[Discussion] Discussion and news regarding Gun control in the US

Pages

discussion about gun control and related policies in the US, news related to gun incidents, etc

Dear America, on the 6th day of 2017, you have so far had at least 6 mass shootings this year. When is it enough? When can it finally be admitted that yes, there is a problem, and it needs addressing in ways that don't encourage yet more gun violence?

Clearly the problem will be solved if we raise the threshold for what qualifies as a mass shooting.

krev82 wrote:

Dear America, on the 6th day of 2017, you have so far had at least 6 mass shootings this year. When is it enough? When can it finally be admitted that yes, there is a problem, and it needs addressing in ways that don't encourage yet more gun violence?

I do not believe you will get the majority of Americans to agree with that. Sorry. I agree but I really think most people see it as a mental health problem at best and just a fact of modern life at worst.

If Sandy Hook didn't prompt a change in America's gun laws, I'm not sure there's any remaining threshold at which, when crossed, will precipitate a change.

Maybe if PoC and other marginalized groups start carrying guns in significant numbers?

Apart from that, I've got nothing.

krev82 wrote:

Dear America, on the 6th day of 2017, you have so far had at least 6 mass shootings this year. When is it enough?

There can never be 'enough'. Why does anyone have the right to take away a weapon? If you take the guns, there will be mass knifeings. If you remove the knives, it will be pencils and forks. We have to just accept that some people want to hurt other people, and there's nothing we can do about it.

krev82 wrote:

When can it finally be admitted that yes, there is a problem

There isn't a problem with guns, it is with people. They are fundamentally evil, and only through adherence to God's plan that they will start respecting life.

krev82 wrote:

it needs addressing in ways that don't encourage yet more gun violence?

The only realistic solution is to have the government, under threat of arms, including gun violence, take the guns away from everyone, and then only the worst criminals will have guns.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

If Sandy Hook didn't prompt a change in America's gun laws, I'm not sure there's any remaining threshold at which, when crossed, will precipitate a change.

Maybe if PoC and other marginalized groups start carrying guns in significant numbers?

Apart from that, I've got nothing.

Well, it worked last time.

Clearly the answer is more good guys with guns

Atras wrote:
krev82 wrote:

Dear America, on the 6th day of 2017, you have so far had at least 6 mass shootings this year. When is it enough?

There can never be 'enough'. Why does anyone have the right to take away a weapon? If you take the guns, there will be mass knifeings. If you remove the knives, it will be pencils and forks. We have to just accept that some people want to hurt other people, and there's nothing we can do about it.

True. The pencil violence in other countries is staggering.

Atras wrote:
krev82 wrote:

Dear America, on the 6th day of 2017, you have so far had at least 6 mass shootings this year. When is it enough?

There can never be 'enough'. Why does anyone have the right to take away a weapon? If you take the guns, there will be mass knifeings. If you remove the knives, it will be pencils and forks. We have to just accept that some people want to hurt other people, and there's nothing we can do about it.

krev82 wrote:

When can it finally be admitted that yes, there is a problem

There isn't a problem with guns, it is with people. They are fundamentally evil, and only through adherence to God's plan that they will start respecting life.

People are not fundamentally evil. Not even by biblical standards, are they evil. There are sinners: repentant and unrepentant. Labelling people as evil only serves to further drive people away from Christ.

krev82 wrote:

it needs addressing in ways that don't encourage yet more gun violence?

The only realistic solution is to have the government, under threat of arms, including gun violence, take the guns away from everyone, and then only the worst criminals will have guns. [/quote]

No. Start reducing the flood of firearms available. Dramatically increase the cost of ammunition. Tax ownership and require licensing. Eventually, the problem will reduce, just like smoking.

Pretty sure Atras wasn't serious with that post.

Well there definitely is a mental health component that is overlapping with the gun violence issue, so it should not ne ignored. But it should also not be used to distract from any action on gun violence in general.

I'm just really excited to see what Alex Jones' excuse is when he can't call a school shooting a false flag, because his buddy's the President.

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:

I'm just really excited to see what Alex Jones' excuse is when he can't call a school shooting a false flag, because his buddy's the President.

Spoiler:

It'll be the intelligence agencies' fault.

Dimmerswitch wrote:
Bonus_Eruptus wrote:

I'm just really excited to see what Alex Jones' excuse is when he can't call a school shooting a false flag, because his buddy's the President.

Spoiler:

It'll be the intelligence agencies' fault.

Spoiler:

Or the Clintons.

ruhk wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:
Bonus_Eruptus wrote:

I'm just really excited to see what Alex Jones' excuse is when he can't call a school shooting a false flag, because his buddy's the President.

Spoiler:

It'll be the intelligence agencies' fault.

Spoiler:

Or the Clintons.

Spoiler:

If Trump supporters can blame Obama for 9/11, what *can't* they blame him for?

Tanglebones wrote:

If Trump supporters can blame Obama for 9/11, what *can't* they blame him for?

