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

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

A softer approach could be to impose a (starting off as) small levy or sales tax on either or both of guns, parts and ammunition; the money would then be put into a national/state fund that reinvests the cash and pays out on shooting claims, to a capped amount at first (until the fund could self sustain itself with incoming money or via reinsurance like other risks). The levy could then be added to with an insurance scheme for ongoing ownership; insure second hand weapons at a higher rate since a lot of sellers won't comply with a levy. But you probably need a national database to track ownership in an insurance scheme.

Society typically imposes an excise/levy/tax on harmful things like cigarettes and alcohol, so why not do it to the gun industry.

Problem however is that government spending doesn't necessarily correlate taxes/levies/excise money with expenditure.

The 2nd amendment needs to be repealed before anything meaningful laws can have a chance to pass. It's a bit of a Catch 22.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

The 2nd amendment needs to be repealed before anything meaningful laws can have a chance to pass. It's a bit of a Catch 22.

at least it needs to be properly interpreted in a historical context

Paleocon wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:

The 2nd amendment needs to be repealed before anything meaningful laws can have a chance to pass. It's a bit of a Catch 22.

at least it needs to be properly interpreted in a historical context

You're never going to have a single interpretation. It needs to be repealed and rewritten.

Mixolyde wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:

The 2nd amendment needs to be repealed before anything meaningful laws can have a chance to pass. It's a bit of a Catch 22.

at least it needs to be properly interpreted in a historical context

You're never going to have a single interpretation. It needs to be repealed and rewritten.

I think we should rewrite it to specifically mention that significant levels of regulation are allowed and expected, and also to state the overall goal of having all of these weapons.

trichy wrote:

Okay, as a while male in the United States, I am wholly unqualified to have an opinion on this. But a few recent articles I've read have posed some pretty ugly questions about gun control. Apparently, a lot of the first gun control laws in the US were passed strictly for racist reasons (keep guns out of the hands of black people), and there's concern among minorities that new gun control laws could be used for the same thing, especially with recent political tensions over race.

Thoughts?

Here's one point of view (not mine).

Yonder wrote:

It's also worth pointing out that that is the sort of thing that is hard to catch without a lot more oversight than we have.

This might be a minor aside, but "oversight" in government entities is commonly rephrased as "government waste and red tape."

wordsmythe wrote:
Yonder wrote:

It's also worth pointing out that that is the sort of thing that is hard to catch without a lot more oversight than we have.

This might be a minor aside, but "oversight" in government entities is commonly rephrased as "government waste and red tape."

Why do you want to stifle innovation in gun control?

Re: the discussion about concealed carry holders being stable and law-abiding, from the Mass shooting thread.

thrawn82 wrote:

and in what Journal was this statistical analysis published?

Philips, et al, American Journal of Public Health - When Concealed Handgun Licensees Break Bad: Criminal Convictions of Concealed Handgun Licensees in Texas, 2001–2009

From the conclusion:

Holders of a CHL in Texas in 2001 to 2009 were almost universally a law-abiding population, like most individuals who shared their demographic characteristics. However, in those rare instances when they committed crimes—by contrast to criminality among nonholders of CHLs—they were more likely to be convicted for serious weapons-related offenses (illegally carrying a firearm, threatening persons with a firearm, or intentionally killing another person).

Emphasis is mine, and I think that this part of their conclusion makes sense, given the population.

----

Stinson, Liederbach, and Freiburger, Police Quarterly - Exit Strategy: An Exploration of Late-Stage Police Crime

Outlines what data is know about police criminality - the measurements are almost certainly underestimated - and shows a substantially higher rate of police crimes than concealed carry holders.

So people that are required to not have a criminal background so that they can carry a gun are likely to not have a criminal background. Until occasionally some of them get angry and threaten people with their gun.

What this study needs to do, but doesn't is compare people with Concealed Carry Permits with people that don't have those permits BUT ARE ELIGIBLE TO GET THEM.

there are some serious flaws in the methodology of that study, which yonder pointed out, but the largest flaw is that it is a publicly funded american study published after the Dickey Amendment, which means had they published any result that "could be used to advocate or promote gun control" they would have had the funding for the study stripped out of their next federal grant. Which actually explains why the methodology was designed the way it was.

