Alternatives to assault weapon legislation

[thesloppy]

I'm generally pretty liberal, but I think assault weapons bans are pretty much a Roman circus, designed to make a lot of noise and flash in order to distract from the fact that they accomplish very little. We're twelve years removed from an AWB and our gun culture is no different (possibly worse), and some of the states these mass shootings occurred in have maintained that ban for the entire time, yet here we are. When I bring up these concerns like-minded-folks generally seem to agree, but don't think that's adequate reasoning for doing nothing, which is a more-than-fair criticism. Personally, I would support a much broader single-action weapon ban, but that doesn't necessarily seem politically possible, and would only enrage gun advocates even further...which doesn't seem to bother many liberals in the slightest, but does bother me a bit...I don't see why this issue necessarily has to be contentious and drawn down party lines, or why it should be approached as polemically as possible.

While walking around I put a bit of thought into alternatives (or additions if you prefer) to assault weapons legislation and the question of "What else is their to do?", here's some of the stuff I came up with:

*Mandatory military service. I dunno who's going to like that idea at first glance, and it sounds hawkish as hell, but I think it would actually serve to soften our cultural/political attitude towards wars and global conflict if EVERYBODY was required to serve, rather than continuing to build an invisible, disposable soldier class. Likewise I think a lot of the dangerous/unstable types would give up their soldier fantasies after going to actual bootcamp/war, and it also might expedite or enhance our ability to recognize troubled/troubling people. Free firearm training for everybody obviously comes as part of that package.

*Mandatory service. The other side of that coin could be mandatory service that isn't necessarily military in nature, like the PeaceCorp. That's obviously not going to much for firearm education, but it could still serve to drastically change our culture, with forced intoductions to other cultures & ways of life. There's also no real reason (other than the PeaceCorp name) you couldn't include firearm education as part of that service. Frame it as preparation & preventative.

*Passive Buybacks. Gun buybacks are often conflated with bans, but there's no reason they have to be. The whole process of engaging this issue across party lines might go a lot smoother if it was approached as something elective rather than enforced. Put Tom Hanks on TV saying that the government and the public are equally concerned about this issue, if you'd like to dispose of any guns in your household you can do so at your local police department. Couldn't that be done tomorrow, rather than immediately moving into fighting for potentially years over contentious bans?

*Media Programs. Every kid from the '70s remembers learning civics or social skills from Sesame Street, The Electric Co., Schoolhouse Rock, and the like. Some of those were the result of federally funded programs. Modern politicos have pretty much abandoned the media to it's own devices, but I think specific media dedicated to educating kids about firearms and/or tolerance could still be useful cultural tools.

*Mandatory Gun Classes In Schools. That automatically set off liberal trigger alarms, as it's usually an NRA idea that gets floated by conservatives...but there's no reason a gun class can't cover gun safety/terminology without any kind of usage AND address a history of gun violence AND actively discourage purchasing (specific) guns. Call it 'History of Modern Armed Conflict' rather than 'gun safety' so it doesn't automatically suggest an NRA seminar to softies.

*Hamper Firearms Manufacturers Instead of Firearms Purchasers/Users: The government's pretty good at crippling industry, why don't they point the legislation towards the corporations rather than the users? Because the public doesn't have lobbyists paying anybody for their attention/protection...oops, that was supposed to be a rhetorical question.

*Extend the right to sue the manufacturers of assault weapons used in mass shootings for civil damages. I imagine you'd see some things change RIGHT QUICK, under that proposal, as opposed to anything levied towards consumer purchases.

*Immediately suspend the manufacture and prescription of all pharmaceutical drugs which may cause homicidal or suicidal urges. Most of these shooters were mentally ill, and had sought some form of treatment. In America that treatment consists mainly of poorly tested pharmaceuticals, some of which have been proven to cause homicidal or suicidal urges. Seems like an obvious issue.

*Community grieving hotlines/centers. People obviously want to talk about this stuff, and the internet is a pretty crappy outlet for discussion since it's entirely virtual and usually contentious. Maybe some community building would help.

A lot of these could be easily dismissed, and/or picked apart for the particular pieces that won't work, and anybody could easily point out why you think an AWB is the only tenable option, but that's not a very interesting or original discussion these days, and I'd rather hear other folks' ideas of alternative legislation, or cultural mechanisms outside of the usual suggestions.

[thesloppy]

A couple more:

* regulate fictional gun violence on television. Not my favorite idea, but TV is pretty much wall to wall crime procedurals and serial-killers, if someone wants to watch gun violence 24/7 they certainly can.

* regulate real gun violence on television. In this case I'm actually talking about INCREASED coverage. As long as our soldiers are engaged in armed conflicts across the globe, I feel like we should be presenting the realistic result of those conflicts to our public. Vietnam-style. Instead we glorify the fictional results of gun violence, while practically hiding our military actions from public view. I can't imagine that hasn't had some effect.

[RainMaker]

You want the government regulating art? Isn't that a little over-the-top? I don't believe there is any evidence linking violence on TV to real life violence.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You want the government regulating art? Isn't that a little over-the-top? I don't believe there is any evidence linking violence on TV to real life violence.

I totally want it! That's why it's literally the only one I singled out to say I personally didn't like. Thanks for putting some real thought into that hot take.

[SirFozzie]

My thoughts:

Treat it like we do a car. Guns need to be registered, licensed and cataloged. However, unlike a car, set it up so if you do something that disqualifies you from ownership for a time (or permanently) (felonies, hate crimes, domestic violence), you are required to turn them in. No letting family members hold it, or what have you. Fail to turn them in? You're held until such time that all registered guns are accounted for.

