General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[Sackett]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Cute, but since you are NOT suppose to casually loan a gun to your buddy for a week, I fail to see how it is relevant.

Who says?

People do it all the time. My brother regularly borrows guns from my father.

That's normal. In fact, President Obama specifically asked for the proposed legislation to include an exception for loaning a gun to friends and family.

Frankly I suspect a lot of people commenting here have no clue of what is normal, nor do they realize how deeply engrained gun culture is in America.

None of this really matters anyway. What Obama did today was the maximum that a President can legally do, and it's all rather impotent. American law is designed that way.

First then President himself is limited to what Congress has authorized him to do. He can't just make up new laws on his own. Congress has been decidedly anti-gun control for the last 20 years.

Then there is the 2nd Amendment which is really clear about the inability of Congress to forbid the ownership and possession of guns (including the bullets).

Claims about it only applying to the militia and thus not individuals are based on confusion about what the militia is. Militia is defined in the US Code as all able bodied males between the ages of 18 and 40. Historically it has always simply meant "all able bodied males" in a community.

Additionally the militia clause strengthens the position of gun right advocates on ownership of assault rifles and large magazines. Militia is usually defined as light infantry, thus is is reasonable to assume that the type of weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment are those commonly used by light infantrymen. Hence why it is Constitutional to strictly control machine guns, rocket launchers, ect - but not an assault rifle which is the common weapon issued to a light infantryman.

Nor is there any reason to think that this broad protection of weapons ownership by the public was not the intent of the 2nd Amendment. I have often heard gun control supporters demand to know when people would ever need weapons to fight their own government. Well... there's that little thing called the American Revolution. Which, by the way, was preceded by a year of attempts by the British Government (which then was also the American government) to disarm Americans through the seizure of weapons and gunpowder.

In fact the spark that moved the conflict from hostility to open confrontation was the battles of Concord and Lexington- which occurred because the British tried to seize a store of weapons in Lexington.

Thus it is little wonder that having just experienced an attempt by their previous government to disarm the public, that early Americans decided to build broad protections into the Constitution forbidding the new government from restricting the ownership of weapons by the general public.

Now maybe this no longer applies in the 21st Century, but the 2nd Amendment cannot just be ignored or interpreted away. If we wish to institute strict control on guns we must first repeal or modify the 2nd Amendment.

Of course no one wants to attempt this because it requires 2/3 majorities in Congress, followed by approval by 3/4 of the States. I might add that this is a very good thing. Restricting gun ownership is an extremely touchy subject that many Americans view as a precursor to tyranny (as it was in the historical experience of Americans). Only a super-majority has the needed legitimacy to ensure that new restrictions will be accepted peaceably.

Again this is all currently meaningless, as even the limited restrictions Obama has asked Congress to implement will not even pass the Senate, let alone the House. At least 6 Senate Democrats, including Harry Reid, are gun right supporters.

Gun control advocates don't want to accept it, but Americans in general oppose gun control. Oh sure, you might have a poll here or there showing support for one or two items, and thus you think that there is hope for an incremental approach, but in reality the vast majority of Americans who actually vote on the guns issue oppose gun control.

This is due to a culture in America that celebrates guns and views them as inseparable from liberty. Look at Hollywood movies. Consider that at the end of the Civil War, after Lee surrendered to General Grant, confederate soldiers were allowed to take their weapons home with them. Gun rights were so ingrained in American culture that a Union General (with the approval of President Lincoln) refused to disarm known rebels once they submitted to the Union.

If you can't even ban gun ownership by known seditionists, how are you going to restrict ordinary Americans from gun ownership?

Gun control advocates are going to have to accept a hard truth. Gun control will not be implemented in America in the current culture. No matter how many mass murders occur. If you want things to change start thinking about how to change the culture.

[YF19EX]

One of my prides, is taking people to the range to shoot for the first time. Teaching new shooters is rewarding and challenging. To me I like teaching a person who has never held a gun because by nature they have no bad habits. Some might have some misconceptions about guns, but its interesting to show those to be untrue and show how a firearm really works.
I drill safety in every bit of instruction and repeat all the cardinal firearms safety rules every time they pull the trigger.

1. TREAT ALL FIREARMS AS THEY ARE LOADED.
1. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are pointed down range and ready to fire.
2. Know your target and backstop.
3. Never point at anything you don't intend to destroy.

