Post New

BTW, this was also a home invasion that some say is so rare that it is not a reason to own a gun.

You have to listen to the story to also learn the victim had to call the police 5 times before getting that 5 hour response.

https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2023/07/0...

80-year-old Marine veteran attacked during violent home invasion says it took 5 hours for deputies to respond

It does happen Mike. Don't let anyone know about your Wallmart bag and other cash, ya hear? :)

It does happen Mike. Don't let anyone know about your Wallmart bag and other cash, ya hear? :)
****
Yeah.

Better to print brochures, in Spanish, replete with beautiful woman picture.

Explain how parking lots with Yoga studios have unarmed, pretty young women walking around at night by themselves.

Offer suggestions to the Bluest Areas.


And then find forums and explain to certain actors that more money is in the Whole Foods parking lots, the nice boutiques in affluent areas of cities.

Will report progress in due time....

It does happen Mike. Don't let anyone know about your Wallmart bag and other cash, ya hear? :) = Lapsody

-------------------

I know it happens. And I know that the Biden Admin and activists in general don't care as they clamor for the elimination of the means for private citizens to protect themselves.

Any thoughts on a five hour police response and the adequacy of protecting an unarmed citizenry?

Any thoughts on a five hour police response and the adequacy of protecting an unarmed citizenry?

It's not great. But we can't tell exactly from the article when he called the police or what he said to them, but given his claim that they went through the deadbolt in about ten seconds, there's a pretty good chance he called them after the burglary. After the robbers had left the scene.

In such a scenario, it's not entirely surprising that the police did not prioritize allocating graveyard shift patrol units to come out there to take a statement. Especially if the victim said anything to indicate that he didn't believe he was in continued danger.

Nor is it true that activists "don't care" about these scenarios. They just believe (with some evidence) that the weight of the harms is greater if you have lots of guns than fewer guns. Activists constantly tell people to wear their seatbelts at all times while driving - and that doesn't mean that they "don't care" about the incredibly rare scenarios where wearing one's seatbelt does marginally interfere with escaping a vehicle, just that they know (with complete certainty) that scenarios where wearing a seatbelt is worse for the driver are trivial compared to the vastly more likely scenario where it saves lives.

I know it happens. And I know that the Biden Admin and activists in general don't care as they clamor for the elimination of the means for private citizens to protect themselves.

Any thoughts on a five hour police response and the adequacy of protecting an unarmed citizenry?

I can tell you that at least I care that guns never be taken away for the protection of the home. I just differ on what guns you can have. But the people I talked to were all or nothing. They wanted fully automatic with barrel feed armor piercing ammo among other things. I tell them as long as you're allowed a choice of a hundred or so of each category of handgun, rifle, and shotgun the second isn't violated.

If he called, and said, "Someone broke in while I was here and took some stuff," as Albaby pointed out - might be low priority. I'm sure he said more than that, but let's listen to his calls and let the police respond.

Any comments on why the fellow didn't spend part of the 3k on a pistol? :) The articles didn't say he couldn't own a gun. So are we really talking about someone who imprudently let the wrong people know he had 3k in cash and they seemed to know he had no gun.

Any comments on why the fellow didn't spend part of the 3k on a pistol? :) The articles didn't say he couldn't own a gun. So are we really talking about someone who imprudently let the wrong people know he had 3k in cash and they seemed to know he had no gun. = lapsody

I agree the fellow made a huge mistake by allowing anyone to know about his cash horde.

And I will add that had he owned a pistol, that would not have saved him and could have made his outcome worse. With a ten or twenty second warning there is little chance to arm yourself. The right to own a gun is foundational but having some degree of usable self defense doesn't end with simple ownership.

And I will add that had he owned a pistol, that would not have saved him and could have made his outcome worse. With a ten or twenty second warning there is little chance to arm yourself. The right to own a gun is foundational but having some degree of usable self defense doesn't end with simple ownership.

I agree. They aren't kidding that the stats show the gun is more likely to be used on someone in the house. In this case also, someone cased the place. They knew about the cash, the Walmart bag, and the flimsy lock. In the Philippines people have six to eight foot high concrete block walls with broken glass and barbed wire on top. Then inside there are bars over the windows, and heavy bolted doors. So they're compounds.

We lived in a compound with no bars on the windows. Someone snuck in during the night and stole the karaoke and a few other things. My wife flipped. I gently pointed out to her she had a masseuse out two days before against my advice. Then I explained to her how all that worked, and that you have to think ahead when someone comes over and put all valuable things out of sight.

As an expat I couldn't own a gun in the Philippines. I preferred not to have a gun and to act accordingly.

this whole thread strikes me as odd. I'm in my early 60s, lived in America all of my life, and I have not ever felt the need to pull a weapon on another human being, EVER.

I'm still trying to figure out if I have somehow managed to live a totally sheltered life
in a utopian Lake Wobegon, and just my little slice of America is safe, or if some of y'all need to get a grip on reality. Whatever is the truth, this thread is pretty discouraging.

"......I know that the Biden Admin and activists in general don't care as they clamor for the elimination of the means for private citizens to protect themselves."

"Activist in general" are not in any position to make such an elimination happen.

I'm unaware of any action by any POTUS to eliminate the means for private citizens to protect themselves.