Require a 72-96 hour "cooling off/background check" time for purchasing new guns.

If one of guns you own gets used by someone else in a crime, and you didn't take all steps to secure it, it's treated as if YOU did the crime. You enabled it. (If someone say, breaks into your house, breaks into your gun safe, steals your guns and then shoots someone with it you're not criminally liable, but say, if you buy a gun for your mentally disturbed teenager, and he then goes and shoots up something, yeah, it's like YOU pulled the trigger)

Just off the top of my head stuff.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

*Mandatory military service. I dunno who's going to like that idea at first glance, and it sounds hawkish as hell, but I think it would actually serve to soften our cultural/political attitude towards wars and global conflict if EVERYBODY was required to serve, rather than continuing to build an invisible, disposable soldier class. Likewise I think a lot of the dangerous/unstable types would give up their soldier fantasies after going to actual bootcamp/war, and it also might expedite or enhance our ability to recognize troubled/troubling people. Free firearm training for everybody obviously comes as part of that package.

Where you run into trouble with that is exemptions. That was part of the issue with the draft in the 70s, was the idea that the more affluent classes had escape routes from the valves (higher education, deferments, etc) that the lower classes simply didn't have. Or, in some states, world class athletes being able to escape military service by winning an Olympic medal or otherwise bringing prestige to the nation. If you're going to have mandatory military service and have it have the impact you're after, the only exemptions should be for health/fitness.

*Mandatory service. The other side of that coin could be mandatory service that isn't necessarily military in nature, like the PeaceCorp. That's obviously not going to much for firearm education, but it could still serve to drastically change our culture, with forced intoductions to other cultures & ways of life. There's also no real reason (other than the PeaceCorp name) you couldn't include firearm education as part of that service. Frame it as preparation & preventative.

Public service is going to be more difficult to police than military service, no pun intended. It's a good idea in terms of encouraging civic-mindedness, but how do you enforce it? The military, you can show up at the door of a draft dodger and drag them off. Public service requires a lighter touch, because public service is going to come into contact with, well, the public. Nothing encourages civic mindedness like an agent of the state being surly and rude cuz they don't wanna.

*Passive Buybacks. Gun buybacks are often conflated with bans, but there's no reason they have to be. The whole process of engaging this issue across party lines might go a lot smoother if it was approached as something elective rather than enforced. Put Tom Hanks on TV saying that the government and the public are equally concerned about this issue, if you'd like to dispose of any guns in your household you can do so at your local police department. Couldn't that be done tomorrow, rather than immediately moving into fighting for potentially years over contentious bans?

Yeah, maybe, but the sort of people who participate in gun buybacks are generally not the sort of people who rush out to buy guns and ammunition in the aftermath of a shooting. I feel like this wouldn't be terribly effective on the macro level.

*Media Programs. Every kid from the '70s remembers learning civics or social skills from Sesame Street, The Electric Co., Schoolhouse Rock, and the like. Some of those were the result of federally funded programs. Modern politicos have pretty much abandoned the media to it's own devices, but I think specific media dedicated to educating kids about firearms and/or tolerance could still be useful cultural tools.

Legit, but half of the political establishment has been on record as saying they want to put Big Bird out of a job (i.e. defund PBS and the like). Would they trust a government-funded firearm safety program to not be a stealth 'convince kids that guns are bad to make it easier to ban guns in 30 years' Trojan?

*Mandatory Gun Classes In Schools. That automatically set off liberal trigger alarms, as it's usually an NRA idea that gets floated by conservatives...but there's no reason a gun class can't cover gun safety/terminology without any kind of usage AND address a history of gun violence AND actively discourage purchasing (specific) guns. Call it 'History of Modern Armed Conflict' rather than 'gun safety' so it doesn't automatically suggest an NRA seminar to softies.

And I guarantee you Texas' gun classes and California's would be radically different, unless it were a federally mandated curriculum with no waivers.

*Hamper Firearms Manufacturers Instead of Firearms Purchasers/Users: The government's pretty good at crippling industry, why don't they point the legislation towards the corporations rather than the users? Because the public doesn't have lobbyists paying anybody for their attention/protection...oops, that was supposed to be a rhetorical question.

Well, that, and it's been like ten years since a Republican-controlled Congress sent a Republican President a bill to immure firearms manufacturers from liability. Good luck unwinding that (no Republican in the current environment is going to cross the NRA and vote to repeal that, so until such time as the Democrats or a third party in favor of gun control wrests control of both houses of Congress, that's not happening).

*Extend the right to sue the manufacturers of assault weapons used in mass shootings for civil damages. I imagine you'd see some things change RIGHT QUICK, under that proposal, as opposed to anything levied towards consumer purchases.

See above. Gun manufacturers were specifically granted immunity via legislation during President George W. Bush's 2nd term. You're not getting that genie back in the bottle anytime soon. If you COULD, somehow, re-expose them to litigation, you might see advertising change.

*Immediately suspend the manufacture and prescription of all pharmaceutical drugs which may cause homicidal or suicidal urges.

It's almost like tinkering with brain chemistry can have unforeseen results, and ceasing the manufacture of drugs designed to tinker with broken brain chemistry could have unforeseen consequences.

*Community grieving hotlines/centers. People obviously want to talk about this stuff, and the internet is a pretty crappy outlet for discussion since it's entirely virtual and usually contentious. Maybe some community building would help.

Absolutely a good idea.

A lot of these could be easily dismissed, and/or picked apart for the particular pieces that won't work, and anybody could easily point out why you think an AWB is the only tenable option, but that's not a very interesting or original discussion these days, and I'd rather hear other folks' ideas of alternative legislation, or cultural mechanisms outside of the usual suggestions.

