Gun Control Debate

[yovargas]

Am I a weenie liberal for saying "Ban both of them"?

Escape your echo chamber!

[River]

In Colorado we passed a law limiting magazine size after the Aurora shooting. Squawking ensued. Magpul relocated to a different state and the northeastern chunk of the state got to talking about seceding to form a new state because of guns. But then they realized that they'd be about densely populated as Wyoming and much more poor so they settled down. There is a popular narrative that this was why Senator Udall lost re-election. I disagree with that narrative as the law was a state thing and our governor, who would be a reasonable target if it were really all about guns, won re-election by roughly the same margin he won his first term, which means people were splitting their ticket over other issues. And, despite the howling when it happened, AFAIK no one's made any moves towards to repealing the limit that are serious enough to get a public conversation going. We've had shootings since then but the casualty count is down.

Just saying that this might be an idea to take national?

[Alatar]

Am I a weenie liberal for saying "Ban both of them"?

Escape your echo chamber!

If you want to bring up some good counter arguments in the echo chamber, I'll be delighted to listen to them!

[Primula Baggins]

In Colorado we passed a law limiting magazine size after the Aurora shooting. Squawking ensued. Magpul relocated to a different state and the northeastern chunk of the state got to talking about seceding to form a new state because of guns. But then they realized that they'd be about densely populated as Wyoming and much more poor so they settled down. There is a popular narrative that this was why Senator Udall lost re-election. I disagree with that narrative as the law was a state thing and our governor, who would be a reasonable target if it were really all about guns, won re-election by roughly the same margin he won his first term, which means people were splitting their ticket over other issues. And, despite the howling when it happened, AFAIK no one's made any moves towards to repealing the limit that are serious enough to get a public conversation going. We've had shootings since then but the casualty count is down.

Just saying that this might be an idea to take national?

Absolutely. I hope there are people on this in Oregon. We have some of the same demographics—very blue state in certain densely populated areas, wide stretches of redness. Maybe it could be done here. Though we had one of the earliest mass school shootings, Thurston High School back in the last century (!), and nothing happened then despite statewide horror and grief (it wasn't a routine yet. . . ).

[Maria]

Semi-automatic means that the rifle fires one bullet per trigger pull and reloads itself. There are many, many versions of these. There are semi-automatic pistols and shotguns as well. The first successful semi-automatic rifle was invented in 1885 according to wikipedia. They've been around for a long time.

What has changed is people.

Studies indicate that the rate at which public mass shootings occur has tripled since 2011. Between 1982 and 2011, a mass shooting occurred roughly once every 200 days. However, between 2011 and 2014 that rate has accelerated greatly with at least one mass shooting occurring every 64 days in the United States.[19]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shoo ... ted_States

What is driving people crazy? Why is it OK in their heads to just go shoot a bunch of people? This is what's wrong. The capability has been around for over a century. What is different now?

[RoseMorninStar]

It may not be an 'assault rifle' strictly speaking, but it is a military-style weapon. Simply put, an accurate, lightweight, easy to obtain superior human killing device. The average shooter could pull the trigger 45 times per minute. An individual is not at liberty to drive a loaded tank in the streets. An individual cannot personally acquire nuclear arms or bombs or grenades (after the bombing of the McMorrow building, people are restricted from purchasing too much of a certain type of fertilizer. Yes, we took action against fertilizer, but we cannot touch the Gun Idol?).

If people want to keep and use weapons of war, the entirety of the Second Amendment should be heeded (and yes, it's time for the supreme court to revisit this):
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." they are free to join our well-regulated militia: US Army, Air Force, Marines, Navy, Coast Guard, or National Guard. Switzerland has a 'well-regulated militia'. A population of firearm owners with a wide variety of firearms and varied and dubious vetting and training is not a 'well-regulated militia'.

The 2nd Amendment also does not specify anything about people losing this 'right'.. in fact it specifies that it should not be infringed, should that extend to the likes of Mr. Cruz (should he live/ever get out of prison, which I doubt) or other violent offenders, criminals? No, our forefathers thought common sense would prevail. We are failing them.

[Frelga]

For those of us who want to do something, this was shared by Joss Whedon.

ONE VOTE AT A TIME is filming free ads for candidates across the country who are ANTI-NRA and PRO-CHOICE - & who don’t have the $$ to compete with the GOP. These are smart, motivated young professionals who can help MORE with your help:
https://www.crowdpac.com/campaigns/3815 ... rs-in-2018

[tinwë]

I tend to get annoyed when someone tells me that since I don't know anything about guns I'm not qualified to talk about them. I felt that way when I started reading this article, but as I read it and began to understand I realized the author was right. He does a good job explaining the difference in various types of firearms.