If the old vet had a Mossberg 6+1 12 ga., he could defend himself in high style against two thieves who apparently knew what they were going for.

Nobody who's anybody is calling for the elimination of shotguns.... and a shotgun is unlikely to kill innocent bystanders any distance away as a result of poor aim.

Here's a classic: 80 yr old store owner with a 12 gauge drives off 4 would-be robber that are armed with rifles.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/08...

this whole thread strikes me as odd. I'm in my early 60s, lived in America all of my life, and I have not ever felt the need to pull a weapon on another human being, EVER.

I'm still trying to figure out if I have somehow managed to live a totally sheltered life
in a utopian Lake Wobegon, and just my little slice of America is safe, or if some of y'all need to get a grip on reality. Whatever is the truth, this thread is pretty discouraging.

No, it's not odd, this is a normal conversation with a relatively sane gun conservative. I haven't owned a gun most of my adult life and I'm 72. The odds of a middle class white person ever needing a gun are remote. Drop down into the barrio and it changes, but not by a whole lot of you're white. Black or Latino? Goes up more. But in the barrio it's gang vs gang, domestic violence, robbery and disputes. If you look at the stats, blacks kill mostly blacks, latinos kill mostly latinos, and whites kill mostly whites. The highest kill per capita is blacks, then latinos, then whites.

No, it's not odd, this is a normal conversation with a relatively sane gun conservative. I haven't owned a gun most of my adult life and I'm 72. The odds of a middle class white person ever needing a gun are remote. Drop down into the barrio and it changes, but not by a whole lot of you're white. Black or Latino? Goes up more. But in the barrio it's gang vs gang, domestic violence, robbery and disputes. If you look at the stats, blacks kill mostly blacks, latinos kill mostly latinos, and whites kill mostly whites. The highest kill per capita is blacks, then latinos, then whites."

-------------------------------------------------------------------

for sure, common sense to stay out of dangerous areas has probably led to me leading a sheltered life. I own guns, and I know what it feels like to put the sights on an animal when hunting, and it is a very sober, calculated assessment as to whether to squeeze the trigger. The gun violence occurring on America's streets appears to be highly emotional, irrational behavior, no rational thought to the consequences of taking another persons life, or doing great bodily harm to them.

Sounds like a lot of people are living in very scary places, or their minds are very scary places.

Reading the posts on this board sure shows that they think America is a very dangerous place.
Maybe I need to add a handgun and an AR to the arsenal.

...or their minds are very scary places.

That's a bullseye. For both interpretations (i.e. they are scary people, or they are scared).

I have always been struck by the religious who believe that crime is worse than it's ever been, that war is more prevalent than ever, that suffering is more prevalent than ever. But if you look at reality, none of that is true. Crime statistics indicate that crime is way down just in my lifetime. There are a lot of skirmishes, but only one war presently. As a percentage of population affected, war is affecting very few people (though that is of little consolation to those whose lives are being drastically affected), disease is way down, suffering is way down, fewer people (as a percentage of population) are in poverty, etc. But try to convince a religious person of that. "We are in end times!" Blah blah. Nonsense.

Many people feel they are under imminent threat from "the other"; that they are going to be victimized at any moment. This is fed by media outlets ("if it bleeds, it leads"), and social media, among others. So, "with all that chaos and evil", people feel the need to lock and load. To protect against a threat that is miniscule in reality.

Many people feel they are under imminent threat from "the other"; that they are going to be victimized at any moment. This is fed by media outlets ("if it bleeds, it leads"), and social media, among others. So, "with all that chaos and evil", people feel the need to lock and load. To protect against a threat that is miniscule in reality. - 1pg

---------------

Most???? Not even close.

The threat is hardly imminent. I acknowledge it is minuscule. I don't live in fear and don't feel nervous or anxious about anything. I am a pretty laid back guy. That said, I was a Boy scout and Be Prepared is good advice.

I can't remember the last time I had a flat tire but I carry a spare anyway.

Most???? Not even close.

Sorry, it should say,

Many???? Not even close.

The threat is hardly imminent. I acknowledge it is minuscule.

Which is why I like conversing with you. You're sensible. We may disagree on a lot of stuff, but you are open to dialogue and reason.

You also acknowledged (I think it was you) that in the few seconds of the break-in, there would have been no opportunity to retrieve the weapon. Again, you're realistic. However, we can see what I was talking about every time the media says a new threat is imminent. A surge in gun sales. "Obama is elected; gun sales surge". Nevermind that he never touched guns -much to the consternation of progressives-, and at most only complained about them during obligatory post-shooting press conferences. Didn't matter, gun sales surged. People were reacting out of fear.

BTW, when was the last time you checked the pressure in your spare? It's easy to forget. The one time I needed my spare, it was only at about 50% pressure. Enough to get me going again, but I had to find a station to properly pressurize it.

"BTW, when was the last time you checked the pressure in your spare? It's easy to forget. The one time I needed my spare, it was only at about 50% pressure. Enough to get me going again, but I had to find a station to properly pressurize it."

-----------------------------------------------------

lol, getting stranded in my vehicle in the winter is a concern of mine. I always ( in the winter ) carry a jump box that also has a built in air compressor. One of the xc ski trailheads I go to is about 2miles into the woods on a forest 2-track, and it would be a bad thing if the truck battery was dead when I was done, wouldn't be anybody coming along, except for other skiers. I haven't had to use it on my vehicle, but did jump start a lady who had a dead battery when she was done skiing. Lucky for her we finished up about the same time.