See, it's not that I think any of these are bad ideas on the face of them, it's that we're either in an environment that makes them DOA, or that the idea creates additional concerns that would need redress. Doesn't make them not worth investigating.

Originally Posted by thesloppy

A couple more:

* regulate fictional gun violence on television. Not my favorite idea, but TV is pretty much wall to wall crime procedurals and serial-killers, if someone wants to watch gun violence 24/7 they certainly can.

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...

* regulate real gun violence on television. In this case I'm actually talking about INCREASED coverage. As long as our soldiers are engaged in armed conflicts across the globe, I feel like we should be presenting the realistic result of those conflicts to our public. Vietnam-style. Instead we glorify the fictional results of gun violence, while practically hiding our military actions from public view. I can't imagine that hasn't had some effect.

...or of the press...

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You want the government regulating art? Isn't that a little over-the-top? I don't believe there is any evidence linking violence on TV to real life violence.

California has tried that any number of times and been slapped down. It's one thing to restrict minors from access to particular forms of entertainment, but you can't regulate the creation of that art wholesale. See above.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

My thoughts:

Treat it like we do a car. Guns need to be registered, licensed and cataloged. However, unlike a car, set it up so if you do something that disqualifies you from ownership for a time (or permanently) (felonies, hate crimes, domestic violence), you are required to turn them in. No letting family members hold it, or what have you. Fail to turn them in? You're held until such time that all registered guns are accounted for.

Not sure you could get indefinite detention through habeas corpus or the due process clause.

Require a 72-96 hour "cooling off/background check" time for purchasing new guns.

We already have a 72-hour period for new gun purchases (though I don't think that applies at gun shows). The problem is, federal law says that if the background check isn't complete within 72 hours, the would-be purchaser is allowed to complete the purchase.

If one of guns you own gets used by someone else in a crime, and you didn't take all steps to secure it, it's treated as if YOU did the crime. You enabled it. (If someone say, breaks into your house, breaks into your gun safe, steals your guns and then shoots someone with it you're not criminally liable, but say, if you buy a gun for your mentally disturbed teenager, and he then goes and shoots up something, yeah, it's like YOU pulled the trigger)

Just off the top of my head stuff.

Pretty sure this is also the law, at least to an extent. If you buy a gun for someone who would otherwise be prohibited, with knowledge of that prohibition, you can be charged as an accessory to any crimes committed with that firearm (as well as for the crime of providing that weapon to said prohibited individual).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I totally want it! That's why it's literally the only one I singled out to say I personally didn't like. Thanks for putting some real thought into that hot take.

Saying "not my favorite idea" is a bit different than saying you are against it.

And your second item states a desire to regulate TV so that it portrays a more realistic version of events.

[thesloppy]

Thanks for all those thoughts, and clarifications, Sack. This one in particular made me chuckle a bit:

Originally Posted by SackAttack

And I guarantee you Texas' gun classes and California's would be radically different,

Regarding fictional TV as art, my first thought actually wasn't towards regulating the literal content of shows in the slightest, so much as the possibility of limiting/controlling the times when certain programs/themes could be shown. Isn't TV federally regulated in that fashion (though much less strictly than the past) by the FCC, with regards to language, nudity and other 'adult' content?

[RainMaker]

I think network TV is regulated since it is over public airways but cable TV is not. Not completely sure though.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Saying "not my favorite idea" is a bit different than saying you are against it.

It sure is! It's also quite a bit different from saying I want it! It's quite different from saying MANY other things!

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And your second item states a desire to regulate TV so that it portrays a more realistic version of events.

You know what else is very clearly different? Fictional TV (aka ART) and the news. I would like news to be regulated, if we're just talking surface wishes, because modern news seems relatively worthless to me. I wouldn't consider that an infringement on art, but I will admit that it's an infringement on the freedom of the press. You can certainly criticize me for that thought, if you like.

Is there a reason you're choosing to pick the tiniest fucking niggle of what I wrote, and desperately trying to twist my words around it, without adding the slightest thought of your own, despite my very clearly stating that I didn't want to do that, and that I'm fully aware how surface level these thoughts are, and how easy they are to dismiss?

[RainMaker]

I just think it's a really serious issue. The last thing I want is government regulating the news.

Maybe it's because we have a candidate from a major party banning major news outlets from covering him. While I understand the idea, I would not want Donald Trump in charge of regulating the news (or Hillary for that matter either).

[thesloppy]

That's absolutely a cogent point, and well said. There was certainly nothing stopping you from stating those thoughts, rather than willfully twisting and attacking mine.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

And I guarantee you Texas' gun classes and California's would be radically different, unless it were a federally mandated curriculum with no waivers.

Just to revisit this nugget...that really doesn't seem like much of a non-starter for me, as I'd personally be fine with the hypothetical Southern gun classes being much more focused on usage and even relatively encouraging towards gun ownership...they've already got the guns and the attitude, a little extra education from a professional probably isn't going to hurt anything. In theory allowing for flexible curriculum would seem to make such legislation a relatively easy sell, since conservative states/lawmakers would be voting for firearm safety/education classes and liberal states/lawmakers would be voting for firearm violence history/prevention classes. In practice anything that combines guns and school is probably a tough sell to gun control advocates.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Just to revisit this nugget...that really doesn't seem like much of a non-starter for me, as I'd personally be fine with the hypothetical Southern gun classes being much more focused on usage and even relatively encouraging towards gun ownership...they've already got the guns and the attitude, a little extra education from a professional probably isn't going to hurt anything. In theory allowing for flexible curriculum would seem to make such legislation a relatively easy sell, since conservative states/lawmakers would be voting for firearm safety/education classes and liberal states/lawmakers would be voting for firearm violence history/prevention classes. In practice anything that combines guns and school is probably a tough sell to gun control advocates.