Apparently Obama didn't have anything to do with the ACA, because he was too busy making ObamaCare.

This is some required reading for the thread:

Guardian article on the geographic distribution of gun violence.

TL:DR version - gun violence is very, very clustered in tiny localities, and within those localities, clustered within a tiny sliver of the population. As such, it doesn't need solving on a national basis, it needs solving on a local basis.

Jonman wrote:

This is some required reading for the thread:
Guardian article on the geographic distribution of gun violence.

I love this paragraph:

In different times and places, violence in America has spread like a wave through different ethnic and racial groups, said Dr Gary Slutkin, a Chicago epidemiologist who has championed a public health model for preventing violence. In the 1920s, violence was concentrated among Irish American and Italian American populations, he said. In recent decades, it’s been more concentrated among African Americans. “There is nothing innate,” he said. “All people and peoples are susceptible.”

Hmm. If only there was some ... factor that tied those two trends and time periods together. Some commonality between the 1920s and recent decades that drove a spike in crime, and particularly murders. I just can't quite put my finger on it.

I have to think this sideways approach to the critical element of gun violence in America has to be intentional.

Aetius wrote:
Jonman wrote:

This is some required reading for the thread:
Guardian article on the geographic distribution of gun violence.

I love this paragraph:

In different times and places, violence in America has spread like a wave through different ethnic and racial groups, said Dr Gary Slutkin, a Chicago epidemiologist who has championed a public health model for preventing violence. In the 1920s, violence was concentrated among Irish American and Italian American populations, he said. In recent decades, it’s been more concentrated among African Americans. “There is nothing innate,” he said. “All people and peoples are susceptible.”

Hmm. If only there was some ... factor that tied those two trends and time periods together. Some commonality between the 1920s and recent decades that drove a spike in crime, and particularly murders. I just can't quite put my finger on it.

I have to think this sideways approach to the critical element of gun violence in America has to be intentional. :)

For those of you confused, he's referring to Alcohol Prohibition in the 20s and Marijuana (and maybe more?) Prohibition now.

Yonder wrote:
Aetius wrote:

I have to think this sideways approach to the critical element of gun violence in America has to be intentional. :)

For those of you confused, he's referring to Alcohol Prohibition in the 20s and Marijuana (and maybe more?) Prohibition now.

Sure, but that's not a root cause. The root cause is lack of economic opportunity, and the black market provides a conveniently accessible route out of that bind. In the 20s, that meant running booze, now it means slinging drugs.

Jonman wrote:
Yonder wrote:
Aetius wrote:

I have to think this sideways approach to the critical element of gun violence in America has to be intentional. :)

For those of you confused, he's referring to Alcohol Prohibition in the 20s and Marijuana (and maybe more?) Prohibition now.

Sure, but that's not a root cause. The root cause is lack of economic opportunity, and the black market provides a conveniently accessible route out of that bind. In the 20s, that meant running booze, now it means slinging drugs.

While a lack of economic opportunity is always going to lead to higher crime, including violent crime, there is a special relationship between violent crime and illegal trade that would still exist. The fact that the trade is illegal removes or at least greatly limits the ability for competitors to have the State mediate any disputes or competition between them. Because of that there is both more reason to go to extra-legal methods to compete, and once again less ability to ask the State to stop that extra-legal activity. It's not greatly surprising that this would eventually escalate to lethal force.

Greater economic opportunity would help move people away from the more dangerous illegal professions, or make them less likely to enter them, but it's still two different issues that can be approached differently.

This same principle is what makes certain people like illegal immigrants or prostitutes at higher risk of crime, they feel similar compunctions about having the State intervene in their business. And similar things are also in play with honor cultures/"snitches get stitches" mentalities that encourage people to resolve disputes themselves or with their social group rather than through State mediators. It's just magnified with illegal professions because you are adding money (perhaps lots of money) to the stakes.

Yonder wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Sure, but that's not a root cause. The root cause is lack of economic opportunity, and the black market provides a conveniently accessible route out of that bind. In the 20s, that meant running booze, now it means slinging drugs.

While a lack of economic opportunity is always going to lead to higher crime, including violent crime, there is a special relationship between violent crime and illegal trade that would still exist.

Illegal trade only looks like an feasible option to an individual because there are few legal options available to them, and certainly none that offer the same level of return. This is why you and I are aren't selling heroin. Because we could, if we wanted. We could make a sh*t-ton of money selling heroin. So why don't we?

Because we have day jobs that pay the mortgage, put food on the table and fill our Steam libraries to bursting. We don't need to run the risk to get the reward.

Once you get to that point, everything else you say is right, but it follows from that. You're absolutely right that an illegal market lends itself to the invisible hand forming a fist, and that is precisely why it's almost exclusively the preserve of those without less risky ways to get the same payback.

A Missouri man thought that recent changes in state law allowed him to cap off seven rounds at someone who had grabbed his cell phone and ran.

The gunman told police that "the only reason I thought it was OK to shoot at him while he was running away was because of what happened with the new year with the gun law change."