Cheap peace of mind.

https://www.costco.com/cat-1200-peak-amp-digital-j...

The threat is hardly imminent. I acknowledge it is minuscule.

That's very reasonable of you. I think one small part of why it's so hard to find common ground on gun regulation in the US is because people come at the issue with very different ideas of what the threat risk is.

Unlike a spare tire (or fire extinguisher or smoke alarm or other precautionary devices), having a firearm doesn't just have a precautionary upside in the event of emergency. It also increases the risk of a negative event - the firearm being stolen, an accidental or mistaken shooting of an innocent, a dispute between family members that escalates from survivable to lethal violence because a firearm was present, etc.

Thankfully, all of these scenarios are pretty rare. But that makes it harder to have constructive discussions about what rules would make people safer (leaving aside the debates about what rules are permitted/forbidden under our system of government).

Thankfully, all of these scenarios are pretty rare. But that makes it harder to have constructive discussions about what rules would make people safer (leaving aside the debates about what rules are permitted/forbidden under our system of government). - albaby

------------------

I think it is reasonable to assume the vast vast very vast majority of gun deaths result from the activities of criminals, crazy people, and careless gun owners. I think the vast vast very vast majority of the 100 million plus gun owners are responsible law abiding citizens.

Why is impossible to have constructive discussions? The problem as I see it is the proposals for additional* gun controls place additional burdens on the law abiding who by definition would comply without demonstrating how the regulation would be effective on the criminals, crazies, and careless. So periodically a regulation passes, gun death continue, so the answer has to be to layer on more regulations. This creates a spiral that can only end in total confiscation or as close to as constitutionally allowed, in the face of potential SCOTUS packing.

I don't claim to have the complete answer but I feel that mental health intervention, early interdiction of criminal behavior, and red flag laws are part of the solution. Disaffected youth and hopelessness among the inner city poor are better issues to focus on rather than how many guns I am allowed to possess. But counting my gun is easy and dealing with underlying societal issues is hard. My two cents. Flame away.


* including of the word "additional" is important because sometimes the dialogue suggests there are hardly any controls already

I think it is reasonable to assume the vast vast very vast majority of gun deaths result from the activities of criminals, crazy people, and careless gun owners.

Not really. At least, not in the U.S.

The majority of gun deaths are suicides. Most of those folks aren't "crazy people" (though perhaps some are). They're mostly people who are suffering deep despondency, despair, perhaps long-term depression, or who view suicide as a means of escaping some terrible thing in their life. Not crazy - and many could likely be saved if they didn't have access to a firearm.

A very substantial proportion of homicides are instances of domestic violence. These are, of course, criminals - but not people who are criminals by profession and/or are using firearms as an instrument for the purpose of committing some other crime. Data are spotty - but there's evidence that the majority of people who commit a homicide have not previously been convicted of a felony:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/...

You run into a bit of a "true Scotsman" issue with this formulation, though - if we simply define every person who uses a firearm to kill someone (that isn't classified a justifiable homicide) as being a "criminal," then by definition every intentional gun death is committed by a criminal. That doesn't mean those folks were criminals before they engaged in the activity that resulted in the homicide, though - so you couldn't prevent all those deaths by preventing people who were previously criminals from accessing guns.

I don't claim to have the complete answer but I feel that mental health intervention, early interdiction of criminal behavior, and red flag laws are part of the solution. Disaffected youth and hopelessness among the inner city poor are better issues to focus on rather than how many guns I am allowed to possess. But counting my gun is easy and dealing with underlying societal issues is hard. My two cents. Flame away.


No flaming at all - this is a civil conversation! But I think you're overlooking how important "easy" versus "hard" is. That's a very relevant criterion in forming good policy! If there's an easy way to save lives, and a hard way to save lives, that's a point in favor of the former policy.

It's really hard to eliminate crime. Or even murder. No society has ever done it. But there do exist societies that have managed to all-but-eliminate private civilian ownership of firearms. Of course, in the U.S. that wouldn't be "easy" either.

A statistic worth mentioning is that suicide by gun is very effective.
People who try to kill themselves by taking a (legal) drug overdose succeed 2% of the time.
People who try to kill themselves using a gun "succeed" (if that's the word I want) 80% of the time.
Much less chance for reconsideration.

Guns are simply too lethal to allow general population to own them. Same category as dynamite or howitzer or tank, forget nuclear weapon.
You can't do a drive-by with knives (unless you are a knife-thrower in a circus, I suppose).
Second amendment is badly outdated and needs to be repealed.

I think it is reasonable to assume the vast vast very vast majority of gun deaths result from the activities of criminals, crazy people, and careless gun owners.

Suicide varies, but it's up to around 60% of gun deaths.

Second amendment is badly outdated and needs to be repealed.