See, I don't mind firearm classes focusing on proper handling of the weapon. I firmly believe that a license to own a gun should carry with it MORE training than a license to operate a motor vehicle. I mean, shit, I'd trust a Texas high school gun safety course 1000% more than I would a Texas high school science course.

But yeah, the issue you're going to run into with the idea of mandatory firearms classes is going to be that different states are going to have different ideas of what constitutes "proper" training, so federal involvement would be necessary to make sure that there's some uniformity there. Yes, that means liberal or conservative states are going to squall. Hell, throw both in there: range time and violence history/prevention. Treat it like college science classes where you have a lecture (history/prevention) and a lab (proper use and safety).

Both camps would be pissed because the "other guys" are getting their preferred stance integrated into the curriculum, but I think the kids graduating from effectively a 20-week program with a 3/2 or 4/1 split on lecture/lab setup would probably leave that course with much better firearms training than what most states currently require to secure a firearms license. Hell, Wisconsin doesn't require a license to open carry, so I KNOW those kids would be getting more training than what this state requires. >.>

[digamma]

Thanks for the post and interesting thoughts.

For me it really starts with closing the background check loopholes. This is an easy step and it is one we know works.

We can look at the data in the 18 states that have full and complete background checks versus those that don't and see that gun violence, particularly domestic gun violence and suicides have decreased since those checks were implemented. We can look at Missouri where a full background check and gun purchase permit program were repealed and see that since the ban the "time to crime" stats for guns recovered in crimes doubled in the five years after they repealed their ban. We also know that in Missouri their gun homicide rate increased from 2006 to 2010 (after the full background check repeal) while surrounding states gun homicide rates decreased.

Of course it won't be perfect and people will always point to the last battle where a background check may not have been useful, but overall, the data is compelling.

Upwards of 80% of those surveyed in poll after poll support legislation that closes the background check loopholes. It really should be a no brainer.

It's also not a complete solution, but it is an incremental one that has shown results. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good here.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Hell, throw both in there: range time and violence history/prevention. Treat it like college science classes where you have a lecture (history/prevention) and a lab (proper use and safety).

Both camps would be pissed because the "other guys" are getting their preferred stance integrated into the curriculum, but I think the kids graduating from effectively a 20-week program with a 3/2 or 4/1 split on lecture/lab setup would probably leave that course with much better firearms training than what most states currently require to secure a firearms license. Hell, Wisconsin doesn't require a license to open carry, so I KNOW those kids would be getting more training than what this state requires. >.>

I am intrigued by these ideas. As a kid the closest I ever got to public gun education was "outdoor school" in 6th(?) grade, which was like a week-long shitty public school version of an old-school summer camp, with a sliver of an Oregon frontier spin. At some point they gave us BB rifles and made us shoot targets. I think Outdoor School still exists, but I would be pretty surprised if they didn't stop shooting targets long ago, even with BBs. Probably for the best when you consider the counselors/instructors were typically high-school drama geeks. Not a lot of learnin' was going on, but we sang us all sorts of songs. Just like on the frontier.

Originally Posted by digamma

Upwards of 80% of those surveyed in poll after poll support legislation that closes the background check loopholes. It really should be a no brainer.

It's also not a complete solution, but it is an incremental one that has shown results. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good here.

I agree with you as well. It seems like it should be the easiest legislation to pass, relatively inoffensive to gun advocates, as well as effective. I hope it's the priority.

[Toddzilla]

Ping: CamEdwards

[timmae]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

*Media Programs. Every kid from the '70s remembers learning civics or social skills from Sesame Street, The Electric Co., Schoolhouse Rock, and the like. Some of those were the result of federally funded programs. Modern politicos have pretty much abandoned the media to it's own devices, but I think specific media dedicated to educating kids about firearms and/or tolerance could still be useful cultural tools.

*Immediately suspend the manufacture and prescription of all pharmaceutical drugs which may cause homicidal or suicidal urges. Most of these shooters were mentally ill, and had sought some form of treatment. In America that treatment consists mainly of poorly tested pharmaceuticals, some of which have been proven to cause homicidal or suicidal urges. Seems like an obvious issue.

*Community grieving hotlines/centers. People obviously want to talk about this stuff, and the internet is a pretty crappy outlet for discussion since it's entirely virtual and usually contentious. Maybe some community building would help.

My feeling is that more discussion (and hopefully action) about why people are committing these crimes is what is needed. The gun problem is magnified by these tragic events of mass murder but living in Chicago I am equally as troubled by the day to day murders that mainly go unnoticed. 259 people have been shot and killed in Chicago this year. That should make everyone's stomach churn just as much as any other tragic event. However, I've seen it dismissed time and time again by those I have spoken with about this issue.

I truly believe that this problem is much bigger than anyone wants to admit (i.e. this is going to get worse before it gets better) and that guns may not be the main way to control this. The ideas mentioned above start to get into the why of the issue and not the how. I am infinitely more interested in accountability, assistance, compassion, culture, family, friends, services, treatment, etc than how can we ban certain types of equipment utilized by the murderers. People snap all the time and some of the crime is a split second decision but if a person shows rage, anger, unwillingness to engage, criminal thoughts, etc I feel we should be sympathetic to these issues and offer as much assistance as possible. I am as guilty as everyone else but what other choice do a lot of these people have? If they have a support network that allows for these actions we may never get beyond this issue.