For 20 + years I have followed these safety rules and never have ever had an accidental discharge or issue. Every weapon I pick up, I check the action, point it at safe direction and keep the finger off the trigger. Once you can get these into new shooters, and drill this into them, it becomes second nature like putting on a seat belt or locking the door at home. I believe in proper firearm instruction and education. It eliminates misconceptions, fear or at the very least gives people a base understanding.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

One thing that I believe Vexx suggested was firearm training in middle or high school. Teach the young what these things are and how to respect and use them properly. Thus might also provide a record of those demended by the school district as mentally unsuited to own or use a weapon later in life. you can opt out of the leasons, but would need to take them is you wanted to own or use a gun later in life (legally).

In looking at how various countries handle gun ownership, one often pointed out is Switzerland. Things might have changed a bit since I heard about how they do things, but they basically require every young man to spend some time in military service. While there, they learn to handle a gun, and have the safety aspects drilled into them. This is one way to handle it; require everyone to spend some time serving in a national guard unit or something, so that everyone learns to respect the gun and how to handle it properly.

Failing that, some required courses in guns in later teen years, or early 20's, might be the answer, too. At the very least, require everyone that wants a gun, to take specific courses and pass tests, in order to get a license. Treat it much like driver's licenses are treated (perhaps with requisite gun owner's liability insurance). That's how they do it in Japan.

The problem has generally been that a minority of gun owners are very vocal about not wanting ANYTHING to stand between them in their gun (helped by the NRA). No responsibility to go with that right. But rights inherently come with responsibilities, and even the freedom of speech isn't absolute. What I'd like to see are responsible gun owners standing up and telling the gun nut crowd to STFU because, as a proud gun owner, you're willing to bear the responsibility of your firearm for the good of all... even if that means some restrictions or mandatory training and testing.

And it's not the responsible gun owners that are an issue. indeed, conceal-carry license holders commit crimes at a rate far less than that of the general population.. even below police officers! What this does, is allow law enforcement to confiscate guns from those who don't take these tests or have the proper licenses. And also to shut down gun shops that sell to people who don't show the proper paperwork.

Originally Posted by Sackett

Gun control advocates are going to have to accept a hard truth. Gun control will not be implemented in America in the current culture. No matter how many mass murders occur. If you want things to change start thinking about how to change the culture.

Your line reminds me of this comic (created two massacres ago):

[Sackett]

I would support the inclusion of firearm training in high school.

Seems sensible to me. I don't really have any problems with the widespread ownership of guns. I tend to think it's a good thing about America. I do think we need to do something about these kids who don't seem to get what a gun is really about, and think life is a shoot 'em up game.

[Ithekro]

The only other way to get the Constitution changed outside of Congress is to get mass approval by the states. The last time I recall they tried that route was with the ERA (Equal Rights Ammendment) in the 1970s and early 1980s. It failed to get enough states to sign it. There are many reason why the ERA likely failed...one that was suggested is because with the ERA, women would also be subject to the Draft (which was still heavily on peoples minds at the end of the Vietnam War). That also would have made woman as part of the Militia as generally defined for the 2nd Ammendment.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Sackett

If you want things to change start thinking about how to change the culture.

This is the biggest point which sadly gets lost in most gun control debates. I get why, it's because no one likes admitting that those changes are even thornier, but at this point the only thing you can do with gun control legislation is incremental improvements and hope they work. Honestly the effort is better spent on other things.

I would like to see the NRA served some humble pie though. It's amazing how effective they have been at neutering government (all sizes) enforcement of existing gun laws. While I doubt every member echoes what some of its higher ups espouse, the messaging from the organization has long since morphed from protecting gun rights and promoting gun safety into pure gun manufacturer lobbying. One needs look no further than Lapierre for evidence of that.

[Kaijo]

Well, I will say this... conversation in places like this board, is one avenue us gun control advocates are trying to change the culture. Hopefully, if we can convince people that the notions of protection and "takin' yer guns away" aspects are false, then perhaps more people would allow their mindset to shift. And then convince others. And slowly, we'll change the culture.

But we have to start with acknowledging the facts, laid out by many scientific studies and FBI statistics.

