[Discussion] How to enact Gun Safety

The scope of this discussion is strictly options or suggestions on HOW to create policy and law and how to implement them in the US so as to reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who intend to use them for criminal purposes.

Whether or not those options should be explored is not under debate. The 2nd Amendment is not under debate nor under discussion. The assumption of the thread is that "gun control" law is necessary at this point and which policies and laws are good to pursue on the basis of putative results.

We have background checks, for all we know, the Las Vegas shooter had passed those checks without a problem.

The Vegas shooter did pass any and all background checks required for him to buy the guns he had.

Paleocon wrote:

[ammosexual self-stimulation]

Just in case you needed to see how this murder machine was being marketed before this event.

Did that remind anyone else of the Shake Weight?

Paleocon wrote:

I would think that some sort of measure like exorbitant bullet taxes with exemptions for certified range use would be a fair compromise. If you want to shoot recreationally, great. Go to a range, buy the ammo there at a discount, and use it in its entirety or return the unused portion. Hunters don't need more than a handful of rounds and folks sincerely interested in "self defense" won't need more than a handful.

thrawn82 wrote:

I feel like this would receive EXTREME pushback from the folks i know who are gun hobbyists, and i think that's really telling about how much this is really about hunting or home-defense.

The trend I've long picked up on is that this mostly about dudes who want to cosplay Seal Team 6 using firearms that look exactly like military weapons and that, apparently, can be legally modified to fire pretty much like military weapons.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the "security of a free State." It has nothing to do with hunting. It has nothing to do with self-defense.

It's all about adult play time and fetishizing firearms and firearm accessories with an extra-large side order of toxic masculinity.

"Gun hobbyists" have an oversized voice in this discussion. They are wrapping themselves in the Constitution to protect their "right" to a hobby--a freakin' hobby--that's literally killing people and preventing changes that will reduce the number of firearms that get into bad people's hands because they don't want to be mildly inconvenienced.

Aetius wrote:

If you want to be taken seriously, please stop quoting this. The site that produces it does reasonably good open-source data collection, but in mass shooting data deliberately conflates "normal" criminal activity with shootings like Las Vegas. That doesn't help anyone, and supports the false idea that legal gun owners are mowing innocent people down left and right when they actually account for a only a tiny percentage of shootings - and many of those are defensive.

If you want to be taken seriously, please stop promoting the myth of the law abiding, good guy gun owner.

Paddock was a law abiding, good guy gun owner right up until the moment he stared down the scope at the concert crowd and pulled the trigger.

The community of gun owners is not perfect. There are idiots among you. There are racists among you. There are drug and alcohol abusers among you. There are people with anger control issues among you.

Legal gun owners shoot people every damn day. They lose their jobs and decide the best solution is to head back to work with their trusty gun. They get into fights with their wives or girlfriends and decide to handle it by pulling out their firearm. They get drunk or high, get into a fight, and figure that pulling a gun will shut the other guy up.

According to the FBI "arguments" accounted for 25% of murder victims in 2015. Not criminal gangs. Not mass murderers. Just f*cking dumb ass legal gun owners doing dumb ass things because they're human and have easy access to firearms. (And that number is likely higher. It's just that the FBI doesn't have data for the reasons behind half of firearms-related homicides.)

A quarter is not a "tiny percentage" of shootings.

And many of those weren't defensive. Those are also tracked by the FBI and in 2015 only 268 good guys with a gun shot and killed someone who was in the process of committing a felony. To put that number in some perspective gun owners murdered 1,005 of their wives and girlfriends in 2015.

So just be honest and admit it. Admit that there are such as thing as bad legal gun owners. That some people should never be allowed within 50 feet of firearms.

But as a community gun owners can't admit that because once they do then they're admitting that the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is fatally flawed and that there *should* be restrictions about who can own firearms and even what kind of firearms can be owned. It's their slippery slope. And refusing to come clean about it is getting thousands of people killed and injured every year.

ranalin wrote:
Stele wrote:

30k people in the US die from car accidents every year. So we're spending tons of money making self-driving cars. We could see those deaths decreased to near 0 within a decade or two.

Not to side rail, but this is a complete fallacy. It will take a decade or two just to get the infrastructure in place to even try to get access to self-driving cars especially since there's massive gaps across the country that still don't even have internet access.

Maybe go read some stuff driving articles or even the thread here. Internet access has little to do with it. Cars are running with cameras, lidar, etc. There's no car to car network or anything. They're just driving, millions of hours already, way better than humans, even with stupid humans still on the road. The less people drive the street it'll get.

