Is the violence more about mental health and less about gun control?

It feels like this discussion is starting to slip from "The shootings in Colorado have a familiar ring" to "the violent crime problem." Everything I've read indicates that our violent crime problem is...well it's a problem, but it's a problem that's moving in the right direction and we grossly overestimate the amount of violent crime compared to 'back in the good old days' (which gets funnier as you get older as you hear people talk about the 'old days' only to realize that the 'old days' were back when you were young and the old folk were complaining just as loudly back then).

Is it possible we have a rising problem with a pattern of major incidents of violence at the same time we have a decreasing problem with violent incidents overall? That we've got a greater number of 'crazed gunmen' these days but we've got fewer violent people?

CheezePavilion wrote:

It feels like this discussion is starting to slip from "The shootings in Colorado have a familiar ring" to "the violent crime problem." Everything I've read indicates that our violent crime problem is...well it's a problem, but it's a problem that's moving in the right direction and we grossly overestimate the amount of violent crime compared to 'back in the good old days' (which gets funnier as you get older as you hear people talk about the 'old days' only to realize that the 'old days' were back when you were young and the old folk were complaining just as loudly back then).

Is it possible we have a rising problem with a pattern of major incidents of violence at the same time we have a decreasing problem with violent incidents overall? That we've got a greater number of 'crazed gunmen' these days but we've got fewer violent people?

I think that is part of it. I also, think that tangental to that is the fact that one particular party seems to be using dog whistles of deadly force in the flavor of Latin American right wing paramilitary death squads as a violent way to tell people they disagree with to shut up.

That crap needs to end.

Have to say that Dan Carlin knocks it out of the park in his latest podcast regarding gun control and the latest mass shootings. He makes some great points, including:

1. More than half of all Americans killed by guns each year either committed suicide or were accidentally shot. "Mass" murder - aka killing more than 3 people - accounts for at most 3-4 percent of all gun deaths a year.

2. The number of semi-automatic weapons grabbed during police raids or investigations is also very small - if I remember correctly, Dan said about 4 percent. Handguns are the most used in violent crimes, followed by shotguns and knives. True "assault" weapons - military hardware that can fire full auto - are so controlled in America that crimes involving those kind of weapons are almost unheard of. (BTW, Dan hates the term "assault weapon.")

3. Dan's philosophy is that gun violence won't go down just because we have stricter and stricter gun control laws. For one thing, America's law and culture won't allow for the same level of bans as say Japan without armed revolution. So, you need to take that solution off the table and look at the real problem - American society is one of the most violent in the First World. There are a number of reasons for that. First, we had a lot of risk takers and alpha types come to America to either escape the home country or find fame and fortune in the New World. In other words, places in Europe became "safer" as all the undesirables hopped a ship to the U.S.

Secondly, he talks about how the lingering effects of slavery and income inequality also play a role in violence. I don't agree with all his solutions to the violence problem, but he makes some good points.

At any rate, it's a good listen:

http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/cs...

Paleocon wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

It feels like this discussion is starting to slip from "The shootings in Colorado have a familiar ring" to "the violent crime problem." Everything I've read indicates that our violent crime problem is...well it's a problem, but it's a problem that's moving in the right direction and we grossly overestimate the amount of violent crime compared to 'back in the good old days' (which gets funnier as you get older as you hear people talk about the 'old days' only to realize that the 'old days' were back when you were young and the old folk were complaining just as loudly back then).

Is it possible we have a rising problem with a pattern of major incidents of violence at the same time we have a decreasing problem with violent incidents overall? That we've got a greater number of 'crazed gunmen' these days but we've got fewer violent people?

I think that is part of it. I also, think that tangental to that is the fact that one particular party seems to be using dog whistles of deadly force in the flavor of Latin American right wing paramilitary death squads as a violent way to tell people they disagree with to shut up.

That crap needs to end.

Just for background information.

Violent crime in America is actually at its lowest point since the 1970s.

IMAGE(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg/800px-Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg.png)

The Assault Weapons ban was in effect from 1994 to 2004. Assault weapons would be found under other guns. You’ll note that other methods and knives, for the most part, were involved in more murders than assault weapons (further note that not all other guns were Assault Weapons, but may have been hunting rifles or shotguns). Rifles of any sort just aren’t the usual weapon of choice for murders.

Also note that murders of all types have been trending down over the years. If you hit the link in the first sentence, it will show you that in 2004 the number of violent crimes per 100,000 was 463.2 and in 2010 it had fallen to 403.6.

If you add handguns and other guns from the chart in 2004, you see approximately 10,500 to 11,000 murders by firearms.

FBI figures show just 358 of the 8,775 murders by firearm in 2010 involved rifles of any type. [Google Spreadsheet with totals, and original data from FBI from 2010.]

