your feelings to yourself here, and try to project an analytical and topical view of the subject. This is literally a life-or-death subject after all. What this condition needs is more thinkers and fewer angry mobs IMO. Besides, the rules of the forum say so.

This is a very heated topic with a lot of passion on both sides and biases on both sides.

It doesn't have to be that way. I also reject the idea that there are only two "sides" here, or that any "side" must necessarily be biased. Speaking for myself, I'm 100% committed to dealing with facts, and calling out fallacies.

I'm all for having standardized testing and certification to regulate how far gun owners can go when it comes to things like ownership, concealed carry etc. After living Illinois, where there's absolutely no concealed carry provisions, not even for private security, I think we need to do better than "dumb" sweeping bans. I'm also wary of "quick and dirty" background checks that can lock good people out of any hope of ownership. I used to go to the range with my dad until the new Illinois laws made it illegal to even do that. IMO that's going too far. I believe that there needs to be a fair mediation process, and a path to licensure for people who have unfairly been blacklisted by irresponsible for-profit reporting agencies.

I'd also like to see some real scholarly input about precisely what the Second Amendment is all about. To me it looks pretty strict on the side of liberty. Even regulations that we all agree upon may not pass Constitutional muster.

 

[SiempreTuna]

EDIT: Also I am pretty sure the US has a higher real violent crime rate than almost every other developed country.

I don't know about all violent crime, however the overall US murder rate is around 4 times that of UK, which has one of the higher murder rates in Europe.

Looking just at homicides involving firearms, the number per 100,000 of population for the US is 42 times that of the UK.

And that's just homicides: it excludes accidental deaths, suicides and all non-fatal shootings.

From this side of the pond, those sort of numbers make the US gun lobby arguments look .. well let's just say, a tad thin

I'd also like to see some real scholarly input about precisely what the Second Amendment is all about. To me it looks pretty strict on the side of liberty. Even regulations that we all agree upon may not pass Constitutional muster.

The problem is that any three scholars would come up four interpretations

Historically, the regulations that are currently under consideration would have been fine until around the 80s when the Supreme Court had a radical change of view. It could radically change it back the other way if it were loaded with anti-gun rather than pro-gun judges. It's hardly definitive.

Personally, I think you should take a look at the affects of having so many guns in your society and consider what would be the most sensible thing to do rather than be constrained by a 226 year old amendment.

We live and learn. Conditions change. The Magna Carta is probably the earliest thing the UK has had that could be compared to a constitution. Almost every clause has either been dropped or significantly changed in the last 788 years. What's so wrong with reconsidering parts of the US constitution?

 

[Speed Daemon]

I don't know about all violent crime, however the overall US murder rate is around 4 times that of UK, which has one of the higher murder rates in Europe.

Looking just at homicides involving firearms, the number per 100,000 of population for the US is 42 times that of the UK.

And that's just homicides: it excludes accidental deaths, suicides and all non-fatal shootings.

From this side of the pond, those sort of numbers make the US gun lobby arguments look .. well let's just say, a tad thin

Ah, but that's the thing--all of those statistics prove that the US is a more murderous nation in general, but they don't prove that banning guns will change that! The US is a violent culture at heart. That much is certain. But we're a culture with certain Constitutional guarantees, and no guarantee that we wouldn't just start using our cars as deadly weapons..oh wait! We do use our cars to commit murder...

Car allegedly used in bride's murder - Chicago Sun-Times

Texas Woman Who Ran Over Husband Sentenced to 20 Years - Los Angeles Times

It's all to easy to find an inanimate object that can't speak for itself, make it the scapegoat and just hope that works. In practice that sort of tactic never works. IMO the problem in the US is a societal problem, not a gun problem. And IME the real solution will most likely involve more courage and self-discipline, and not "yet another quick fix that never works".

 

[Speed Daemon]

The problem is that any three scholars would come up four interpretations

That's four more than we have now; I'd call that progress! It's a whole lot better than the "shot in the dark" approach currently in use.

Personally, I think you should take a look at the affects of having so many guns in your society and consider what would be the most sensible thing to do rather than be constrained by a 226 year old amendment.

Suffice it to say that your right to have a say in determining the future of a nation is in direct proportion to your citizenship of that nation.

Personally I think you should take some time to ask yourself why you're picking on the USA exclusively, and not saying the same things to other countries where there are lots of guns. Where do you think that your country's ex-colonies picked up their bad habits anyway? I wouldn't be so quick to look down on other nations, especially if you're dead last in your region. Glass houses and all that. IJS

What's so wrong with reconsidering parts of the US constitution?

I don't recall anyone saying there was. What's your point?

 

[sntaylor]

Big problem with violence statistics of different nations is the recording of those incidents differing nation to nation as it states in the telegraph article!

British problem is alcohol at the moment causing so much of the violent crime (personally I think its a crap excuse but only because I've never felt the need to become violent when drunk! Or really at any time, except on occasion on the rugby pitch ;-) )

The reason speed, we seem to be picking on the USA is because predominantly its American citizens on here, and that was where the subjects base was started on!