Regardless the point stands. Something is being done about car safety. R&D, actual prototypes on the road.

The law prevents us from even gathering accurate gun statistics, much less doing anything to make them safer.

My phone has a fingerprint scanner and a 6 digit passcode. Put that tech on all new guns and you eliminate children accidentally killing themselves overnight.

Just one possibility but we can't even think about it, the NRA is so deeply entrenched.

Stele wrote:

My phone has a fingerprint scanner and a 6 digit passcode. Put that tech on all new guns and you eliminate children accidentally killing themselves overnight.

Just one possibility but we can't even think about it, the NRA is so deeply entrenched.

Edwin wrote:
Stele wrote:

My phone has a fingerprint scanner and a 6 digit passcode. Put that tech on all new guns and you eliminate children accidentally killing themselves overnight.

Just one possibility but we can't even think about it, the NRA is so deeply entrenched.

I think you missed the part about it stopping accidental shootings. However beside that point, this argument always bothers me, because it's essentially saying "Criminals are capable of picking locks, therefore there is no point to locking doors or safes"

Edwin wrote:
Stele wrote:

My phone has a fingerprint scanner and a 6 digit passcode. Put that tech on all new guns and you eliminate children accidentally killing themselves overnight.

Just one possibility but we can't even think about it, the NRA is so deeply entrenched.

Well, that didn't require fingerprint or a 6 digit passcode. Also that's an adult that deliberately set out to hack it which is very different than a kid playing with a gun they found in a drawer. If I had a gun, and my kid was creative and intelligent enough to hack the RFID lock using magnets, they're likely well past old enough to take gun safety courses to know why they shouldn't.

thrawn82 wrote:

However beside that point, this argument always bothers me, because it's essentially saying "Criminals are capable of picking locks, therefore there is no point to locking doors or safes"

Yes, it feels like not taking the good because it isn't perfect.

Stengah wrote:
Edwin wrote:
Stele wrote:

My phone has a fingerprint scanner and a 6 digit passcode. Put that tech on all new guns and you eliminate children accidentally killing themselves overnight.

Just one possibility but we can't even think about it, the NRA is so deeply entrenched.

Well, that didn't require fingerprint or a 6 digit passcode. Also that's an adult that deliberately set out to hack it which is very different than a kid playing with a gun they found in a drawer. If I had a gun, and my kid was creative and intelligent enough to hack the RFID lock using magnets, they're likely well past old enough to take gun safety courses to know why they shouldn't.

Why the f*ck are you leaving a loaded gun in a drawer?

cube wrote:

Why the f*ck are you leaving a loaded gun in a drawer?

Because too many gun owners are stupid enough to do so? I think we can all agree that accidental gun deaths are usually due to someone being a negligent gun owner, and that is just one part of a larger problem.

cube wrote:
Stengah wrote:
Edwin wrote:
Stele wrote:

My phone has a fingerprint scanner and a 6 digit passcode. Put that tech on all new guns and you eliminate children accidentally killing themselves overnight.

Just one possibility but we can't even think about it, the NRA is so deeply entrenched.

Well, that didn't require fingerprint or a 6 digit passcode. Also that's an adult that deliberately set out to hack it which is very different than a kid playing with a gun they found in a drawer. If I had a gun, and my kid was creative and intelligent enough to hack the RFID lock using magnets, they're likely well past old enough to take gun safety courses to know why they shouldn't.

Why the f*ck are you leaving a loaded gun in a drawer?

TERRORISTS.

cube wrote:
Stengah wrote:
Edwin wrote:
Stele wrote:

My phone has a fingerprint scanner and a 6 digit passcode. Put that tech on all new guns and you eliminate children accidentally killing themselves overnight.

Just one possibility but we can't even think about it, the NRA is so deeply entrenched.

Well, that didn't require fingerprint or a 6 digit passcode. Also that's an adult that deliberately set out to hack it which is very different than a kid playing with a gun they found in a drawer. If I had a gun, and my kid was creative and intelligent enough to hack the RFID lock using magnets, they're likely well past old enough to take gun safety courses to know why they shouldn't.

Why the f*ck are you leaving a loaded gun in a drawer?

I'm not, I don't like guns and don't own any. But the bedside drawer is one of the more common places that the kids involved in "gun accidents" find their parent's gun.

Stele wrote:
ranalin wrote:
Stele wrote:

30k people in the US die from car accidents every year. So we're spending tons of money making self-driving cars. We could see those deaths decreased to near 0 within a decade or two.