Sorry for the rambling... just wanted to throw some thoughts out there.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

And I guarantee you Texas' gun classes and California's would be radically different, unless it were a federally mandated curriculum with no waivers.

When I took my CHL class to get my license in Texas, I had signed up for the class before the Newtown shootings, but my class happened to be the first one after the horrific event. The class was packed. Several of the people in the class had never even held a gun, much less fired one. One lady asked the instructor what he meant when he kept mentioning a "2nd Amendment". When we got to the shooting phase of the class, some people were missing their first shots from 3 yards away. No one failed the class. That really was an eye opening experience.

[Drake]

I'd never really had any exposure to guns until March of this year outside of a pump shotgun i inherited from my father-in-law...but earlier this year, I decided I wanted to learn how to shoot for realz, so I walked into a Dick's Sporting Goods and bought a .22 Henry Lever Action.

It literally took longer to find a sales associate in the gun department than it did to buy the gun/pass the background check/walk out the door with a rifle in my hand.

Sure, you're thinking. It's a .22. Big deal.

I did the same thing with a .223/5.56 rifle I bought last week. (Admittedly, not an AR. It's a bolt-action CZ-527. I love bolt-action rifles.)

It still sort of astounds me how quick the transaction is. Before my first gun purchase, I just assumed I'd pay my money and then have to wait several days for my background check and various state and federal approvals to come in. It disturbs me a bit that other than the standard criminal check like the one you'd have to pass to volunteer at your kid's elementary school, what I'm really doing is just self-asserting a bunch of things (I'm not mentally ill; I'm not a terrorist) and that's it.

I would fully support increased waiting times and more thorough background checks.

I'm already assuming that there's some sort of database that tracks the serial number on the guns I purchase to me...since they seem awfully intent on writing that number on my paperwork several times, then having at least one other person check it all out for accuracy...but the way the interwebs read, I may be mistaken on why they're recording that info. (Maybe they have to record it as a firearms dealer so they can account to the feds for the guns they have rather than reporting the guns that I have.)

[Drake]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Hell, throw both in there: range time and violence history/prevention. Treat it like college science classes where you have a lecture (history/prevention) and a lab (proper use and safety).

I wonder if something like Appleseed wouldn't fit the bill here.

(Note: I haven't been to Appleseed, but I've known a couple of people who were Appleseed instructors, and everyone I've ever heard who attended absolutely raved about it...but most of those people also happen to be gun-owners-cut-from-a-certain-cloth, if you know what I mean...i.e., "they'll pry my guns from my cold, dead hands".)

Edit for link: http://appleseedinfo.org/

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by timmae

I truly believe that this problem is much bigger than anyone wants to admit (i.e. this is going to get worse before it gets better) and that guns may not be the main way to control this. The ideas mentioned above start to get into the why of the issue and not the how. I am infinitely more interested in accountability, assistance, compassion, culture, family, friends, services, treatment, etc than how can we ban certain types of equipment utilized by the murderers. People snap all the time and some of the crime is a split second decision but if a person shows rage, anger, unwillingness to engage, criminal thoughts, etc I feel we should be sympathetic to these issues and offer as much assistance as possible. I am as guilty as everyone else but what other choice do a lot of these people have? If they have a support network that allows for these actions we may never get beyond this issue.

Well said. I agree with this. I think in fact, most people would agree with you, but they don't necessarily have such an easy time crystallizing their thoughts/feelings, and get hung up on something more sensational and easier to pinpoint along the way.

Originally Posted by cartman

When I took my CHL class to get my license in Texas, I had signed up for the class before the Newtown shootings, but my class happened to be the first one after the horrific event. The class was packed. Several of the people in the class had never even held a gun, much less fired one. One lady asked the instructor what he meant when he kept mentioning a "2nd Amendment". When we got to the shooting phase of the class, some people were missing their first shots from 3 yards away. No one failed the class. That really was an eye opening experience.

This sounds like it would've been a pretty amusing class, verging on sketch comedy.

[nol]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Well said. I agree with this. I think in fact, most people would agree with you, but they don't necessarily have such an easy time crystallizing their thoughts/feelings, and get hung up on something more sensational and easier to pinpoint along the way.

No, when the particular murders are carried out by people from the wrong side of the tracks, most people are saying "good riddance" and that any amount of assistance would just be more of their tax dollars going to freeloaders.

This sounds like it would've been a pretty amusing class, verging on sketch comedy.

Amusing until you consider the odds that someone's life is going to end (whether by suicide, an accident, or anything else) at the hands of a gun used by a person who is at the moment considered a "good guy with a gun" because they passed a joke of a class.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

This sounds like it would've been a pretty amusing class, verging on sketch comedy.

It would have been hilarious, if it wasn't real life. It scared the bejeezus out of me to know that people like that could be carrying a gun out in public. Another thing that happened during the class was that someone had a dud round. It had enough powder to fire, but not enough to get the bullet to exit the barrel. They took her gun inside and popped the bullet out. When they gave her back the gun, and showed her the round they removed, she was incredulous and asked how they got it out without the bullet exploding.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by nol

Amusing until you consider the odds that someone's life is going to end (whether by suicide, an accident, or anything else) at the hands of a gun used by a person who is at the moment considered a "good guy with a gun" because they passed a joke of a class.

I probably line up with you politically, but I don't think that's fair or logical. Whatever hypothetical person you want to pick out of that class already had the gun, the ability to carry it wherever they want (as long as it wasn't concealed) and the ignorance to go with it, improving their accuracy above "shoots in random direction" and alerting them to the very basics of how the guns they already own operate certainly isn't contributing to the problem, even if they're now licensed to conceal those weapons.

[NobodyHere]

I think the first thing we should do is fund research on gun violence.