Aetius wrote:

From the conclusion:

Holders of a CHL in Texas in 2001 to 2009 were almost universally a law-abiding population, like most individuals who shared their demographic characteristics. However, in those rare instances when they committed crimes—by contrast to criminality among nonholders of CHLs—they were more likely to be convicted for serious weapons-related offenses (illegally carrying a firearm, threatening persons with a firearm, or intentionally killing another person).

Emphasis is mine, and I think that this part of their conclusion makes sense, given the population.

Without reading the entire study, this seems to be saying that being a CHL doesn't affect the rate of criminality, but it means they are more likely to do something weapon-y and serious. It certainly doesn't suggest that folks that carry are more "law-abiding" than the general populace.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

Without reading the entire study, this seems to be saying that being a CHL doesn't affect the rate of criminality, but it means they are more likely to do something weapon-y and serious. It certainly doesn't suggest that folks that carry are more "law-abiding" than the general populace.

It works very hard to imply that, but fails. What the study actually says is that if a CHL holder is convicted of a crime, the distribution is different from the general population. Unsurprisingly, any convictions are more likely to be gun-related, particularly when it comes to unlawful carry ... considering that the majority of the population carries a gun. However, the overall conviction rate per 100,000 people is far lower than the general population, as you can see from the cited Texas DPS data.

Here's an example of the Texas data for 2017:

https://www.dps.texas.gov/RSD/LTC/Re...

The data is even more impressive when you consider that the number of CHL holders in Texas has increased dramatically in the last ten years, yet the conviction rate has gone down.

Aetius wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:

Without reading the entire study, this seems to be saying that being a CHL doesn't affect the rate of criminality, but it means they are more likely to do something weapon-y and serious. It certainly doesn't suggest that folks that carry are more "law-abiding" than the general populace.

It works very hard to imply that, but fails. What the study actually says is that if a CHL holder is convicted of a crime, the distribution is different from the general population. Unsurprisingly, any convictions are more likely to be gun-related, particularly when it comes to unlawful carry ... considering that the majority of the population carries a gun. However, the overall conviction rate per 100,000 people is far lower than the general population, as you can see from the cited Texas DPS data.

Here's an example of the Texas data for 2017:

https://www.dps.texas.gov/RSD/LTC/Re...

The data is even more impressive when you consider that the number of CHL holders in Texas has increased dramatically in the last ten years, yet the conviction rate has gone down.

So how does that apply to the idea of everyone carrying a gun all the time to protect themselves? If anything, it seems to indicate that the number of gun-related convictions would go up. In addition to accidental discharge deaths, innocent bystander deaths, escalated conflict deaths, and suicides.

They commit crimes at an over all lower rate, 0.014% of the 1.2m LTC population vs 0.15% of the 27.1m regular population, but when they do commit crimes they are much much more likely to be very serious crimes.

For example while most crime rates are much lower: child molestation, assault w a deadly weapon, assault causing deadly injury to a family member, and deadly conduct are all a full order of magnitude higher than the regular criminal population.

Mixolyde wrote:

So how does that apply to the idea of everyone carrying a gun all the time to protect themselves? If anything, it seems to indicate that the number of gun-related convictions would go up. In addition to accidental discharge deaths, innocent bystander deaths, escalated conflict deaths, and suicides.

Assuming you mean everyone who could pass a background check in Texas, given the data it's likely that the rate of CHL gun-related convictions would either remain the same or decline. The actual number would probably go up, simply because the population would be much larger. Whether or not that would have an effect on the overall numbers is another question entirely. (How would criminals behave if they knew that nearly every possible victim was armed, legally or not?)

On negligent discharges we can only speculate, but I think it would go down - most negligent discharges are caused by people being unfamiliar with their weapon, and if a lot more people were carrying that would mean a lot more familiarity. For innocent bystander deaths, the numbers are so small that no meaningful extrapolation is possible. I believe the rate of innocent bystanders killed by Texas CHL holders has been zero since they've been collecting data, and rates are similar elsewhere though it does happen very rarely. For escalated conflicts I don't know of any data, but since virtually all concealed carry training emphasizes conflict de-escalation, it seems unlikely? I think suicides would remain the same, as they are more related to gun access than concealed carry, and the population of suicidal people versus the population of CHL holders isn't likely to overlap very much.

thrawn82 wrote:

For example while most crime rates are much lower: child molestation, assault w a deadly weapon, assault causing deadly injury to a family member, and deadly conduct are all a full order of magnitude higher than the regular criminal population.