Not to side rail, but this is a complete fallacy. It will take a decade or two just to get the infrastructure in place to even try to get access to self-driving cars especially since there's massive gaps across the country that still don't even have internet access.

Maybe go read some stuff driving articles or even the thread here. Internet access has little to do with it. Cars are running with cameras, lidar, etc. There's no car to car network or anything. They're just driving, millions of hours already, way better than humans, even with stupid humans still on the road. The less people drive the street it'll get.

Regardless the point stands. Something is being done about car safety. R&D, actual prototypes on the road.

Link?

I have read articles and nothing i've read has made me think the way you do.

Stele wrote:

Regardless the point stands. Something is being done about car safety. R&D, actual prototypes on the road.

Your point doesn't really stand, as it is wrong.

The increased safety of self-driving cars is a positive side-effect. Self driving cars are being developed because people hate driving, and will pay good money to not have to. It's capitalism writ large.

The fact that the computer can drive more safely than I can is accidental.

Stengah wrote:
cube wrote:
Stengah wrote:
Edwin wrote:
Stele wrote:

My phone has a fingerprint scanner and a 6 digit passcode. Put that tech on all new guns and you eliminate children accidentally killing themselves overnight.

Just one possibility but we can't even think about it, the NRA is so deeply entrenched.

(sniped the youtube so it's not on here 10 times, only 9)

Well, that didn't require fingerprint or a 6 digit passcode. Also that's an adult that deliberately set out to hack it which is very different than a kid playing with a gun they found in a drawer. If I had a gun, and my kid was creative and intelligent enough to hack the RFID lock using magnets, they're likely well past old enough to take gun safety courses to know why they shouldn't.

Why the f*ck are you leaving a loaded gun in a drawer?

I'm not, I don't like guns and don't own any. But the bedside drawer is one of the more common places that the kids involved in "gun accidents" find their parent's gun.

Question 2: WHY THE f*ck DOES YOUR KID HAVE HYPOTHETICAL ACCESS TO YOUR HYPOTHETICAL GUN WITHOUT YOUR COMPLETE AND TOTAL SUPERVISION?

The failure chain right up to that trigger pull is extensive, in almost all cases. Not keeping the gun loaded. Properly storing it. Education for older children.

The problem is that most of the chain is stupidity and/or lazyness, which was OG's point. There are a massive number of bad gun owners in America.

And stupidity trumps technology in almost every case. That smart gun? You need to wear a(let's be honest, really ugly) watch to trigger the RFID. I'd wager that most owners will leave the watch in the same place as the gun, which basically negates the entire system's effectiveness for stopping accidental shots.

Don't get me wrong, fingerprint locks are a good idea, but even there, you're still relying on proper storage and handling. The NRA's been a bunch of assholes about this as well, especially with the Florida pediatrician stuff.

awaiting the chorus of folks saying "my kids know better than to mess with my guns".

ranalin wrote:
Stele wrote:
ranalin wrote:
Stele wrote:

30k people in the US die from car accidents every year. So we're spending tons of money making self-driving cars. We could see those deaths decreased to near 0 within a decade or two.

Not to side rail, but this is a complete fallacy. It will take a decade or two just to get the infrastructure in place to even try to get access to self-driving cars especially since there's massive gaps across the country that still don't even have internet access.

Maybe go read some stuff driving articles or even the thread here. Internet access has little to do with it. Cars are running with cameras, lidar, etc. There's no car to car network or anything. They're just driving, millions of hours already, way better than humans, even with stupid humans still on the road. The less people drive the street it'll get.

Regardless the point stands. Something is being done about car safety. R&D, actual prototypes on the road.

Link?

I have read articles and nothing i've read has made me think the way you do.

I'd just like to know how the the cars can figure out where to go without an internet connection to download maps.

cube wrote:

I'd just like to know how the the cars can figure out where to go without an internet connection to download maps.

Have you heard of computers? How about memory devices, like hard drives? Look them up. They're rather clever.

Paleocon wrote:

"my kids know better than to mess with my guns".

Said every parent who's ever lost a child to gun accident, probably. You hear parents say the same thing about pools, and kids still drown on the regular, which is how we ended up with a lot of pool safety regs and equipment.

Paleocon wrote:

awaiting the chorus of folks saying "my kids know better than to mess with my guns".

Heck, I don't trust most adults with guns. My mother in law has a bullet hole in her kitchen from her neighbors messing around with them.