I don't know the author - it was shared on a friends facebook page copied from someone else's page, etc. I pretty much agree with everything they said though, and have been saying much the same myself for years:

My brother’s response to my mom’s email about the recent shooting. I want to share, particularly because of the way he explains things. As a veteran and a gun owner, he knows much more about guns than I do. Hopefully his arguments and information can help any of my friends trying to sway people on gun control laws.

“Completely agree with the sentiment here, Mom. However, in order to make educated arguments for gun control, it's important to actually know what you're proposing and use the right language. Otherwise, you'll just get completely shut down as "not knowing anything about guns" to people you're trying to convince. And if you don't know anything about guns, you can't really advocate for responsible gun policy.

AR15s are not the problem alone. Yes, it's the most popular military-style rifle, and it is designed to kill people effectively. But banning one model of weapon will just make people switch to other, equally effective killing machines. If you banned the Toyota Camry, would people stop buying midsize sedans? No, you'd just end up with more Honda Accords on the road. If you want to fix the problem, you have to ban all semi-automatic rifles. Semi-automatic means the weapon is loaded with a magazine (or belt in some cases) with multiple rounds; and for every trigger squeeze, one bullet is discharged. There is no real need for these weapons in civilian use. They aren't necessary for hunting, where the point is to kill the animal with one shot. It is only useful for killing a lot of things in a short amount of time or having fun at a gun range. I think our children's lives are more important than a fraction of the population's fun shooting a bunch of rounds quickly at a range. They'll cope.

Handguns are far more responsible for gun deaths in America than semi-auto rifles. You mentioned the kid who brought a gun to school as only having a "handgun, not a semi-automatic." Well, almost all handguns are semi-automatic. They have magazines and one bullet per trigger squeeze. Though most handgun rounds aren't as deadly as rifle rounds, it's inconsequential at short range. And handguns are far easier to conceal than a rifle. With the exception of maybe revolvers (which have 5-6 round max before reloading), I believe handguns should be outlawed. The Virginia Tech massacre, the most deadly school shooting in American history, was accomplished with handguns only. Don't underestimate their lethality. I think military style rifles only account for about 2% of gun deaths each year. If you want to solve the problem, semi-auto handguns have to go, as well.

If we really want to make a difference in gun deaths, we need to do WAY more than universal background checks and better mental health screening. Banning all semi-automatic weapons would make that difference. Keeping shotguns, revolvers, and bolt-action rifles legal accomplish all the typical, common uses of guns. (Bolt-action rifles are typical hunting rifles that you have to reload between shots.) With these types of firearms legal, you can still hunt, defend your home, and compete in sport shooting.