[Dr. Casey]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

In looking at how various countries handle gun ownership, one often pointed out is Switzerland. Things might have changed a bit since I heard about how they do things, but they basically require every young man to spend some time in military service.

A neverending, peacetime military draft? Yeah, I'm glad we don't have to deal with that commie nonsense. I wonder if it might actually increase gun-related crimes by increasing the number of citizens who feel confidence in their gun-wielding skills, and in their ability to commit such a crime; it's not as though people who don't respect human life would come to do so simply by coming to respect the power of a gun, and the stress of an undesired tenure in the military might also make such people more prone to flying off the handle.

[DonQuigleone]

Eh, I think it being mandatory to do some small amount of training before getting a gun license may be fine, but including it in school might be going a bit too far.

Any time spent learning how to handle a firearm is time not spent learning English, Math or Science. Money would also have to be spent renting rifle range time for students, money that could be better spent on hiring more teachers, or school counselors.

There's an opportunity cost in all this, and I feel that this time and effort could be spent more productively elsewhere.

However, if rifle ranges want to invite students to attend sessions for free...

[YF19EX]

My father had once told me they had a shooting club in his Highschool. This was of course in the 50s. But even in my Highschool in the 90s I was in JROTC and Captain of our fledgling Marksmanship Unit. From that time on my old high school has dominated in many matches over the years. The trophies on the wall I see when I go in is a testament to that. We even introduced our class to more higher power service rifle competition.

With respect to Education (in firearms) and Cultural change (general social conduct) is something I always advocate. Both sticky from a political standpoint but I always advocate it. Others see firearms education as a sin, and something that should never be learned. I say if you do it, you can understand it, and god forbid, you just might like it.

[Sackett]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Eh, I think it being mandatory to do some small amount of training before getting a gun license may be fine, but including it in school might be going a bit too far.

Any time spent learning how to handle a firearm is time not spent learning English, Math or Science. Money would also have to be spent renting rifle range time for students, money that could be better spent on hiring more teachers, or school counselors.

There's an opportunity cost in all this, and I feel that this time and effort could be spent more productively elsewhere.

However, if rifle ranges want to invite students to attend sessions for free...

True.

One of my frustrations with the whole "sex education" thing is the enormous amount of resources (in time, energy, ect) on a subject that has very little to do with the main purpose of education. Hence my position that there should be no sex education at all. No "comprehensive", no "abstinence plus", no "abstinence only". Just nothing at all. Let parents do their job for once and teach their kids about that without pushing it onto the school.

Maybe we should go with a year or 6 months of universal military service after highschool or something. Just to make sure every young man has had some training.

Boys think guns are hot stuff and make them cool when they're flashing them off to their buddies and walking around trying to be intimidating. After basic training though, guns become a chore.

I don't know. I'm open to ideas on how to improve responsibility about guns. I'm not in favor of restricting gun ownership though. I find the historical arguments for the 2nd Amendment persuasive.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Well, I will say this... conversation in places like this board, is one avenue us gun control advocates are trying to change the culture. Hopefully, if we can convince people that the notions of protection and "takin' yer guns away" aspects are false, then perhaps more people would allow their mindset to shift. And then convince others. And slowly, we'll change the culture.

But we have to start with acknowledging the facts, laid out by many scientific studies and FBI statistics.

I think there is an inherent difference even when it comes to talks about changing the culture in the US, many gun control advocates sees gun culture as a root cause of the violence, whereas others may see the glamorization of violence and other social decay as the problem.

Personally I see the former as a bit of a cop-out, as those people tend to push all the responsibilities on the gun culture while ignoring everything else - where owning a gun is a cardinal sin, yet there's absolutely nothing wrong with the pervasive violence across nearly all type of media for kids. I mean, ffs, when you have channel called The Learning Channel that peddles child pageant amongst other trashy shows, you know there's something f'd up.

Originally Posted by Dr. Casey

A neverending, peacetime military draft? Yeah, I'm glad we don't have to deal with that commie nonsense. I wonder if it might actually increase gun-related crimes by increasing the number of citizens who feel confidence in their gun-wielding skills, and in their ability to commit such a crime; it's not as though people who don't respect human life would come to do so simply by coming to respect the power of a gun, and the stress of an undesired tenure in the military might also make such people more prone to flying off the handle.