Jonman wrote:
cube wrote:

I'd just like to know how the the cars can figure out where to go without an internet connection to download maps.

Have you heard of computers? How about memory devices, like hard drives? Look them up. They're rather clever.

You do realize that route planning is done by Apple/Google/MS' cloud, not by your personal device, right? And the only way to contact those servers is... through the internet.

cube wrote:
Jonman wrote:
cube wrote:

I'd just like to know how the the cars can figure out where to go without an internet connection to download maps.

Have you heard of computers? How about memory devices, like hard drives? Look them up. They're rather clever.

You do realize that route planning is done by Apple/Google/MS' cloud, not by your personal device, right? And the only way to contact those servers is... through the internet.

The 2003 BMW I had that had an un-networked GPS in it begs to differ.

Look, let's no kid ourselves - they're *all* going to have network capability, BUT, they're all going to have to function when that connection isn't available because otherwise, you're not going to be able to drive through Idaho.

I still don't understand why it is that people in the US, for the most, understand why you need a license and training to drive a car. They may not understand why you need a license to fish, but they accept it. You need a license to remodel your kitchen (probably?) Yet there is active, aggressive opposition to some simple, common sense steps to minimize the damage that guns are doing to your society. No, it isn't about taking away your guns. It is about questioning why you need armour piercing bullets. Why do you need more that 8-10 bullets in a magazine. This bump-stock thing.

My understanding is that a large majority of people in the US, on both sides of your spectrum, *want* common sense gun laws and regulations. At the very least, why do you not need to have a license/certification to own a gun in a lot of places?!?!?! It boggles my mind how anybody can be opposed to that simple concept, and if most people actually would like to see something like that, how is it things happen like the CDC not even being *allowed* to gather data?!

IMAGE(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22090170_10214749995245992_1681571363513233587_n.jpg?oh=804b329e73369bdb203be32a9635a992&oe=5A3F70FD)

When common sense is a super power...

Senkrad wrote:

I still don't understand why it is that people in the US, for the most, understand why you need a license and training to drive a car. They may not understand why you need a license to fish, but they accept it. You need a license to remodel your kitchen (probably?) Yet there is active, aggressive opposition to some simple, common sense steps to minimize the damage that guns are doing to your society. No, it isn't about taking away your guns. It is about questioning why you need armour piercing bullets. Why do you need more that 8-10 bullets in a magazine. This bump-stock thing.

My understanding is that a large majority of people in the US, on both sides of your spectrum, *want* common sense gun laws and regulations. At the very least, why do you not need to have a license/certification to own a gun in a lot of places?!?!?! It boggles my mind how anybody can be opposed to that simple concept, and if most people actually would like to see something like that, how is it things happen like the CDC not even being *allowed* to gather data?!

There’s an angry minority constantly threatening civil war if their 2A rights are ever threatened.

There’s also an angry minority that believe in conspiracy theories and profess (not sure if they actually believe it) that their guns are what’s standing between them and a “globalist” dictatorship.

These two groups crossover frequently with another group that actively wants civil war.

And lastly all of these groups crossover with a large majority that are mostly sensible, but listen to and give legitimacy to the previous 3 groups.

Because of this we have a large majority literally held hostage by a violent minority that holds outsized political sway.

Oh, and all 4 groups believe they’re in a culture war with progressives. So anything we want as policy they want to deny us out of spite. It’s tribalism. I don’t know if we can break the cycle.

DSGamer wrote:

Oh, and all 4 groups believe they’re in a culture war with progressives. So anything we want as policy they want to deny us out of spite. It’s tribalism. I don’t know if we can break the cycle.

It’s difficult to have a good conversation with the group you label as progressives when every gun owner is demonized after every gun violence incident by that group, in every media outlet possible, regardless of who they are. If you’re a gun owner, in some way apparently, you contributed to gun violence in America.

The other problem is, every gun control measure that’s put forth by that group generally has no idea what gun control is other than “Sieze all the guns and/or ammo!” because they’ve never owned a gun, never taken gun safety courses, or really held an actual firearm. Some have, but they usually go with the tribalism of said progressives.

Looking at 2 big, national mass murders, 1 was done with guns the person bought, one was done with the parents guns. I might be missing some in the middle at this point. I don’t remember the details of the weapons for the latter, and right now, I don’t feel like going and looking. For the former, I’m still waiting for more info on motives (if they can find them), and how the weapons were obtained (other than legally - were there multiple gun stores involved? How was the ammo purchased? Was it all in his luggage when he checked in? Did he buy any in the city? And so on).