Combine the following with the semi-auto ban.
Government buy-back program of all semi-automatic weapons. Once a grace period for turn-ins ends, possession will be a felony without a special (and rare) license for Federally approved dealers and collectors.
Gun licenses for all who want to continue to own approved firearms. Licenses will be granted by completing a comprehensive background check, psych evaluation, safety training, marksmanship training, and meeting strict storage requirements. Storage requirements would include safes, weapons unloaded, with ammo stored separately. Licenses expire after a certain number of years and all the requirements must be completed again for license renewal.
Registration of all firearms.
Insurance for all firearms. If your gun is used in a crime or if there's a accident with your gun, your insurance company is liable for damages. Let the insurance market set rates based on their analysis of risk. Then, people can decide if it's financially worth it to own a gun.
Finally, here's your counterarguments for the most common pro-gun arguments:
Pro-gun argument - assault weapons aren't an actual thing. Banning them won't make a difference.
Counterargument - none. This is true. Classifying a gun as an "assault weapon" is something people who know nothing about guns do. Having a bayonet stud (a place to mount a bayonet) used to be one way to classify a gun as an assault weapon. Last I checked, we don't have a bayonet problem in this country. Talk about banning semi-auto guns instead of made-up things like "assault weapons."
Pro-gun argument - 2nd Amendment guarantees my right to bear arms!
Counterargument - sure, it does, but there can be limitations. And in case anyone needs a history lesson, the individual right to bear arms has only existed since 2008. From the adoption of the Constitution until the DC v. Heller decision in 2008, the 2nd Amendment had never been interpreted to mean private citizens have a right to own guns. (Thanks, Scalia.) But that decision is now the law of the land and precedent for future court decisions. Nevertheless, even in Scalia's majority opinion, he asserts that there are limitations to the 2nd Amendment. Weapons allowed should be those in common use at the time. And limitations should be made on "dangerous and unusual" weapons, per previous precedent in United States v. Miller. I argue that semi-auto firearms should now be considered "dangerous and unusual," given their lethality.
Pro-gun argument - if law-abiding citizens get rid of their guns, criminals won't follow the law, and we'll be in more danger.
Counterargument - this is an argument against having laws. Since criminals don't follow the law, there should be no limits on anything. Also, when we do outlaw things, it can work. Purchases of large quantities of ammonium nitrate fertilizer was restricted after the Oklahoma City bombing, and there hasn't been a similar bombing since. We outlawed fully automatic weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, etc. in the 20th century, and what has happened? We don't see violence with those types of weapons. Most weapons used to commit crimes are purchased lawfully. If we change the laws, it will work to reduce gun deaths.
Pro-gun argument - if we ban guns, people will just use knives or baseball bats
Counterargument - there are plenty of incidents around the world of mass stabbings or clubbings, etc. Show me one that is as lethal as a mass shooting.
Pro-gun argument - we need armed security guards in every school
Counterargument - do you trust the security guard won't become a mass shooter? The Texas church shooter was an Air Force veteran. The Pulse nightclub shooter was a security guard. Further, it's relatively easy to get the drop on a security guard. Shoot him first when he's not expecting, then keep going. That's what the Pulse nightclub shooter did. It's not difficult if you draw first. Columbine had armed security, too. Adding more guns to schools adds more risk, it doesn't reduce it.
Pro-gun argument - it's a mental health issue, not a gun issue *or* guns don't kill people, people kill people
Counterargument - The United States has the same rates of mental illness as other developed Western countries, but we're the only ones with this type of violence. The mentally ill are actually less likely to commit crime than those who aren't mentally ill, which many find surprising. Also, those who are mentally ill are more likely to become the victim of a crime than those who don't have mental illness. It's a common refrain to hear "anyone who would do that must be crazy." That's not true. Being a murderer doesn't actually mean you are mentally ill, which is why you hardly ever see successful insanity defenses in trials. And if "people kill people," then we really should stop giving all these people guns, right? We don't allow private F-22s or nuclear weapons, do we? Why? Because people would use them to kill other people. People use people-killing machines to kill people. Go figure.
Pro-gun argument - We, as a society, have turned our backs on God. This is why crime is getting worse. We need God/Jesus to heal people's hearts, not get rid of law-abiding citizens' guns.
Counterargument - Crime has actually decreased overall in recent decades. Things are getting better, not worse. Murder rates and violent crime overall have trended down as we've advanced as a society. Mass shootings have remained steady, though, because angry people have easy access to guns.
Pro-gun argument - we need guns to fight against the government in case it becomes tyrannical.
Counterargument - I doubt semi-automatic weapons will defeat a tyrannical government with fighter jets, bombers, tanks, artillery, drones, advanced cyber capabilities, and nuclear weapons.
Pro-gun argument - gun registrations will make it easier for the government to disarm us
Counterargument - The registration is necessary to keep track of deadly weapons in case they are used in a crime, or in case a law-abiding citizen commits a crime that revokes their right to guns. There's over 300 million privately owned guns in America. If the government wanted to take everyone's guns, they'd do it the same way they would if there wasn't a registry: by going door to door and searching everyone.
I truly believe we need to do far more than anything advocated by most mainstream gun control organizations like Everytown and Moms Demand Action. We need to follow the lead of countries like the UK, Australia, and Canada. They've figured it out. Why can't we?”

[Dave_LF]

What is driving people crazy? Why is it OK in their heads to just go shoot a bunch of people? This is what's wrong. The capability has been around for over a century. What is different now?

This is the question we should be asking, IMO. But I have no idea what the answer is. And any answer has to account for the fact that these things happen next to never anywhere else.

[Maria]

Maybe other places aren't as concerned with individual liberties as here, and thus their gun control policies were easier to implement and enforce?

It's not just guns that are a problem in the US. Cars kill a heck of a lot of people, too: over 40,000 just last year. Why don't we make those harder to own or operate? It's this weird American notion of independence and individual self importance. And elected government. The people don't usually support politicians who advocate cutting down on their liberties.