Not much chance of that. We can interpret it differently though. Abridged in the First Amendment means "to lessen, to restrict or curtail". Infringe currently means "encroach", but in 1789 it meant "to break or violate". So you can curtail something a lot without breaking or violating it. We use originalism against itself. ;P

>>I think it is reasonable to assume the vast vast very vast majority of gun deaths result from the activities of criminals, crazy people, and careless gun owners.<<

Suicide varies, but it's up to around 60% of gun deaths. - Lapsody

-------------------

Wow, I had no idea it was that high. Still I would include suicidal among the crazies. Not meaning to denigrate those with depression, attention seeking, etc leading to such outcomes but it is not normal and that puts them on the other side of the line between rational, law abiding gun owners.

Not much chance of that. We can interpret it differently though. Abridged in the First Amendment means "to lessen, to restrict or curtail". Infringe currently means "encroach", but in 1789 it meant "to break or violate". So you can curtail something a lot without breaking or violating it. We use originalism against itself. ;P - Lapsody

-----------------

As Dope occasionally points out, as long as you are allowed to keep one black powder squirrel rifle, the gun activists can claim your second amendment rights are not being violated. <g>

Still I would include suicidal among the crazies.

I don't think that's an accurate assessment. Sure, there are undoubtedly some people who commit suicide that are afflicted with one or more serious mental illnesses. Serious enough that we would consider them "crazy."

But most people who commit suicide aren't necessarily like that. They might have depression or anxiety or what have you - but that doesn't make you a "crazy" person. What a lot of those people experience are moments of suicidal ideation, where they contemplate killing themselves. These moments are most often temporary, which is why nearly all people who survive a suicide attempt never end up committing suicide. They're not "crazies," just people who have a momentary mental decompensation. We know that because nearly all the people who attempt suicide who fail will go on to live out the rest of their lives. And most people who attempt suicide fail.

That's the vector by which firearms dramatically increase the rate of death by suicide attempt - they nearly eliminate the failure rate. It's actually a bit of a job to inflict lethal damage to a human body, and very hard to do it in a way that results in instantaneous death (or loss of consciousness). If you're not using a firearm, there's a really good chance that either your attempt will fail or that there will be several minutes after you begin your attempt that you can either interrupt it or call for help. But not if you use a firearm. A firearm is very efficient. It can inflict a lethal wound reliably, and in many cases instantly.

It's probably not possible to materially reduce gun deaths by trying to ex ante keep guns out of the hands of "criminals" and "crazies," because most gun deaths aren't caused by people who were ex ante criminals or crazies. Most of the suicides are otherwise sane people who have momentary suicidal ideation. Many of the homicides aren't by people who were previously criminals, but conflicts between ordinary people. Conflicts that might have ended in a shouting match - or if they escalated to physical violence (we'll never have a world without bar fights or spousal abuse), the violence would have at least a high chance of being non-lethal - but instead end in a homicide.

It's just not a successful strategy. If guns are plentiful and often at hand, they'll be available to people in their worst moments - their darkest depression or hottest anger - making it far less likely that they can come back from those moments.

It's probably not possible to materially reduce gun deaths by trying to ex ante keep guns out of the hands of "criminals" and "crazies," because most gun deaths aren't caused by people who were ex ante criminals or crazies. Most of the suicides are otherwise sane people who have momentary suicidal ideation. Many of the homicides aren't by people who were previously criminals, but conflicts between ordinary people. Conflicts that might have ended in a shouting match - or if they escalated to physical violence (we'll never have a world without bar fights or spousal abuse), the violence would have at least a high chance of being non-lethal - but instead end in a homicide. - albaby

----------------------

Rather than quibble over definitions of crazy or frequency of lethal bar fights and spousal abuse, my central argument still stands which attempts to address the question you posed - What prevents constructive discussions....?

My assertion is the the proposed regulations do not state the mechanism by which the regulation will affect gun deaths to any appreciable degree and until that is clear, I will oppose them. If we know the population that is the source of gun deaths, then show me how your proposed regulation will specifically affect them.

The law abiding will comply with whatever but as long a private ownership of guns exists, the suicidal and the the spousal abusers, and bar fighters, and road ragers will still continue to do what they do. The gun activists will claim the goal is not total elimination of private ownership but that rings hollow, hence the stalemate.

Wow, I had no idea it was that high. Still I would include suicidal among the crazies.

Then there's the suicide belt out West in the USA. There's a theory it exists due to the altitude, but I think it's isolation, cold, with a mix of masculinity requiring rugged self reliance and being stoic, and guns.

https://gofatherhood.com/2014/11/happiest-places-h...

My assertion is the the proposed regulations do not state the mechanism by which the regulation will affect gun deaths to any appreciable degree and until that is clear, I will oppose them. If we know the population that is the source of gun deaths, then show me how your proposed regulation will specifically affect them.

Certainly a fair point. And especially when it comes to mass shootings, there is often a disconnect between what is proposed for 'commonsense gun regulations' and the specific problem of mass shootings (such as the gun show loophole, when mass shooting weapons are not identified to be more commonly bought at gun shows).

Generally, the argument comes down to ubiquity. Those skeptical of gun control tend to describe gun usage in terms of planned crimes: criminals will find ways to get guns, no matter what the rules are. Someone who intends to rob a convenience store using a gun is going to get a gun, which might result in a clerk getting shot. If that's what you think of when you think of gun use, then it's easy to see why you can't see the mechanism for reducing those deaths.

But many (if not most) instances of gun use are spontaneous, not planned. For example, the recent shooting death of a seven-yr-old here in Florida stemmed from a fight over a jet ski:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boy-shot-dead-tampa-f...