[nol]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I probably line up with you politically, but I don't think that's fair or logical. Whatever hypothetical person you want to pick out of that class already had the gun, the ability to carry it wherever they want (as long as it wasn't concealed) and the ignorance to go with it

And the ignorance to leave it unlocked from time to time in the presence of children, and the ignorance to think that one class can take them from "fires in random direction" to "saves the day by taking out an active shooter" rather than simply creating more chaos, and the ignorance to believe they will never once be intoxicated or depressed to the point of doing something "totally out of character," and so on.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by nol

And the ignorance to leave it unlocked from time to time in the presence of children, and the ignorance to think that one class can take them from "fires in random direction" to "saves the day by taking out an active shooter" rather than simply creating more chaos, and the ignorance to believe they will never once be intoxicated or depressed to the point of doing something "totally out of character," and so on.

*Shrug* As I said, I probably match up with you politically, so I've got no desire to break this issue down to the point that we can fight about it, even though that seems to be your intent, regardless of the person or idea you're addressing in these threads.

If you want to listen to the specifics of Cartman's story and rant and invent a narrative that those folks are somehow worse off and more dangerous for taking a gun education class, I suppose that's entirely your right, but I hope you don't think you're actually making anything close to a rational or convincing argument, and I certainly don't know why you're bothering to angrily direct that argument exclusively at me, a person who wasn't at the class, didn't tell the story, doesn't own a gun, and merely referred to the anecdote as amusing.

[nol]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

*Shrug* As I said, I probably match up with you politically, so I've got no desire to break this issue down to the point that we can fight about it, even though that seems to be your intent, regardless of the person or idea you're addressing in these threads.

If you want to listen to the specifics of Cartman's story and rant and invent a narrative that those folks are somehow worse off and more dangerous for taking a gun education class, I suppose that's entirely your right, but I hope you don't think you're actually making anything close to a rational or convincing argument, and I certainly don't know why you're bothering to angrily direct that argument exclusively at me, a person who wasn't at the class, didn't tell the story, doesn't own a gun, and merely referred to the anecdote as amusing.

1. You may want to brush up on interpreting tone and nuance from text.

2. I'll defer to the person who was there, did tell the story, and came to the same conclusion.

3. I was probably just as offended by the idea that it would be particularly funny. Uh, a person comes into a gun class and doesn't know how to aim the gun. That's about 10 seconds of material, now what?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by nol

2. I'll defer to the person who was there, did tell the story, and came to the same conclusion.

In a less patronizing and condescending way.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by nol

1. You may want to brush up on interpreting tone and nuance from text.

2. I'll defer to the person who was there, did tell the story, and came to the same conclusion.

I wouldn't have to do either of those, if you had simply not directed your scolding replies at me, would I? Why is it my (or anybody else's) responsibility to interpret your shitposts, if you're choosing to direct them at people? Why are you picking fights in these threads, and exclusively picking apart others peoples thoughts, rather than adding even the tiniest sliver of your own?

As far as interpreting tone and nuance, and deferring to others, I would GLADLY open the idea that you're being a willfully confrontational asshole who is contributing nothing to either of these threads, to absolutely anybody who would care to share their opinion. Somehow I don't think that's actually what you want, but I'm happy to put it out there for you. EDIT: and before I could even crystallize those thoughts Cartman (literally, the person you deferred to) beat me to it. Gonna take that to heart, acknowledge it (and your own actions) or just let it bounce right off, and go looking for another public fight?

Nice job killing these discussions, that's super helpful. Howsabout about you either bring something to the conversation, make even the slightest positive acknowledgment of someone else's thoughts, ideas, or feelings, or put a sock in it now?

[nol]

So, cartman said something that went over your head and I said it in a more blunt fashion that made you understand it. That's not being condescending, that's knowing your audience

[timmae]

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by nol

So, cartman said something that went over your head and I said it in a more blunt fashion that made you understand it. That's not being condescending, that's knowing your audience

Awesome. I'm so glad you're making me parse this some more and directly insulting my intelligence for saying an anecdote was amusing. When I say something is amusing, why does that imply that it went over my head? Do you want an extended debate over how something can be amusing and disturbing at the same time? Do you think of amusement as some sort of overwhelming emotion that excludes all other thought and emotion? Let's argue over the concept of black humor as if it's not something understood by grade-schoolers. That sounds fantastic. And so topical.

As far as knowing your audience, you might pay the slightest fucking attention to who called you condescending, because it wasn't me. It was the dude you literally and explicitly deferred judgment to. Oh, but you didn't mean that as anything other than asshole posturing.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

My thoughts:

Treat it like we do a car. Guns need to be registered, licensed and cataloged. However, unlike a car, set it up so if you do something that disqualifies you from ownership for a time (or permanently) (felonies, hate crimes, domestic violence), you are required to turn them in. No letting family members hold it, or what have you. Fail to turn them in? You're held until such time that all registered guns are accounted for.

Require a 72-96 hour "cooling off/background check" time for purchasing new guns.

If one of guns you own gets used by someone else in a crime, and you didn't take all steps to secure it, it's treated as if YOU did the crime. You enabled it. (If someone say, breaks into your house, breaks into your gun safe, steals your guns and then shoots someone with it you're not criminally liable, but say, if you buy a gun for your mentally disturbed teenager, and he then goes and shoots up something, yeah, it's like YOU pulled the trigger)

Just off the top of my head stuff.

And insurance.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

And insurance.