By the way, the data that was pulled from noted that in 2010, more people were beaten to death by fists (758) than were killed by other guns, aka rifles of any sort.

Honestly, I thought it was far worse. I really thought murders by rifles was higher than being beaten to death.

SallyNasty wrote:
Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

I do see ONE meaninglful way to "arm everyone" -- a well regulated militia. :)

/golfclap:)

Interesting thing about the 2nd Amendment, outside of Article I or the powers of congress, it is one of the only areas that specifically mentions government regulation. It is the only part of our 12 bill of rights to mention regulation. And yet when compared to speech, the press, voting, government intruding upon it is a serious taboo.

From what I have seen in the past 20 years, high gun crime to our low gun crime today. 3-4 small regulations would have a major impact.
1 felony murder for straw man purchasers or givers of guns for crimes. IE if you have a friend buy a gun that you commit a murder or other crime with, they are just as liable. A Get Away driver is still guilty of murder or bank robbery by the way.
2 Strictly enforced inter-state transport of guns via mail, across state lines by road (checking at toll booths).
3 ATF certification for gun sellers is a must-get the guns out of gun and knife shows. Hey, you cannot buy a car at the Int'l Auto Show, no reason you expect to buy a gun at every show. Unless the venue and vendors get the appropriate license. And that goes along with having inventory and records using the gun serial numbers to trace them back. Car dealers have to keep the same records.
4. Required education and licensing from state police sanctioned and ATF guided classes in order to buy and possess a firearm. Make it right on a drivers license like a CDL or Motorcycle endorsement.

My wife has a jewelry business and attends a lot of craft shows. By your strict redefinition, she shouldn't be allowed to sell jewelry at them?

The International Auto Show is an tradeshow/expo/convention, like E3 or the gun industry's SHOT Show.

Most people don't understand how gun shows work. First, the gun show loophole is a myth, a complete fabrication. It was invented purely as a scare tactic. All local, state, and federal laws apply just as much inside a gun show as out of it. It's like a merchant fair, craft show, or a neighborhood garage sale, where customers are attracted by the convenience of having multiple potential sellers all located in close proximity.

The gun show loophole is actually about the federal law's distinction between gun sales between someone engaged in the business versus someone selling a used gun as a private citizen. Just like when selling a used car through the classifieds doesn't make me a car dealership. Anyone engaged in the business of selling firearms must have a Federal Firearms License, and all the privileges and restrictions that come with it.

So some people who aren't gun dealers might pay for a table at a gun show to sell one or more used guns from their personal collection. All the same laws apply whether they sell one at a gun show or inside their home or even out of the back of a van on a street corner (which would also be legal in most places if all the laws are followed). Very few people do this. Nearly all vendors at gun shows are businesses or people selling accessories that don't require an FFL.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

My wife has a jewelry business and attends a lot of craft shows. By your strict redefinition, she shouldn't be allowed to sell jewelry at them?

Your wife's jewelry can't be used to kill someone, so I don't think that's a fair comparison. Limiting the outlets for gun sales doesn't seem all that burdensome to me if the state wants to more strictly monitor or track the trade in weapons. If the state says only licensed dealers may trade in firearms, that doesn't sound to me like overly burdensome regulation. What's the percentage of guns sold through non-dealers? This pro-regulation group says it's 40 percent. Is that right? I don't know what the sources are for stats on gun sales.

Funkenpants wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

My wife has a jewelry business and attends a lot of craft shows. By your strict redefinition, she shouldn't be allowed to sell jewelry at them?

Your wife's jewelry can't be used to kill someone, so I don't think that's a fair comparison.

Lack of imagination. It can't kill someone as easily as a gun or a car, but it can get the job done.

Stengah wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

My wife has a jewelry business and attends a lot of craft shows. By your strict redefinition, she shouldn't be allowed to sell jewelry at them?

Your wife's jewelry can't be used to kill someone, so I don't think that's a fair comparison.

Lack of combo card. It can't kill someone as easily as a gun or a car, but it can get the job done.

IMAGE(http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/i453/czpv/c-c-c-c-combo.jpg)

FTFY

Funkenpants wrote:

Your wife's jewelry can't be used to kill someone, so I don't think that's a fair comparison. Limiting the outlets for gun sales doesn't seem all that burdensome to me if the state wants to more strictly monitor or track the trade in weapons. If the state says only licensed dealers may trade in firearms, that doesn't sound to me like overly burdensome regulation. What's the percentage of guns sold through non-dealers? This pro-regulation group says it's 40 percent. Is that right? I don't know what the sources are for stats on gun sales.

My point is that "this is a 'show' and this is a 'show' so why aren't they the same?" is nonsense linguistic gymnastics.

Is the 40% right? I have no idea since I didn't see any sources quoted. I noticed don't say how many of that 40% goes through gun shows.