...and it happened not because the shooter planned to kill someone that day, but because he happened to have a gun handy at the time when he lost his temper. If it was illegal to carry your gun around with you all the time, he might have chosen to leave his gun at home. The conflict might have still escalated into violence, but it would be far less likely to result in a fatality - and not a bystander fatality. That's the reasoning behind "cooling off periods" and barring Saturday night specials as well - people end up using guns spontaneously in the moment they're most angry if those guns are easy to grab at that moment, but if they're not at hand they have a chance to exercise better judgment. And of course, the same reasoning applies to suicides. But that disappears if most people already have a gun lying around that they bought a while back.

So the idea is that if you have simply have fewer guns in fewer places, you'll have fewer of these non-premeditated gun deaths. Make guns rarer, more difficult to obtain, and not always at hand....and you'll end up with fewer gun deaths. That was the experience in Australia after their gun buyback - you saw dramatic reductions in gun deaths in the scenarios where gun usage was most likely to be opportunistic rather than pre-planned, such as suicides and spousal murder:

https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-bu...

Whether you can extrapolate the effects of a major change in gun access (like Australia's) to the relatively minor inconveniences that "common sense gun laws" might impost is uncertain. But that's the idea.

So the idea is that if you have simply have fewer guns in fewer places, you'll have fewer of these non-premeditated gun deaths - albaby

-----------------

OK, so now we are getting some clarity on the gun control advocates methodology. Allow me to paraphrase....

Gun death reductions will be achieved by decreasing the density of gun ownership without specific emphasis on any particular subset of the gun owning population.

Do I have that right?

Gun death reductions will be achieved by decreasing the density of gun ownership without specific emphasis on any particular subset of the gun owning population.

Do I have that right?

Not at all. That was just an explanation of the vector by which general restrictions on gun ownership (like a nationwide adoption of the "good reason" licensing system that is used in some other countries, and used to be in place in DC) would translate into a general reduction in gun deaths. That's the mechanism by which having fewer guns can translate into fewer gun deaths, even though criminals who are indefatigable in their efforts to get a gun will still be able to get one.

But there are also lots of measures that are intended to more surgically address certain subsets of the gun owning population.

For example (and this is going to SCOTUS next term), one measure intended to reduce gun death is a restriction on gun ownership by those who are currently under a restraining order for domestic violence:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/30/us/politics/sup...

Albaby

>>Do I have that right?<<

Not at all. That was just an explanation of the vector by which general restrictions on gun ownership (like a nationwide adoption of the "good reason" licensing system that is used in some other countries, and used to be in place in DC) would translate into a general reduction in gun deaths. That's the mechanism by which having fewer guns can translate into fewer gun deaths, even though criminals who are indefatigable in their efforts to get a gun will still be able to get one. - albaby

----------------------

Ok, there are reasonable proposals that are targeted and the example you provide is one of those.

But apart from regulations narrowly targeted on specific homicide prone populations, there exists a desire to restrict ownership by the general law abiding gun owning population. Is there any limit on how far this aspect of the program should go? Is total elimination the only outcome that will slake this thirst?

bighairymike: Is total elimination the only outcome that will slake this thirst?

You keep repeating this as if there's a sizeable percentage of the population who advocate total elimination. Jeez, I'm probably as pro-gun safety as anyone here and I would never in my wildest dreams advocate total elimination of guns.

Here, try these:

1. Let's treat guns like cars and require every buyer, of any age, to obtain a license that includes a registration of all purchases plus at least a modest training program.

2. Background checks for all private sales and restrictions on multiple purchases.

3. Allow family members or law enforcement to petition a court to temporarily bar an at-risk person from buying firearms.

4. Some states have gag laws that prevent doctors from talking about guns with a patient, especially children. How about encouraging physicians to discuss guns with patients in different ways.

5. Technology. I need to scan my face or use a finger/thumb print to use my phone. Why not a gun?

6. Research. In 1996, Congress passed the Dickey Amendment which mandated that no CDC funds could be spent on research that 'may be used to advocate or promote gun control.' Umm, why? Restrictions on research funding have had devastating consequences on what we know -- and what we don't -- about gun violence.

There, I didn't take away a single gun.

Is there any limit on how far this aspect of the program should go? Is total elimination the only outcome that will slake this thirst?

Gun control advocates aren't monolithic. I'm sure there's a vast and wide diversity of opinions on the subject, even within the gun control advocacy community. Not everyone thinks prohibition is either desirable or feasible.

Some folks might argue for a system like Germany's - where firearm ownership is pretty widespread, but you have to demonstrate that you meet a bunch of criteria in order to acquire firearms on a "may-issue" basis, can only get them for certain purposes (and not just because you want one or a generalized desire for self-defense), and are subject to some broad categories of prohibitions. Some folks might argue for a system like Spain (similar in framework to Germany, but administered more restrictively) or support a system like Norway's (again, similar to Germany but administered far more permissively).

No doubt there are some who want a system like Japan's - near-elimination of private civilian ownership of firearms of any sort. But I don't think that everyone who advocates for gun control wants that. I believe most advocates would be perfectly happy if the U.S. could adopt something similar to what one might find in continental Europe (recognizing there's a wide diversity of regulations there). Borrow the firearms regulations scheme from Denmark or Germany or Spain and adopt it here, and I think organized gun control advocacy all-but-disappears from the U.S.