It depends largely on the country in question, different situation, different mindset by the citizenry.

[Dr. Casey]

Originally Posted by Sackett

Maybe we should go with a year or 6 months of universal military service after highschool or something. Just to make sure every young man has had some training.

One year? Ew, that's way too long. Maybe one week...

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Dr. Casey

A neverending, peacetime military draft? Yeah, I'm glad we don't have to deal with that commie nonsense. I wonder if it might actually increase gun-related crimes by increasing the number of citizens who feel confidence in their gun-wielding skills, and in their ability to commit such a crime; it's not as though people who don't respect human life would come to do so simply by coming to respect the power of a gun, and the stress of an undesired tenure in the military might also make such people more prone to flying off the handle.

The Swiss have one of the highest gun owner rates in the world. Pretty much right up there with the US. They also have one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world. So low, they don't even bother keeping statistics anymore.

Yup, definitely commie nonsense. That's why rich people love putting their money in Swiss banks. Who better to hold your Capitalist gains than a bunch of gun toting commies?

[Dr. Casey]

Originally Posted by Solace

The Swiss have one of the highest gun owner rates in the world. Pretty much right up there with the US. They also have one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world. So low, they don't even bother keeping statistics anymore.

Yup, definitely commie nonsense. That's why rich people love putting their money in Swiss banks. Who better to hold your Capitalist gains than a bunch of gun toting commies?

Ugh. I didn't literally mean the country is communist. I just meant that I find a lengthy, mandatory military service excessively controlling and a huge intrusion into peoples' lives.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by Dr. Casey

A neverending, peacetime military draft? Yeah, I'm glad we don't have to deal with that commie nonsense. I wonder if it might actually increase gun-related crimes by increasing the number of citizens who feel confidence in their gun-wielding skills, and in their ability to commit such a crime; it's not as though people who don't respect human life would come to do so simply by coming to respect the power of a gun, and the stress of an undesired tenure in the military might also make such people more prone to flying off the handle.

Before you say something like that, you might want to look at statistics. Specifically, a list of countries by firearm-related deaths. There are only a few countries worse than the US, which has 10.2 firearm deaths per 100,000 people. Switzerland only has 3.84.

Of course, no one wants you to look at the countries who rank much lower on the list:

France 3.0
Canada 2.13
Israel 1.86 (another gun country)
Italy 1.28
Germany 1.10
Australia 1.05
United Kingdom 0.025(!!!)

Even the former Soviet bloc countries have a much lower death rate. Damn those commies and socialists for having many lower gun deaths!

Edit: semi-ninja'ed by Solace, heh. Also:

Originally Posted by kyp275

Personally I see the former as a bit of a cop-out, as those people tend to push all the responsibilities on the gun culture while ignoring everything else - where owning a gun is a cardinal sin, yet there's absolutely nothing wrong with the pervasive violence across nearly all type of media for kids. I mean, ffs, when you have channel called The Learning Channel that peddles child pageant amongst other trashy shows, you know there's something f'd up.

You do realize that all those European countries above, have access to our media, right? All the movies, video games, etc. And yet, somehow, their kids are nowhere near as violent. Jon Stewart even pointed out that the Dutch buy violent video games at twice the rate of the US, and they still have a MUCH lower crime rate and gun death rate.

So, no, this argument doesn't make sense. What makes the US different, is solely the fact that we flood our population with guns, and require little to now regulation, training, or oversight. We practically hand guns to babies and expect them to know how to best handle it. Every other country figured out this is bad, and either heavily banned guns, or required intense training, oversight, and regulation.

Worth watching:
Scapegoat Hunter
Scapegoat Hunter - Gun Control

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Before you say something like that, you might want to look at statistics. Specifically, a list of countries by firearm-related deaths. There are only a few countries worse than the US, which has 10.2 firearm deaths per 100,000 people. Switzerland only has 3.84.

Of course, no one wants you to look at the countries who rank much lower on the list:

France 3.0
Canada 2.13
Israel 1.86 (another gun country)
Italy 1.28
Germany 1.10
Australia 1.05
United Kingdom 0.025(!!!)

Even the former Soviet bloc countries have a much lower death rate. Damn those commies and socialists for having many lower gun deaths!