As a percentage of total crimes committed by that population, yes - in part, because the total crimes committed in the CHL population is so small. As a rate for that population, it's not even close.

Take deadly conduct as a example. Using the Texas data for 2017, the rate of deadly conduct convictions for CHL holders is 2.1 per 100,000 (21 convictions / 10, assuming 1 million CHL holders), while the rate for the general population is 2.9 per 100,000 (815 / 280, assuming a population of 28 million) - and the rate for the criminal population is 163 per 100,000 (815 / 5, assuming a population of 500,000, which is roughly the number of convicted felons in Texas). Obviously those numbers are pretty rough, but you get the idea.

I'd like to challenge the idea that when you are in a life-threatening situation wherein lethal force is being used around you, you need a gun to survive. Many experts in hand to hand fighting will say that getting into or staying in a street fight is a bad idea, and this is from people who are "armed" with fighting prowess all the time by virtue of their work. Your best defense is being able to run extremely fast. How would this be different with a gun in an urban environment that is not your home?

When you're attacked, you're in an ambush situation. You don't know your attacker. You don't know how many of them there are and you don't know what they want. Getting out ASAP seems like the best way to handle that situation.

My 5 year experience living around North Carolina concealed carry holders pretty much convinced me that the vast majority of them would be absolutely worthless at best in a crisis and a good portion of them would be a damaging complication to a crime scene. Any good a gun would do in the hands of someone as minimally trained as the comical requirements of that "permit" would be limited to pure chance. And the fact that this sort of sh*t happens far more often than one cares admit demonstrates, at least to me, that it is a pretty piss poor policy.

Paleocon wrote:

And the fact that this sort of sh*t happens far more often than one cares admit demonstrates, at least to me, that it is a pretty piss poor policy.

"I need to carry a gun so I can get out of the terrible situations my poor emotional and impulse control get me into by illegally brandishing it."

LarryC wrote:

Your best defense is being able to run extremely fast.

So... caltrops it is!

OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

And the fact that this sort of sh*t happens far more often than one cares admit demonstrates, at least to me, that it is a pretty piss poor policy.

"I need to carry a gun so I can get out of the terrible situations my poor emotional and impulse control get me into by illegally brandishing it."

Not just brandishing. He discharged it twice there and then drove away, drove back, and emptied the magazine into the house. And because he was white, he was only charged with "discharging a firearm into an occupied dwelling". Which, if I understand correctly, is not a felony so he can continue to carry his firearm in the state of North Carolina.

Paleocon wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

And the fact that this sort of sh*t happens far more often than one cares admit demonstrates, at least to me, that it is a pretty piss poor policy.

"I need to carry a gun so I can get out of the terrible situations my poor emotional and impulse control get me into by illegally brandishing it."

Not just brandishing. He discharged it twice there and then drove away, drove back, and emptied the magazine into the house. And because he was white, he was only charged with "discharging a firearm into an occupied dwelling". Which, if I understand correctly, is not a felony so he can continue to carry his firearm in the state of North Carolina.

Ahhh you silly willy. I'm sure if a black guy did the same thing he would have got charged the same. Well assuming if he was still alive after be shot by the police.

Paleocon wrote:

Not just brandishing. He discharged it twice there and then drove away, drove back, and emptied the magazine into the house. And because he was white, he was only charged with "discharging a firearm into an occupied dwelling". Which, if I understand correctly, is not a felony so he can continue to carry his firearm in the state of North Carolina.

He got probation for threatening to kill someone and shooting up their car (and being such a bad shot that at least one of the rounds hit a completely innocent person's house).

ABC 12 wrote:

Turner pleaded guilty to all charges against him: Felony Discharging a Weapon into an Occupied Dwelling; two misdemeanor counts of Assault by Pointing a Gun; one count of Injury to Personal Property; and one count of Assault and Battery. Christy Turner's misdemeanor charges (two counts of Assault by Pointing a Gun) were dismissed after Turner pleaded guilty.