There, I didn't take away a single gun. - CO

-----------------

Some of your proposals I agree with, others fall into the category that albaby was speaking about. Reduce the overall level of gun ownership in the law abiding population by making it increasingly difficult to acquire one.

If we implemented everything you suggest, criminals will still get them and since private ownership still exists, the suicidal can still access one, same with the spouse abusers and road ragers. But having implemented your list would you be satisfied or would additional burdens on private ownership be justified as gun deaths continue albeit at a reduced rate?

I claim you would not be satisfied and additional regulations would be layered on, leading to a spiral that can only end with total elimination. If there is in fact a stopping point, please describe it.

I've noticed you keep going back to "total elimination". But that simply can't happen. The 2A will prevent that. So that isn't even on the table.

But there is, or should be, a lot of stuff we can do that is short of that, but still accomplishes a lot of good. The other poster gave you a list of some of them which did not involve taking a single gun.

I think both Heller and McDonald were wrong, but I doubt the current composition of the Court will agree with me. In fact, the case albaby mentioned is probably a loser (even though you seem to agree it would be a reasonable prohibition). Also, the list the other poster provided likely would be a non-starter. I would add to that list that a firearm cannot be gifted to another. The person has to buy it him/herself with their own biometric data (fingerprints, etc).

I don't remember where I saw the program, but I thought Switzerland made a lot of sense. They have wide ownership of guns, but they are tightly regulated. And they have zero (or near zero) mass shootings. But I'd be open to other schemes as well.

bighairymike: Reduce the overall level of gun ownership in the law abiding population by making it increasingly difficult to acquire one.

Getting a license to drive, getting license plates for your car, and insuring your vehicle as required by law isn't considered "difficult" by anyone, is it? And unlike vehicles, getting a gun license would be a one time event (unless you sell or lose that gun). Big whoop.

And most Americans want universal background checks. That's not controversial.


bighairymike: But having implemented your list would you be satisfied or would additional burdens on private ownership be justified as gun deaths continue albeit at a reduced rate?

Yeah, I'd be satisfied.

No one is suggesting America can get to the level of gun deaths of Japan, Germany, or European nations but, rather, a level of reduced deaths and less violence.

If you want to sleep with a gun on your night stand, I'm fine with that (although I think it's nutty). And if you want to have 100 guns and rifles scattered strategically all over your house, that's fine with me too. AR-15s? Sure, as many as you want. In. Your. House.

Yeah, I'd be satisfied.

No one is suggesting America can get to the level of gun deaths of Japan, Germany, or European nations but, rather, a level of reduced deaths and less violence.

If you want to sleep with a gun on your night stand, I'm fine with that (although I think it's nutty). And if you want to have 100 guns and rifles scattered strategically all over your house, that's fine with me too. AR-15s? Sure, as many as you want. In. Your. House.

==============

Appreciate your candor. thanks. If the dialogue included more of what will be allowed rather a constant drumbeat of here is what won't be, then maybe some common ground could be found.

This debate is framed wrong.
Countries like Australia that practically eliminated gun ownership saw a precipitous drop in gun killings.
Gun ownership and gun killings have an almost linear relationship across the world (barring countries with high gang activity, but definitely in OECD). The only way to reduce gun killings is to reduce gun ownership. There is no other way short of a massive cultural shift towards nonviolence.

Facts can be contrary to ideology. What do you do? Cling to your ideological beliefs or face facts?

The only way to reduce gun killings is to reduce gun ownership. - kof3

-----------------

Suggestion, come after the criminals and crazies first instead of leaving them alone while you strip the law abiding.

Suggestion, come after the criminals and crazies first instead of leaving them alone while you strip the law abiding.

Problem is, who is crazy or criminal (or both usually) is revealed only after the fact.

Only after the fact.
Only after the act.
Too late to redact.

Sorry 😀

Americans have an "endowment effect" when it comes to guns. That's the fancy way of economists call overvaluation of what you have. For example, you won't want to sell a stock you own for the same price you would be willing to buy if you didn't own it already, but higher.
Imagine if the constitution had prohibited gun ownership instead. Then I come to you and say "anyone can have a gun but it will cause 40,000 more suicides, 40,000 more homicides and oh yeah, crazies shooting innocent civilians randomly for pleasure." Would you not say "No thanks" to that proposition?

Ancient canaanites burned their children in front of Molech because well, that's what they were used to. A custom turned into a religion. Today's Americans are sacrificing their children to guns because they don't know any better. And don't want to.

As Dope occasionally points out, as long as you are allowed to keep one black powder squirrel rifle, the gun activists can claim your second amendment rights are not being violated. <g>

Grin back. Anything we do in the area will cause an accusation of arbitrariness, and quite possibly be true. I think red flag laws are appropriate, and Florida claims theirs works. I advocate tax credits for gun safes and gun safes in the car. I honestly don't think we should have the same rules for city/urban areas, and for rural areas. If it's a tradition in your area for open carry of sidearms, that should be allowed. We need to experiment to find out what works.