Everyone here is at the end if the day expressing their opinion and view on things, some right some wrong, and I like how people are giving reasoning to combat others opinions

Oh and we certainly don't have it perfect over here, but being Scottish is pretty damn close ;-)

 

[A.Nonymous]

The problem, as stated earlier, is the culture of violence, not guns. You could get rid of guns tomorrow and people would still be just as violent. Wouldn't solve anything.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto -

 

[Speed Daemon]

Big problem with violence statistics of different nations is the recording of those incidents differing nation to nation as it states in the telegraph article!

Good point. This notion that the US is the only nation on earth with a violent crime problem is a myth. But that myth is all too often cited as an excuse for gun-bans-as-panacea. But false data makes for phony "solutions".

British problem is alcohol at the moment causing so much of the violent crime

Here in the US the majority of arrests are alcohol related in one way or another. There are some reality shows that show various jail intake units, and what they show illustrates the nature of the beast pretty well.

Here in the US we've had to alter our lifestyles considerably to conform with changing societal norms regarding drunk driving and public intoxication. This looks like a far superior mechanism than calling alcohol a demon and banning it. With history as a guide, prohibitions tend to give rise to the black market and organized crime, but learning to behave differently brings real change without the devastating consequences.

The reason speed, we seem to be picking on the USA is because predominantly its American citizens on here, and that was where the subjects base was started on!

Like I said before, those who live in glass houses really ought to learn to do better. Is the situation in Northern Ireland a taboo subject? That would be topical, while speaking for yourself.

 

[Speed Daemon]

The problem, as stated earlier, is the culture of violence, not guns. You could get rid of guns tomorrow and people would still be just as violent. Wouldn't solve anything.

Yep. Even if it's a board with a nail in it...

 

[SiempreTuna]

Suffice it to say that your right to have a say in determining the future of a nation is in direct proportion to your citizenship of that nation

True, but you know: anything to help

Good point. This notion that the US is the only nation on earth with a violent crime problem is a myth. But that myth is all too often cited as an excuse for gun-bans-as-panacea. But false data makes for phony "solutions".

I don't think anyone would deny that, it's just that killing someone is a heck of a lot easier with a gun than without. Of course, some people will always find a way, but I'm guessing not having a gun to hand might put off a few - stabbing is so messy!

With history as a guide, prohibitions tend to give rise to the black market and organized crime

Absolutely! Just don't get me started on the insane ban on narcotics ..

Like I said before, those who live in glass houses really ought to learn to do better. Is the situation in Northern Ireland a taboo subject? That would be topical, while speaking for yourself.

Yeah, thanks for that one. Really good of US citizens to finance a 30 year terrorist war against a democratic ally and not have a single person prosecuted for it

Anyway: bygones. It's pretty much died down now.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I don't think anyone would deny that, it's just that killing someone is a heck of a lot easier with a gun than without. Of course, some people will always find a way, but I'm guessing not having a gun to hand might put off a few - stabbing is so messy!

I don't think there's been very many cases where someone wanted to kill someone but couldn't because they didn't have a firearm. The worst school killing in US history was pulled off without a single gun. Guy killed 38 kids, 6 adults and injured like 60 others.

 

[SiempreTuna]

I don't think there's been very many cases where someone wanted to kill someone but couldn't because they didn't have a firearm. The worst school killing in US history was pulled off without a single gun. Guy killed 38 kids, 6 adults and injured like 60 others.

.. and he would have been able to do that with a knife or a baseball bat ..?

There are as many nutters here as there are in the US and they do cause tragedies, it's just that, since we banned hand guns, few have involved shooting and none have killed more than 2 or 3 people (there have been a couple with shotguns that 'only' killed 2 or 3, I think).

Not all murders are premeditated in the Agatha Christie, detailed planning, sense: premeditation can mean they go grab a gun and return to shoot someone. If the gun wasn't there, they might try to kill in some other (usually far less effective) way, but quite a few will actually try something else.

 

[chrlswltrs]

If guns are banned, then yes someone could very easily kill a lot of people with a crossbow or sword until enough police managed to get there and defeat the killer in a sword fight.

 

[SiempreTuna]

If guns are banned, then yes someone could very easily kill a lot of people with a crossbow or sword until enough police managed to get there and defeat the killer in a sword fight.

Hmm ..

A crossbow requires a lot of skill - and strength - to achieve even 1 'round' every 10 seconds. Medieval crossbowmen, who trained for years, managed around 8 'rounds' a minute. The bolts are also quite bulky and heavy so there's a limit to how many you can carry. I seem to remember that crossbows have an effective range of around 100m (don't quote me).

A sword has a reach that's maybe double that of a baseball bat and again, requires quite a bit of skill and strength to use effectively.

A semi-automatic pistol like a Glock can have a 17 (or more) round mag that is reloadable in seconds by just about any eejit - even me . You can easily carry quite a few pre-loaded magazines. And a 9mm round is still capable of killing at what, 500m? And you can get a LOT of them down range, very fast.

Sure, medieval weapsons are capable of killing people, even a lot of people, but it's a helluva lot trickier task that requires a helluva lot of skill and physical strength.

Even for possibly the best sword and bow men of all time, the Mongols, one trained-from-birth-soldier took around half a day to kill 100 people. They did it quite a bit (brilliant podcast, BTW), so we do know that.

Obviously, banning guns doesn't solve the problem, but it would make these events a lot less frequent and the number of people killed per event a lot lower.