People who think there should be a change to private sales should talk about private sales, not gun shows, because you won't find gun shows mentioned in federal law. But I suspect that private sales were never addressed in federal law because worries about the limits of the commerce clause. You certainly don't need a gun show to have private sales though, especially with the internet effectively replacing things like classifieds sections in newspapers.

I don't have any objection to having organizers verify that all vendors at the gun show they organize be FFL dealers that still do the normal ATF paper work (form 4473). Yeah it'll suck for people who don't have a CWL/CCL that still have to wait a week to pick up their purchase, but I think it'll be worth it.

Private sales are a whole other issue. I need to do more reading about it.

Considering the amount of conflict jewelry out there Quintin, maybe we should use a different example? I am not going to say jewels do not kill people, sadly they can commit genocide.

We are talking about regulation taken from other avenues that could be used to combat and curtail certain classes of crime.

Your buddy sells you his car. You have a limited time to get a clean title and proof of insurance over to the DMV or Secretary of State in order to legally drive that car. Your buddy sells you a gun and you have to do nothing in most states.

That's true, I was just pointing out it's got nothing to do with gun shows.

PDF Warning. But the ATF has other words on gun crime and gun shows.

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/ATF...

The ATF was only able to stage operations in less than 2 percent of the shows in 2006, yielding a lot of illegal weapon seizures and arrests.

At present the ATF operates at the behest of local authorities. This gets problematic, like when politicians in Virginia refuse to acknowledge that most cases of gun crime in New York can be traced to a gun purchased in Virginia.

Gun show sales from non-dealers would be included in private sales, and gun control advocates wouldn't haves problem with bringing all private transfers of weapons into a system of public registration. Want to sell your weapon? Do it through a registered dealer, or be responsible for complying with all the requirements the government might impose on weapons transfers. That's the point people are making.

Also, There is no commerce clause issue that I can see on sales of goods. I'm more than happy to look at that argument, but I need to see come case law on that point.

Well or have a title or lost title affidavit involved.

The cases are interesting Funkenpants. I cannot think of any other Bill of Rights issue where our government and high courts have abrogated this much power to the states. If guns were regulated the way farming were, we would have 10 billion guns, but only 2 choices (That was a soy and corn joke).

There were some attempts. The Gun-Free School Zones act was challenged on these grounds in the 90's. It was overturned in 1995. Short story, congress over-reached when it made it a federal crime to possess a gun in a public school as those buildings are strictly under the purview of the states and local governments. The act was amended and has been upheld. The one tweak was to include if the gun has moved in or in any other way affects interstate commerce.

But the act had no teeth. If someone just brings a gun into a school with metal detectors, they are a fool. Sadly most kids who would have been convicted under the law, committed murders or assaults with the guns, superseding any offence under the federal law.

Well this probably won't help the NRA with their " they're taking all our guns" protestations. I'm not sure how comfortable I feel about thousands of AK's being sold to God knows who at gun shows around the country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/bu...

These AKs are functionally no different from all the other semi-auto rifles manufactured and sold in the US. And whether at gun stores or gun shows, these new AKs are sold by FFL dealers who have to follow the same laws regardless of location. I mean, we spent most of this page discussing that.

There's a weird mythology surrounding the AK-47 in the US. Whenever politicians or the news talk about rifles, it's always the AK-47 they mention. But even the Russians, who invented it, don't use it anymore.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

There's a weird mythology surrounding the AK-47 in the US. Whenever politicians or the news talk about rifles, it's always the AK-47 they mention. But even the Russians, who invented it, don't use it anymore.

Spoiler:

Because it's scary lookin'!

The Russians are laughing all the way to the bank, that's true.

For me it comes from many of the manufactures are unreliable and not safe. If you treat every gun as loaded, then you should treat every AK and AK derivative as a ticking bomb. The Russian made ones are better, but those made in Western Block nations tended to be very poor, prone to spontaneous firing.

We would not allow the importation of anything other than a Gun that was as poorly made and unsafe as some of the guns we get from Russia, China, and Israel.

Really, the AK's only redeeming feature is that's so reliable. I haven't heard about widespread safety issues with guns from those places and if they are in fact dangerous, then they shouldn't be imported. Keep in mind though that foreign manufacturers can't just sell in the US; there has to be an American company willing to import.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

These AKs are functionally no different from all the other semi-auto rifles manufactured and sold in the US.

And yet they'll still be snapped up by the gun crowd for the sole reason they look like AKs...

Quintin_Stone wrote:

And whether at gun stores or gun shows, these new AKs are sold by FFL dealers who have to follow the same laws regardless of location. I mean, we spent most of this page discussing that.