Gun insurance is an interesting idea. Considering the prevalence of insurance in America I'm sure it's something that must've been floated before many times, but that's the first thought my uninformed ass has given it. Seems like it would at least be a preventative to buying a LOT of guns if each one also had to be insured against accident/abuse.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by cartman

When I took my CHL class to get my license in Texas, I had signed up for the class before the Newtown shootings, but my class happened to be the first one after the horrific event. The class was packed. Several of the people in the class had never even held a gun, much less fired one. One lady asked the instructor what he meant when he kept mentioning a "2nd Amendment". When we got to the shooting phase of the class, some people were missing their first shots from 3 yards away. No one failed the class. That really was an eye opening experience.

What I'm taking from this is maybe I oughtn't to trust Texas gun safety courses, or else one of the things that needs to happen is much more stringent requirements for successful completion of gun safety courses. Everywhere.

Wow.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

And insurance.

After another bit of thought about this, it keeps intriguing me...aside from the obvious fiscal piece, it would also serve to add another layer of firearm tracking/inventory if companies were suddenly invested in insuring them. Let a policy lapse, and you're going to get a call from someone wondering: What's up with weapon serial no. XXXXX? Do you still need insurance? Where is that gun located? Do you keep it locked in a safe? Do you have any other guns you want to insure? Etc. Etc.

I'm sure that prospect would absolutely thrill gun owners, and I already have nightmares about how the future of American industry consists entirely of selling each other insurance, but it's an interesting idea nonetheless.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

What I'm taking from this is maybe I oughtn't to trust Texas gun safety courses, or else one of the things that needs to happen is much more stringent requirements for successful completion of gun safety courses. Everywhere.

Wow.

Monty Python - Upper-Class Twit of the Year - YouTube

[nol]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

What I'm taking from this is maybe I oughtn't to trust Texas gun safety courses, or else one of the things that needs to happen is much more stringent requirements for successful completion of gun safety courses. Everywhere.

Wow.

Not really. I'd be just as fine if you abolished all such courses and the requirements for a concealed carry license were to just send in a nominal fee. Have it cost a hundred bucks or so a year and give the people their license (maybe throw in a framed certificate and some t-shirts that say 'SUCK IT ISIS' with a guy pissing on the ISIS flag to sweeten the deal). That way, gun owners don't have to sit through a course that may not even teach them that much, we all don't need to go through the facade that we're teaching people to be that much safer, there's some new revenue coming in to be used on things that can actually reduce gun violence (as opposed to whatever version of gun education could actually make it through Congress) or do whatever else one would like the government to do, and the bad guys aren't going to take a class or obey any laws anyways.

[CU Tiger]

freedom of press image.jpg

[wishbone]

I am a person who owns guns and likes to shoot. I think that to have a rational discussion about guns, 2 things must be assumed:
A: Guns are designed to kill but most people that own guns in the USA do not use them to kill. I would guess that 50%-75% of gun owners have never killed anything with their guns.
B: The Constitution and 200+ years of court precedent has determined that US citizens have a right to have firearms. From 11/1998 to 5/2016, the FBI states that 237,376,498 Million firearm background checks have been performed and I think you can have 5 or 10 firearms per check so that is not a number of guns. Estimates place the current number of guns in the USA between 300 and 400 Million.

When I hear about gun control proposals I try to honestly ask a few questions:
1. Would that have stopped the latest event?
2. Is it possible?
3. Is it enforcable?

*Mandatory military service. Maybe, Probably not, Maybe - No one can predict the future, military service may or may not prevent someone becoming a threat 1-20 years after serving. It is just as likely to make them more effective threats. I think the biggest challenge here is that the military is constantly trying to have the "right" number of troops, adding a high school graduating class of 3-4 million each year makes this very unlikely
*Mandatory service. Maybe, Probably not, Maybe - sam points as above
*Passive Buybacks. No, Yes, N/A - Non-mandatory buybacks help people who don't know what to do with or already want nothing to do with weapons. Anecdotally, I have seen buybacks where people have turned in non-functional weapons for cash to buy working weapons. In the gun community that I have been a part of, buybacks are a joke.
*Media Programs. Maybe, Maybe, No - Controlling what is out there and what people watch are very different things. Media in the 1970s is nothing like media now. Cable TV, internet and satellite has changed it entirely.
*Mandatory Gun Classes In Schools. Maybe, yes, no - Again, predicting the future is hard, but this is possible. Getting thousands of school districts to implement this would be difficult, look at the variance in teaching evolution or sex education as examples.
*Hamper Firearms Manufacturers Instead of Firearms Purchasers/Users: No, Yes, Yes and No - The 1994 Assault Weapon Ban is educational here, manufacturers found ways to make AR15s that were compliant. Even the New York SAFE Act has been circumvented, comically I think. Google "New York SAFE Act compliant AR15" to see what I mean. It's the same rifle without the specifically named features.
*Extend the right to sue the manufacturers of assault weapons used in mass shootings for civil damages. No, Yes, No. Some of the same points as above in that manufacturers will learn quickly what they must do to prevent lawsuits coming back to them. The individual shooters may be planning to die during their attack so legal action will mean nothing to them. To be a bitch about wording, why only "assault weapons used in mass shootings" and not all weapons in all shootings?
*Immediately suspend the manufacture and prescription of all pharmaceutical drugs which may cause homicidal or suicidal urges. Maybe, Yes, Yes and No - I think this is possible but not practical. Big Pharma won't allow this or would redefine the way that side effects are labeled, rendering it pointless. I also think there are too many people taking thes meds without these urges that this would be a net loss for mental health and public safety.
*Community grieving hotlines/centers. No, Yes, n/a - This prevents nothing, I honestly can't imagine that this would have any impact on threats. Unfortunately, with schools and other soft-targets a seeming favorite for these shooters, I would expect this to also be a target.
* regulate fictional gun violence on television. Maybe, Maybe, No - See Media Programs
* regulate real gun violence on television. Maybe, Maybe, No - See Media Programs

Ideas that I have:
Tax deduction / Tax credit for gun safe purchases - Maybe, Yes, n/a - It does not stop legal or illegal transfers of firearms and does not force behavior but preventing theft is a net positive. I would tier it so that higher deductions / credits would be granted based on safe features. Thicker steel? 10% higher, bolted down 10%, tied to alarm system 10%, made in USA? 10%. Details need to be worked out but it's possible to prevent many gun thefts.