[Dave_LF]

But Canada, for example, lets private citizens own firearms too. Their regulations are nowhere near as lax as ours, but they're lax enough that if someone got it into his head to buy a gun and kill a bunch of people, he could do it. And it has happened. But it doesn't happen anywhere near as often as it happens here.

[Maria]

Bigger population leads to more incidents? The US has 10 times the number of people in it than Canada does.

Vox has an interesting article on this, all kinds of statistics and charts:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... aps-charts

[Dave_LF]

But it also has way more than 10x the mass shootings. 31% of the world's mass shooting happen here, according to Wikipedia, even though we have only 5% of the population.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

As the link from Vox that Maria posted points out, America has 4.4 percent of the world’s population, but almost half of the civilian-owned guns around the world.

guns_per_capita.jpg (62.25 KiB) Viewed 6791 times

More guns = more mass shootings, and more shootings in general.

It really isn't that complicated.

[River]

What is driving people crazy? Why is it OK in their heads to just go shoot a bunch of people? This is what's wrong. The capability has been around for over a century. What is different now?

This is the question we should be asking, IMO. But I have no idea what the answer is. And any answer has to account for the fact that these things happen next to never anywhere else.

This is something my husband and I have talked about. Serbia's got a lot of guns, both legal and illegal, floating around. Fewer people but also less landmass so the population density is higher than, say, Canada. But they don't have the kind of mass shooting issue the US does, where an armed civilian during peacetime just starts firing on people, be they in a classroom, a church, a Walmart, or a music festival. We're speculating that it has to do with how socially disconnected Americans tend to be. People don't socialize with their neighbors the way they do in other parts of the world. Families aren't as close-knit here as they are in other parts of the world. And we put this huge emphasis on being all happy and cheerful all the time. So you've got hurting people putting up fronts and no one's close enough to see through the mask and then one day the person breaks under the weight of their despair and/or anger. Sometimes they hurt themselves, sometimes they hurt others. Sometime the red flags are obvious and sometimes they're hard to spot even in hindsight.
And if they have access to a firearm when the snapping happens they might just use it.

It's a half-baked hypothesis anyway.

[yovargas]

That Vox article is super interesting, though I do wonder if there are pro gun articles out there that can put similarly convincing statistics together. Also, those statistics don't explain why, if true, there would have been a rise during this decade. Though based on the charts, I wonder if it's not so much that there are more such incidents and instead it's that the incidents that do happen have become deadlier.

[RoseMorninStar]

tinwë, good article.

More guns have not made us safer. It has not reduced shootings. Even MORE guns will not reduce shootings. We have far more guns than anywhere else and it's not helping. As for increases in mass shootings, an assault weapons ban expired in 2004. That might be a contributing factor.

The comparison to cars is not an even/fair comparison. A hunting rifle is like a sedan. It has a utilitarian purpose. Yes, accidents happen and things go wrong, but it's not a weapon of war. Cars are not loaded tanks, a weapon whose only purpose is to kill human beings en masse. Automatic and semi-automatic weapons are like tanks. They have little to no business as part of everyday life in ordinary society.

[Frelga]

Actually, I think it would be an excellent idea to treat guns the way we treat cars. Consider :

- mandatory theoretical and practical tests
- minimal age and medical requirements
- requires a license that is secure enough to serve as a primary id
- additional licensing requirements for special models
- constant investment into research meant to improve safety, both by the government and the manufacturers
- mandatory safety standards, manufacturers held responsible for safety failures
- mechanisms for preventing and punishing operation under influence or with medical conditions that may impare safety

And so on.

[RoseMorninStar]

Frelga, that would certainly be a start. A person cannot drive a formula one race car down the freeway at 140mph no matter how 'responsible' of a driver they are. Certain things just aren't meant to be out on the road/owned and operated by just anyone anywhere.

[Dave_LF]

This is something my husband and I have talked about. Serbia's got a lot of guns, both legal and illegal, floating around. Fewer people but also less landmass so the population density is higher than, say, Canada. But they don't have the kind of mass shooting issue the US does, where an armed civilian during peacetime just starts firing on people, be they in a classroom, a church, a Walmart, or a music festival. We're speculating that it has to do with how socially disconnected Americans tend to be.

Could be; but are we more ennuied than, say, the French? But they don't have as many guns, either. Maybe it's the combination of the two.

I think it would also be interesting to know in how many cases the killer snaps, buys a gun, and goes shooting vs. snaps, picks up the gun he already had lying around for mundane purposes, and goes shooting.