And we've also talked about how there are numerous loopholes, purposely convoluted rules, and toothless laws that make it very easy for the wrong people to buy guns. So which is it? The system functions perfectly and robust laws and strict regulation keeps guns out of the hands of baddies? Or that anyone with $200 and the time to fill out some paperwork can become an FFL and they can sell unlimited numbers of weapons to people they know are shady with the full confidence the underfunded ATF will never have the resources to figure out where those guns were going and, even if they do, that the NRA will have their back.

Fortune just wrote an investigative piece about Fast and Furious that found the exact opposite of what the pro-gun crowd has been screaming about. Importantly, the US Attorney's office refused to indict any of the suspects because they felt there was a lack of probable cause. This was after the ATF had manually tracked all the gun purchases (manually, because the NRA has gotten Congress to specifically forbid a database of gun purchases) and found that 20 people had purchased more than 650 guns for $350,000 in cash. The most was one guy bought 20 guns in one day for $20,000.

Where's the common sense that those weapons aren't going to be used for home defense or hunting. They're going straight into the hands of criminals. That was shown by Fast and Furious and by theWashington Post expose two years ago about DC and Maryland gun dealers.

The guns made in Slovakian and Czeck nations were the worst so far as spontaneous firing. But we are not talking just the AK47. Surplus Uzis are also popular in the US and they are known to fire if a stiff breeze hits them. And the chinese pistols, the mostly plastic or poly carb models have become popular in these parts, do not always fire. That is a new kind of dangerous. A misfire at the range is a tense moment. Is it a delay, did the firing pin get stuck, is it the spring, will a jostle make the gun fire?

I am not one of those people calling for a return to 80's or 90's level gun bans. Those did more harm than good for a major reason. No civilian market for certain classes of weapons means Police cannot get access to them. Colt, who got the Contract with the US Military on the M16 was only able to make the gun and sell it to the army because it could do so in large numbers, millions. A Police department cannot order millions of rifles, and with no civilian market a company like Colt can only justify manufacturing to their one client- the Military. This put our police at a disadvantage with many criminals, look of the LA Bank of America shoot-out. I want a civilian market for assault rifles, because it keeps them in the hands of SWAT teams and get them in the trunks of police officers. Drum clips, and extended Glock clips we can discuss.

To be fair I don't think Q-Stone was saying there aren't ways to legally avoid background checks and whatever else, he was simply saying that the "Gun show loophole" is inaccurate and non-existent. There are simply different rules for people in the business of selling guns and not in the business of selling guns. It has nothing to do with gun shows.

But Sixteen, that is not what the ATF data says. Their operations at just under 200 gun shows of the thousands in the US each year led to hundreds of arrests, and close to 6,000 illegal or stolen weapons seized. The kicker, nothing was done so far as a sanction or fine to the convention centers or the convention companies for allowing that merchandise inside.

KingGorilla wrote:

But Sixteen, that is not what the ATF data says. Their operations at just under 200 gun shows of the thousands in the US each year led to hundreds of arrests, and close to 6,000 illegal or stolen weapons seized. The kicker, nothing was done so far as a sanction or fine to the convention centers or the convention companies for allowing that merchandise inside.

I'm not educated on these kinds of things but if arrests were made then the process wasn't legal and so that definitely does not qualify as a loophole.

It is a matter of resources, state and local police are insanely cash strapped these days, if you are not living in one of the US cities that had to eliminate emergency services. But I would call a vacuum of enforcement and accountability to the venue owners/promoters as a loophole. I would absolutely call the degree of insulation enjoyed by Pawn brokers, gun shop owners, and the convention promoters as a loophole.

Comic Con and Wizard are tasked with curtailing copyright infringements at their events-gone are the bootleg videos for example, they are getting better at removing the snipers-Wholesalers hurting the business of comic artists and the publishers and stores (IE selling dirt cheap/whole sale comics to undercut the others). And people are banned from those events. Their own security does this.

Any industry stating that they feel they are up to the task of policing themselves, better damn well do it.

KingGorilla wrote:

It is a matter of resources, state and local police are insanely cash strapped these days, if you are not living in one of the US cities that had to eliminate emergency services. But I would call a vacuum of enforcement and accountability to the venue owners/promoters as a loophole. I would absolutely call the degree of insulation enjoyed by Pawn brokers, gun shop owners, and the convention promoters as a loophole.

I think this is simply a difference in terminology. A loophole (to my understanding) is when something is actually legal due to specific/obscure cases in the law. If it's illegal and not enforced that's not a loophole.

Well, unlicensed vendors can and do sell their wares at gun shows. In states with stricter gun laws, they still get around by catering in collectables.

The unlicensed vendor factor is what most people discuss as a loophole in the news, to be sure. Which makes for a nice shock piece. But dealing in stolen or illegally modified guns goes well beyond licensing.

All sides of this debate, so far as the talking heads, are largely wrong. They deal in lies, ghost stories, and faulty logic. The same can be said for how we approach terrorism, drugs, etc. But data and experts use big words, require thinking, that makes things iffy.