I like how you quote wikipedia as if it's a reliable source, even more ironic is that the very wiki page tells you how worthless that page is by telling you right there on the page how the list is pieced together from various different studies ranging as far apart as 1998 and 2012, together, on the same list.

You do realize that all those European countries above, have access to our media, right? All the movies, video games, etc. And yet, somehow, their kids are nowhere near as violent. Jon Stewart even pointed out that the Dutch buy violent video games at twice the rate of the US, and they still have a MUCH lower crime rate and gun death rate.

So, no, this argument doesn't make sense. What makes the US different, is solely the fact that we flood our population with guns, and require little to now regulation, training, or oversight. We practically hand guns to babies and expect them to know how to best handle it. Every other country figured out this is bad, and either heavily banned guns, or required intense training, oversight, and regulation.

Please don't default to assuming that I'm blaming video games etc. The media while shares the responsibility, is merely a reflection of the cultural norm. Important factors that you don't seem to grasp:

Population size, density, cultural diversity, social-economic structure, health care infrastructure, the list goes on and on, yet you seem to be only zeroing on the guns. Ask yourself, do you really think Japan (a gun control favorite) and the US are identical save for their gun control laws?

[Dr. Casey]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Before you say something like that, you might want to look at statistics. Specifically, a list of countries by firearm-related deaths. There are only a few countries worse than the US, which has 10.2 firearm deaths per 100,000 people. Switzerland only has 3.84.

Of course, no one wants you to look at the countries who rank much lower on the list:

France 3.0
Canada 2.13
Israel 1.86 (another gun country)
Italy 1.28
Germany 1.10
Australia 1.05
United Kingdom 0.025(!!!)

So I guess the mandatory military service isn't the key factor seeing as none of those other countries besides Israel require military service, and I'm still not sure how making military service mandatory results in lower amounts of gun crimes. I would imagine that most criminals pick their targets largely based upon their vulnerability, picking them off whenever no amount of training or expertise on part of the victim could help (committing a crime of passion whenever someone's asleep, maladjusted individuals shooting fellow college students of moviegoers or any other group unlikely to be on their guard, etc).

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by kyp275

I like how you quote wikipedia as if it's a reliable source, even more ironic is that the very wiki page tells you how worthless that page is by telling you right there on the page how the list is pieced together from various different studies ranging as far apart as 1998 and 2012, together, on the same list.

And this is the problem. Whenever real facts and figures come up, there is a side that attempts to dismiss them. The wiki page does not say it is worthless; it says it it subject to the reliability of each individual study. It is not a be-all, end-all to gun death statistics, but it is a damn good start. We can quibble about numbers if you like, but it is fairly clear which countries have more gun death than others.

And we have 200+ examples of what works and what doesn't.

Originally Posted by Dr. Casey

So I guess the mandatory military service isn't the key factor seeing as none of those other countries besides Israel require military service, and I'm still not sure how making military service mandatory results in lower amounts of gun crimes. I would imagine that most criminals pick their targets largely based upon their vulnerability, picking them off whenever no amount of training or expertise on part of the victim could help (committing a crime of passion whenever someone's asleep, maladjusted individuals shooting fellow college students of moviegoers or any other group unlikely to be on their guard, etc).

Yes and no. As I said, there are two approaches... Israel and Switzerland chose the path of training, regulation, and oversight. Most others chose disarmament. We, in the US, are stuck in an unhappy middle: lots of guns, but no training, regulation, and oversight.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Dr. Casey

Ugh. I didn't literally mean the country is communist. I just meant that I find a lengthy, mandatory military service excessively controlling and a huge intrusion into peoples' lives.

I know. I was just fucking with you.

But there is merit to the idea of mandatory civil service. I wouldn't support the draft, but I don't see anything wrong with forcing kids to take a few years after they turn 18 to learn discipline, how to handle weapons responsibly, and putting them to work helping out their communities. They'll learn a lot of life skills that way, which also helps bridge the gap of understanding in the gun debate. It might also help mend the huge gap between the military and civilian populations, considering that military service is a tiny slice of the population who are asked to do a lot. It also helps the job situation. You're basically paying kids to stay out of the workforce for a bit. They get money to spend in the economy, unemployment stays low, and it helps ease the issue of too many people looking for one job.

There's other benefits I'm sure, those are just the ones that I could think of for now. I'm sure there's just as many arguments against it.