The main problem with most gun control proposals is that they try to stop mass shootings. Most murders are not during a mass shooting, it doesn't even happen with "Assault weapons". FBI stats from 2009-2013 show murder weapons are handguns (47.88%), unstated type of firearm(14.03%), knives (12.92%), Hands/fist/feet (5.75%), blunt objects (4.05%), shotguns (2.73%), rifles (2.52%). In that 5 year period at least 4 times more people got stabbed to death than were shot by "assault weapons". Ignoring this is similar to saying that rifles are not a problem, but we need to legislate strangulations.

[nol]

Originally Posted by wishbone

The main problem with most gun control proposals is that they try to stop mass shootings. Most murders are not during a mass shooting, it doesn't even happen with "Assault weapons". FBI stats from 2009-2013 show murder weapons are handguns (47.88%), unstated type of firearm(14.03%), knives (12.92%), Hands/fist/feet (5.75%), blunt objects (4.05%), shotguns (2.73%), rifles (2.52%). In that 5 year period at least 4 times more people got stabbed to death than were shot by "assault weapons". Ignoring this is similar to saying that rifles are not a problem, but we need to legislate strangulations.

Murders and violent crimes have been trending downward for a quite some time whereas mass shootings are going up. There's certainly more we could do to reduce murders, but at least it's not completely backwards, and that's why you see more focus on mass shootings.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by wishbone

When I hear about gun control proposals I try to honestly ask a few questions:
1. Would that have stopped the latest event?
2. Is it possible?
3. Is it enforcable?

Good thoughts wishbone. Regarding the above, these discussion have helped me to realize how my personal history with gun violence has affected how I process this stuff. Applying an even simpler checklist I ask myself if assault weapons bans would've effected these tragedies OR the violence in my life, and the answer is some of the tragedies and none of the personal violence. Even the politically impossible single-action weapons ban would've effected most of the mass shootings, but not all, but still not had any effect on the personal violence. Improved mental health care/environment on the other hand has the potential to impact all (or at least the great majority) of the shooters, most of whom were diagnosed and treated (poorly) at some point, as well as all of the episodes in my life, which were committed by insane or depressed individuals. It's easy to see how my opinions have been colored.

[Arles]

I just don't see why we can't have differing levels of gun licenses required. If have a driver's license, I can't go drive a semi tomorrow on my license. Why not have a much tougher (and longer) to obtain license for assault rifles. Require more training, make it a longer waiting period and even record the purchase and buyer. If I go to walgreens and buy a pack of sudafed, they scan in my license. We can't have a similar process for assault rifles?

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Arles

I just don't see why we can't have differing levels of gun licenses required. If have a driver's license, I can't go drive a semi tomorrow on my license. Why not have a much tougher (and longer) to obtain license for assault rifles. Require more training, make it a longer waiting period and even record the purchase and buyer. If I go to walgreens and buy a pack of sudafed, they scan in my license. We can't have a similar process for assault rifles?

That makes some sense to me.

[wishbone]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

...single-action weapons ban

I'm not sure what this means; can you elaborate? If you mean semi-automtic weapon ban, then I don't know how that would be possible. There are simply too many - estimates range from 5-10 million ar15s alone.

Any gun legislation or ban depends on people complying but non-compliance is part of the U.S. history and culture. Any measures taken must reach the 1 in a million person that will become a threat or there was no point and if it does reach that person, we'll never know. Alternatively, we identify risk factors and stop people before they take action which requires changing key legal standards in our country and will surely result in innocent people being detained or questioned. I'm not sure that's truly possible

[Julio Riddols]

I think considering banning gun shows and letting the FBI list help determine whether or not someone should be allowed to buy a gun are good starting points, but there isn't much that can really be done overall.

If you want to curb the distribution of guns to criminals, its just not gonna happen. If you go the drastic route and just ban all assault weapons, there will be blood. Gun smuggling will increase, borders and cities near them will be more dangerous because of it, and it will take something akin to the "war on drugs" for the guns to come under any semblance of control. It will become a racket for people who have sway in the industry, and the effectiveness of such a measure would be so minimal as to render the whole pursuit moot.

This is a problem you can't solve by taking away guns. I'd say the main issue is mental health, but how do you address that?

This is a country that is run by criminals who are above the law, criminals who bend the law to their will at the expense of the common man. How can we expect the citizens of the country to act any different when the leadership clearly is only trying to lie cheat and steal as much as they can?

There is no fix, that's my stance. It's not like Australia where you are on an island and you can control the import of guns to the point that a gun ban is actually feasible. There are too many entry points to use their techniques effectively to curb gun violence.

Maybe a full media blackout on violent crimes would be a start, but the news corporations love that money. Maybe a major deterrent to ammunition purchases would be a start, but the ammunition manufacturers love that money.

Short of installing metal detectors in every door of every building in every city, and metal detectors stationed outside of all cities, I don't think there is any way to really slow it down at all.

[Julio Riddols]

And lets not forget about 3d printed guns, which will certainly become a huge issue in the near future.