The idea that we are only limited to historical analogues at the time period from the Bill of Rights to the 13th or 14th Amendment is, I predict, unworkable. The militia component has been relegated to the National Guard by the Constitution and the State. So the National Guard is the organized militia and the unorganized militia is the pool of able bodied men the Fed and State can enlist and draft from. The States have designated no other militia than the National Guard, there are no private or self appointed militias under the Constitution and the States.

<commonone>: If you want to sleep with a gun on your night stand, I'm fine with that (although I think it's nutty). And if you want to have 100 guns and rifles scattered strategically all over your house, that's fine with me too. AR-15s? Sure, as many as you want. In. Your. House.

So you wouldn't be for laws that require firearms to be stored securely at homes? At first blush, I think I would be for such laws, but I can't think of any other object that has laws controlling what can be done with it in a person's home. Are there any?

Not meaning to denigrate those with depression, attention seeking, etc leading to such outcomes but it is not normal and that puts them on the other side of the line between rational, law abiding gun owners.

I don't know what the percentages are, but having just spent the past week with a terminally ill relative, euthanasia should not be considered abnormal, even if it's self-inflicted with a gun.

It should be considered normal and rational if a person, advised by experienced hospice and physician, chooses to avoid the pain and fear that a person may experience in those last weeks and days.

Morphine as provided by physician and hospice just doesn't cut it. Something like Fentanyl should be made available so one need not resort to a gun. And in the states where euthanasia drugs are not legal, a gun suicide should not be considered irrational.

I pity the people in states whose bible belt dogma prevents them from swallowing a merciful pill, and so resort to a gun to avoid choking for days on their own mucous, dehydrating, suffocating. It's absolutely barbaric.

Here, try these:

A large number of guns used in premeditated crimes are stolen. Even a conservative interpretation of "well regulated" should acknowledge the importance of safe storage.

As such, I would add "require safe storage for all firearms not in the immediate custody and care of its owner" to your list.

>I?As such, I would add "require safe storage for all firearms not in the immediate custody and care of its owner" to your list. - sano

-----------------

I agree with you and would think most responsible, law abiding gun owners would also.

even if it's self-inflicted with a gun.

But many attempts at suicide with a gun go badly awry and the results can be horrific. Euthanasia via drugs makes much more sense.

But many attempts at suicide with a gun go badly awry and the results can be horrific. Euthanasia via drugs makes much more sense.

Again, I have no idea what the stats are wrt temporary depression (heartache),terminal disease, temporary insanity due to substance abuse...

It's sadly ironic that the same states that prohibit euthanasia and abortion are just fine with the soaring numbers of gun deaths.

I would add "require safe storage for all firearms not in the immediate custody and care of its owner" to your list. - sano

-----------------

I agree with you and would think most responsible, law abiding gun owners would also -BHM

This would mean gun safes or locking brackets out of sight in cars too. Most stolen guns are from cars these days, and there is a brisk trade of some 250,000 guns going across the Mexican border - the rest end up on the streets ( or maybe a collection in Montana ;P). We should give tax credits, etc. It's in our interest.

"This would mean gun safes or locking brackets out of sight in cars too... We should give tax credits, etc.

Why? We don't give tax credits for seat belts, air bags, or swimming pool fencing?

Is there anything in the 2A (or associated documents) that forbids instituting a compensatory tax on guns and ammo, much as we do for alcohol and tobacco; something to compensate for the healthcare costs the genpop is absorbing as a result of steadily increasing shootings??

I mean...what's the average cost per victim to the public (ambulances, E.R., funeral, convalescence, physical therapy, psych services, permanent disablement ) when a mass shooting takes down a bunch of innocent bystanders and why shouldn't ammosexuals bear an outsized share of that cost?

It would righteously impact the morons who shoot thousands of rounds of 9mm and .223 per hour for sexual gratification more than my relatively minimal consumption of 12 gauge shells breaking clay pigeons.

It would righteously impact the morons who shoot thousands of rounds of 9mm and .223 per hour for sexual gratification - sano

-----------------

So much for sane dialogue....

So much for sane dialogue....

Don't flatter yourself. Staunch pro-2A support is anything but sane.

Is there anything in the 2A (or associated documents) that forbids instituting a compensatory tax on guns and ammo, much as we do for alcohol and tobacco; something to compensate for the healthcare costs the genpop is absorbing as a result of steadily increasing shootings??

That would probably be found unconstitutional. SCOTUS has generally looked with disfavor on taxes that are specifically targeted to the exercise of a constitutional right. So, for example, in Grosjean v. American Press Co. the Court struck down a tax levied against newspapers, holding it violated the First Amendment:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/297/23...

Note that this doesn't mean that newspapers (or books or DVDs or record albums) have to be granted an exemption from generally applicable sales taxes. It just means you can't have a tax that is limited solely to newspapers (or any other First Amendment activity).

I expect the Court would apply the same analysis to firearms and ammunition. They can, of course, be subjected to generally applicable sales taxes just like any other product. But you can't single them out for a specific tax, especially if one of the real purposes of the tax is an effort to impinge the protected activity.

But you can't single them out for a specific tax, especially if one of the real purposes of the tax is an effort to impinge the protected activity.

It's my right to ingest tobacco, marijuana and alcohol. I also incur excise taxes that have been increased over time.

The first question to be answered when designing an excise tax is how to define the appropriate tax base. For most excise taxes, the base should be the harm or cost-causing element because that best internalizes a negative externality.