Judge W. Douglas Parsons sentenced Turner to 25 to 42 months in prison. Judge Parsons then suspended that sentence and placed Turner on 36 months of supervised probation. He ordered Turner to pay court costs and to pay restitution to the victims. He ordered that Turner have no contact with the victims, including no direct or indirect contact by social media. Turner must undergo anger management classes and will be subject to electronic house arrest with an ankle bracelet for the first 6 months of probation. Turner cannot possess any weapons, and if he is found in possession of weapons, he will be arrested under a $ 100,000 bond. The gun that Turner used was forfeited to the Carteret County Sheriff's Department. He will be supervised by a probation officer in Lenoir County, where he resides.

And it turns out Turner had a previous record. He was arrested for trespassing and assault back in 2002 and 2003. And Turner's four year-old kid was in the car when he decided he needed to pick a fight. Everything that screams responsible, law-abiding gun owner.

LarryC wrote:

Getting out ASAP seems like the best way to handle that situation.

This is precisely why almost all armed self-defense training emphasizes conflict de-escalation - it's always better when no one gets shot.

However, every situation is different and there are plenty of reasons why someone might not be able to retreat. Perhaps you're old, or disabled. Sometimes there's nowhere to run - an attacker is already about to shoot you. Or you've already been backed into a corner trying to de-escalate - the shooter in that incident was cleared of all charges. Or you've already been chased down, knocked to the ground, and jumped on.

What should that woman have done?

Good job on picking out a handful of exceptions out of the thousands of incidents of violence every day that don’t escalate to murder. Interesting tactic using fringe cases like that considering people often accuse gun control advocates of using fringe cases in the form of mass shootings as a means of forming public policy.

Except I didn't pick out exceptions - I chose those stories from a short Google search because they illustrated specific situations where the victim was unable to retreat. The Gun Violence Archive tracks defensive shootings, and what you'll find is that they occur far more often than mass shootings, especially if you remove drug-related mass shootings from the count. You'll also find that, in general, defensive shootings occur as a desperate last measure, not a first response, and usually happen because someone is indeed unable to retreat. There's also a hotly-disputed but significantly larger number of defensive gun uses where shots are not fired - these are particularly difficult to track and count because they don't make the news or police reports.

Look at the GVA list, and think how you would respond to each of those situations.

That’s literally the NRA in a nutshell. The real solution to gun violence is more guns.

In any given situation your best chance of survival is to comply or remove yourself from the situation.

Yeah. They were egging him and bullying the old guy but he ESCALATED by pulling out his weapon as a threat. He retreated but only to the extent that was legally defensible.

This is of particular interest to me because I cannot run, because of joint issues. I have to "arm" myself with mobility options in order to be able to flee effectively. Equipping yourself to be capable of effective flight seems more sensible than equipping yourself with a gun. My bike isn't likely to go off accidentally and kill my kids.

Aetius wrote:

You'll also find that, in general, defensive shootings occur as a desperate last measure, not a first response, and usually happen because someone is indeed unable to retreat. There's also a hotly-disputed but significantly larger number of defensive gun uses where shots are not fired - these are particularly difficult to track and count because they don't make the news or police reports.

A Harvard study of DGU actually had a panel of five criminal court judges review the descriptions survey respondents provided about their most recent DGU. A majority of the judges deemed that 51% of those DGUs as "probably illegal," meaning gun owner actually illegally brandished or fired their weapon.

That would be like the idiot and his wife in the above video: escalating conflicts to the point where they feel they have to use their gun. I'm imagine that guy tells the story of how he needed a gun to protect his family, conveniently leaving out the fact that he followed the two men home in a fit of road rage and then "had" to use his gun when the men he stalked and assaulted fought back.

But even beyond that it doesn't really make sense that more and more people (white dudes) feel compelled to carry firearms when crimes--especially violent crimes--are at 40 or 50 year lows. We basically have the murder rates of 1950's Mayberry and yet gun owners act like they live in 2004's Fallujah.

I’ve actually been mugged at gunpoint, back in 2005 in Iowa City. I managed to de-escalate and walked away from the situation with my life and possessions intact. If I was the type of person who felt the need to carry gun the outcome would probably have been drastically different and worse for everyone.
Despite the narrative you’re trying to push, Aetius, the incidents you listed are extreme fringe cases. Most incidents don’t escalate to that level of violence. We don’t live in the Purge.