Back in September Missouri legislators overrode a veto of Senate Bill 656. The bill repealed the requirement for residents to get a permit before carrying a concealed firearm and made Missouri another "stand your ground" state.

Ironically, the gunman would have learned that he wasn't allowed to just shoot anyone in the back if he felt like it had the state kept its existing concealed carry permitting and training requirements.

It's never going to happen. At best we could give the ATF some teeth to actually enforce existing gun laws, but that's probably also not going to happen in the next 4 years.

We're stuck on this road, and there isn't any amount of political will to change our course.

Callous Buddha wrote:

It's never going to happen. At best we could give the ATF some teeth to actually enforce existing gun laws, but that's probably also not going to happen in the next 4 years.

We're stuck on this road, and there isn't any amount of political will to change our course.

If anything, expect the NFA, GCA, the 1986 Hughes Amendment to be repealed while National Reciprocity and the HPA to be passed.

The regulations against mentally ill people buying guns has been lifted. I am guessing this was done to keep the NRA support for Trump. Or maybe Trump just wanted guns in the hands of the mentally ill.

Here's some background on the whole thing. Note: I'm for the restriction.

Baron Of Hell wrote:

The regulations against mentally ill people buying guns has been lifted. I am guessing this was done to keep the NRA support for Trump. Or maybe Trump just wanted guns in the hands of the mentally ill.

Gotta kickstart The Purge somehow.

Something something can't have regulations what get between people and their constitutional rights, even when there's ample evidence that there's a problem or that they might pose a danger to themselves or others.

Meanwhile, absolutely must enact more regulations to make sure that only legal people are allowed to exercise their right to vote, despite lack of evidence that this is anything other than an extremely rare problem.

Apparently the ACLU was for repealing this.

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-co...

Social Security Administration (SSA)’s Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendment Acts of 2007 Harms People with Disabilities

In December 2016, the SSA promulgated a final rule that would require the names of all Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefit recipients – who, because of a mental impairment, use a representative payee to help manage their benefits – be submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is used during gun purchases.

We oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent. There is no data to support a connection between the need for a representative payee to manage one’s Social Security disability benefits and a propensity toward gun violence. The rule further demonstrates the damaging phenomenon of “spread,” or the perception that a disabled individual with one area of impairment automatically has additional, negative and unrelated attributes. Here, the rule automatically conflates one disability-related characteristic, that is, difficulty managing money, with the inability to safely possess a firearm.

The rule includes no meaningful due process protections prior to the SSA’s transmittal of names to the NICS database. The determination by SSA line staff that a beneficiary needs a representative payee to manage their money benefit is simply not an “adjudication” in any ordinary meaning of the word. Nor is it a determination that the person “[l]acks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs” as required by the NICS. Indeed, the law and the SSA clearly state that representative payees are appointed for many individuals who are legally competent.

We recognize that enacting new regulations relating to firearms can raise difficult questions. The ACLU believes that the right to own and use guns is not absolute or free from government regulation, since firearms are inherently dangerous instrumentalities and their use, unlike other activities protected by the Bill of Rights, can inflict serious bodily injury or death. Therefore, firearms are subject to reasonable regulation in the interests of public safety, crime prevention, maintaining the peace, environmental protection, and public health. We do not oppose regulation of firearms as long as it is reasonably related to these legitimate government interests.

At the same time, regulation of firearms and individual gun ownership or use must be consistent with civil liberties principles, such as due process, equal protection, freedom from unlawful searches, and privacy. All individuals have the right to be judged on the basis of their individual capabilities, not the characteristics and capabilities that are sometimes attributed (often mistakenly) to any group or class to which they belong. A disability should not constitute grounds for the automatic per se denial of any right or privilege, including gun ownership.

Called it.

tl;dr

Expect the ATF to

1. allow super easy way to make a short barreled rifle and shotgun
2. suggest Congress de-regulate silencers by removing them from the NFA
3. reverse past decisions and allow for the safe and legal importation of Certain Department of Defense Surplus Firearms from Foreign Countries and sale of these historical and collectible items.
4. recognition of how ubiquitous ("in common use") modern sporting rifles are with recognition that that legal threshold has been met, which may be important for fighting the AWB in individual states.
5. Allowing variances to be issued that would allow SOTs to transfer Post-86 machineguns without a demo letter
6. Make ATF regulatory decisions readily accessible to the public and searchable
7. Make it easier for FFLs to do business at gun shows

Then there is this point near the end.

15. Need for an ATF Confirmed Director: Since moving from the Department of Treasury to
the DOJ in 2003, ATF has had only one Senate-confirmed Director. The agency needs a
presidentially nominated, Senate-confirmed Director who has the support and backing
of the Administration to lead ATF. This will enable the agency to be fully in sync with
leadership, and maximize the agency’s potential regarding priorities, budgets, and
support.

It would seem likely that the deputy director is in fact making a play to become the director.

Pages