The "harm or cost-causing element" of guns and ammo is undeniable. The tobacco settlements are twofold; 1)to impinge the behavior and 2) to cover the healthcare costs the genpop must bear.

We have the right to smoke and drink and shoot. With rights come responsibilities. What's the difference?

It's my right to ingest tobacco, marijuana and alcohol.

No, it's not. The government could outlaw tobacco and alcohol. The federal government and most states did outlaw marijuana, with few exceptions - and the fed prohibition is still in place.

You don't have a Constitutionally-protected right to ingest those things. But the SCOTUS has held that you have a Constitutionally-protected right to bear firearms. So it's highly likely that SCOTUS would treat a specific tax on firearm usage under the same rubric as Grosjean, and find it prohibited as an unconstitutional infringement on a constitution right.

Albaby

<<That would probably be found unconstitutional. SCOTUS has generally looked with disfavor on taxes that are specifically
targeted to the exercise of a constitutional right. So, for example, in Grosjean v. American Press Co. the Court struck
down a tax levied against newspapers, holding it violated the First Amendment>

The SCOTUS will vote in favor of anything you want...

You just need to take Neil Gorsuch, Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas on a luxury fishing vacation and/or buy their Moms house for well-above market value and then tell them how to vote.
I mean, show some initiative, people.

While it's not an enumerated right, I live in a state that respects the 21st amendment. In California I have the right - subject to local restrictions- unless another Volstead act rolls around and the 18th becomes law again.

I can load my trunk with booze in Vegas and drink it in my Sundance Condo and there's not a damn thing the Mormons can do about it.

Doesn't it really just come down to which party holds the SCOTUS majority? (...and it's sad that's now the case but it is what it is)

Doesn't it really just come down to which party holds the SCOTUS majority?

No. You don't have any constitutional rights to consume marijuana, alcohol, or tobacco. Your state government is perfectly free to completely ban any and all of those substances, and you would have no constitutional claim to present to the Court that they had done anything wrong. The states don't altogether prohibit tobacco use or alcohol (though many still prohibit most private recreational marijuana use) - but all of them could.

Firearms are thus different, under current SCOTUS precedent. The Court has held that you have a constitutional right to bear firearms, and a state law that banned firearms altogether would (unlike alcohol or tobacco) absolutely be unconstitutional under that precedent. When confronted with a tax on newspapers - another constitutionally protected activity - the Court struck down the tax as violating the First Amendment. I think the Court would similarly strike down a specifically targeted tax on firearms and ammo - especially if it was intended, in whole or in part, to discourage gun ownership or use.

"This would mean gun safes or locking brackets out of sight in cars too... We should give tax credits, etc.

Why? We don't give tax credits for seat belts, air bags, or swimming pool fencing?

I understand where you are coming from, but...

This is going to take cooperation at both the State and Federal level to get done effectively. If we require gunsafes in the home and cars if you have weapons we are going to face stiff opposition, and if we, as liberals (or whatever), continue to object and call people morons, we might as well not even start. It's easy to get conservatives to rule that this is placing an undue burden on the individual right to keep and bear arms - that's a no brainer. And I might point out that driving is NOT a basic right., nor are swimming pools. Travel is, but not driving.

Politically, we want the least amount of fighting - give no targets, make the other side work. We can raise a small tax on mfrs., and do some taxing later - but let's not give any targets in the beginning, and give some incentives. So we have to ask ourselves - do we want to get somewhere or not.

And I might point out that driving is NOT a basic right., nor are swimming pools. Travel is, but not driving.

Would you agree that with rights come responsibilities?

Do you agree that the steady supply of stolen weapons used in crimes could be reduced substantially if well-regulated storage was required?

If so, how do you sell America, and proponents of unregulated gun access, that safe storage is essential to keeping a lot of guns out of the wrong hands?

The Largest Source of Stolen Guns? Parked Cars.

The growing number of firearms kept in vehicles has become a new point of contention in the debates over regulating gun safety.

...There is little question about the scope of the problem. A report issued in May by the gun-control group Everytown for Gun Safety analyzed FBI crime data in 271 American cities, large and small, from 2020 and found that guns stolen from vehicles have become the nation's largest source of stolen firearms ' with an estimated 40,000 guns stolen from cars in those cities alone...

...And as the problem has grown, public health officials and lawmakers, including some in Tennessee, have proposed a rather prosaic solution: encouraging or mandating that gun-toting drivers store their weapons in their vehicles inside of sturdy, lockable gun boxes.

Gun control advocates are hoping that the adoption of the boxes in cars will come to be seen as a solution that both sides of the gun debate can accept, much as both sides encourage the use of gun safes and trigger locks in the home.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/25/us/illegal-guns...

I just go one step further and want incentives. You can tie any tax credit to the income, as you want to assist those who would have difficulty affording it. I remember reading 800 pound gun safes are recommended if you can't bolt them down. 200 pound gun safes they can move. I'm not sure what the models are for cars, but manufacturers can be quite inventive. Don't worry about people shooting thousands of rounds, they can afford it and already have safes for their collection. 55% of gun owners own 80% of the guns and there are many large collections. If you accept that guns aren't going away, and that something needs to be done and we have to start somewhere, this is a place to start.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.