Should there be sane gun control? Sure. What that looks like is a different story. What gun control would have covered both incidents, and still allowed for legal gun ownership of all the current types of guns?

It bears mentioning that both Edwin and Paleocon are avid gun users and both support regulations about gun safety.

There ARE people in the US who want to take away all the guns. If I were living in the US, I would be one such person. Having said that, they (we) do not represent the position of all "progressives" and absolutely do not represent the position of gun owners who want more stringent implementation of common sense policies to make guns safer.

I do think that the NRA is a well funded political action group that is molding popular opinion on the matter in addition to aggressive lobbying. It's not just a couple groups with outsized influence. There's a think tank thinking up all manner of spin on this thing and they're using those groups to spread all manner of nonsense that gets them more gun sales at the expense of American lives. They say they want freedom and 2A and whatever other nonsense they can drum up, but what they really want is profit. Because they're for-profit corporations.

This isn't a gun-only problem. Medical "supplements" exist under the same system. Lots of lobbies, lots of spin, a lot of very gullible people who will believe anything that broadly justifies their personal agenda without looking too closely at whatever else has been trojaned into the spin.

So they're big on personal responsibility.

How about strict liability laws? It won't stop mass murders because they're going to kill themselves anyway, but it may keep guns closer to home. Anything or anyone killed or injured by a gun registered to you or your gunstore incurs financial liabilities on your part. No other regulation. Freedom. Responsibility. Good, right?

LarryC wrote:

It bears mentioning that both Edwin and Paleocon are avid gun users and both support regulations about gun safety.

I’m in the same group, and I knew that Paleocon was a gun owner. I didn’t know that Edwin is. Paleocon’s involvement is the reason I felt ok with participating

LarryC wrote:

There ARE people in the US who want to take away all the guns. If I were living in the US, I would be one such person. Having said that, they (we) do not represent the position of all "progressives" and absolutely do not represent the position of gun owners who want more stringent implementation of common sense policies to make guns safer.

There are ways to get all the guns, but....

LarryC wrote:

I do think that the NRA is a well funded political action group that is molding popular opinion on the matter in addition to aggressive lobbying. It's not just a couple groups with outsized influence. There's a think tank thinking up all manner of spin on this thing and they're using those groups to spread all manner of nonsense that gets them more gun sales at the expense of American lives. They say they want freedom and 2A and whatever other nonsense they can drum up, but what they really want is profit. Because they're for-profit corporations.

This isn't a gun-only problem. Medical "supplements" exist under the same system. Lots of lobbies, lots of spin, a lot of very gullible people who will believe anything that broadly justifies their personal agenda without looking too closely at whatever else has been trojaned into the spin.

These are a couple of the major roadblocks. 2A doesn’t help either in this case because it is used as the major talking point with the literal meaning, rather than the meaning for when it was written.

LarryC wrote:

So they're big on personal responsibility.

How about strict liability laws? It won't stop mass murders because they're going to kill themselves anyway, but it may keep guns closer to home. Anything or anyone killed or injured by a gun registered to you or your gunstore incurs financial liabilities on your part. No other regulation. Freedom. Responsibility. Good, right?

Sounds like shifting the blame from the person to the gun dealer, which will be a no go for the gun dealers. It might suffice to stop the sales of guns depending on a number of factors, but it will unlikely stop the flow of guns. There would be a number of hurdles that the current climate (and possible 8 years of said climate) would destroy that type of legislation even if it did pass. You also have to consider deals on the side for things like Tanner Gun Show and others, along with side deals, gifts from family members, inherited weapons, and a whole host of other things. How long should the liability be? Any longer than a year and you’ll find gun shops “going out of business” to get around the restriction.

You also have State legislation in the matter, and running over the States from the Federal level will be difficult. As I recall, the Federal government gave up a lot of that power in the early 00’s, though I could be wrong there.

I don't know, making people liable sounds perfectly reasonable and completely American. If we can't make guns illegal, then make it so that from manufacturer, to dealer, to owner it's so costly to own and operate a gun that you better damn well know what you're doing and have a good reason for what you're doing.

Technically people are liable for their guns, unless the guns are stolen, in some states, if the guns are registered.

The problem is, the people who are (usually) liable also get killed first, or are the mass murderer or live in a state that doesn’t have those types of laws. That doesn’t help the problem.

Stolen guns are another matter, and if you want to talk about why the ATF is a joke, there have already been several tv, news and other spots/documentaries on the subject. I think there’s also a thread on it somewhere on the boards.