Gun Control Proposals

[Rhea]

I'd like to discuss ideas for and targeted problems to be addressed by gun control proposals.

If you'd like to talk about slippery slopes, go (to) elsewhere. If you'd like to say NRA talking points about arming more people, go to elsewhere.

This thread is for meaningful discussion of possible proposals and why and how they would work.
I am looking for productive discussion among people who want things to work.
I would love to hear from people who understand law, statistics and psychology and where things could be tightened up. I tried browsing the web for gun control proposals, but I really don't see anything comprehensive, and I don't see it in a soothing table format with targeted action. So I'm creating one.

When I look at the problem of gun control legislation, I see that different problems have different solutions. My brain likes to bucket things and divide the issues into workable groups, so that's how I'll start. I haven't decided on the best table order for this, so I may change it and repost it later in the thread. But here's my start.

What are your thoughts? Additional legislative proposals? What additional rows or columns would you add? What comments or statistics would you add?




[table="width: 500, class: grid, align: left"]
[tr]
[td]Problem[/td]
[td]Legislative_Solution[/td]
[td]How it works[/td]
[td]Impact[/td]
[td]Drawbacks Limitations[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Criminal handgun crime[/td]
[td]Real databases, real background checks, real audits of sellers with heavy penalties for missing guns or straw sales, audits of those with many guns, citations for losing or having your gun stolen without a report[/td]
[td]stops the flow of thousands of cheap unreported handguns into crime areas[/td]
[td]200,000+ criminal guns per year[/td]
[td]some may object to the audit portion[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Suicide and Accident deaths[/td]
[td]biometrics, citation for lack of securing, insurance, waiting periods and background checks[/td]
[td]Make the guns unfirable except by owner, and when it does happen you will pay hard.[/td]
[td]20,000 deaths per year[/td]
[td]some fear that biometrics might prevent them from being a hero[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Mass Shootings[/td]
[td]Ban rapid fire weapons and rigs to make rapid fire[/td]
[td]they will have to find another way - more difficult, and can't kill as many people[/td]
[td]20+ per year[/td]
[td]Rednecks can't kill toilets in their woods for fun while drunk[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You've got a pretty major case of not paying attention to the problems with the ideas.

1) Criminal handgun crime. Reality: Most criminals buy their guns on the street. Restrictions on legal sales, other than those aimed at straw purchases, are going to have a very minimal effect. Even getting rid of straw purchases isn't going to make a big dent as fenced guns are generally cheaper than legal ones. There's no point in putting a bank vault door in with a window next to it.

2a) Suicide:
Biometrics: Of little value, it's usually their own gun. Furthermore, nobody has come up with a biometric system that's reliable enough--a system that's going to fail if you're injured is a big problem for self defense. The left would like to pretend self defense doesn't exist but that's just pretending.

Securing: Again, of little value.

Waiting periods: The time it takes one to go buy a gun is enough of a waiting period.

Background checks: The people will pass.

2b) Accidents:
Biometrics: Most accidents involve improper target analysis. Biometrics won't help those.

Securing: Here it will help some. I have no problem with reasonable storage requirements--but the left always wants to go too far, making storage requirements a burden and using them to make self defense basically impossible. Note, also, that the maximum benefit here is well under 1% of gun deaths. The left has only itself to blame here.

Waiting periods: Useless

Background checks: Careless won't make you fail a background check.

3) Mass shootings:
Rapid fire weapons: None has ever been used in a mass shooting.

Rigs to make a weapon rapid fire: I've seen a video of it done with a common household item. Banning bump stocks will do nothing about improvised versions.

 

[Trausti]

some fear that biometrics might prevent them from being a hero

Rednecks can't kill toilets in their woods for fun while drunk

So you weren't intending to address the issue in good faith.

 

[Patooka]

Just from the outside looking in, here's a thought; overturn the Dickey Amendment.

Until some proper research and facts are presented, you're never going to win an argument against someone who believes cars are a dangerous as firearms, rifles that have a higher rate of fire than a K-98 are not to be considered military, if you don't own a gun you will be raped and murdered by next Thursday and your AR-15 will protect you against a government sanctioned M-1 Abrams assault on your house. Gun nuts belief in Fantasyville is stronger than any argument involving common fucking sense. You're going to need facts, and that requires research.

 

[bilby]

Just from the outside looking in, here's a thought; overturn the Dickey Amendment.

Until some proper research and facts are presented, you're never going to win an argument against someone who believes cars are a dangerous as firearms, rifles that have a higher rate of fire than a K-98 are not to be considered military, if you don't own a gun you will be raped and murdered by next Thursday and your AR-15 will protect you against a government sanctioned M-1 Abrams assault on your house. Gun nuts belief in Fantasyville is stronger than any argument involving common fucking sense. You're going to need facts, and that requires research.

+1

Start by allowing, or better yet, by encouraging lots and lots of detailed research. Then come up with regulations that fit the facts.

In the absence of good data, idiocy can flourish, and people can believe any crazy shit they like.

 

[RavenSky]

Just from the outside looking in, here's a thought; overturn the Dickey Amendment.

Until some proper research and facts are presented, you're never going to win an argument against someone who believes cars are a dangerous as firearms, rifles that have a higher rate of fire than a K-98 are not to be considered military, if you don't own a gun you will be raped and murdered by next Thursday and your AR-15 will protect you against a government sanctioned M-1 Abrams assault on your house. Gun nuts belief in Fantasyville is stronger than any argument involving common fucking sense. You're going to need facts, and that requires research.

^^^ That

 

[Ford]

Off the top of my head I'd say we need to approach the problem like we did with seat belts, cigarettes and drunk driving. We have to change the culture.

Simply passing a law won't be enough. We need to counter the NRA's argument that the solution to gun violence is more gun violence. Part of that is changing the NRA itself, which I understand is a big ask, but there was a time when the organization was almost 100 percent about educating people about gun safety. Back in the 1970s I took an NRA sponsored gun safety course and the primary message was that you never, ever, ever pointed a gun at another human being. Ever. Even accidentally. You checked what was down range. Checked your field of fire. If there was even a remote chance of a round putting another human being at risk you didn't fire.

Today it seems like the NRA's message is the opposite. That there's vanishingly few situations that cannot be solved by the judicious use of a firearm.

IMO, that's why we seem to have a plethora of mass shootings. The perpetrators have taken that message to heart, and have decided that the best way to solve a problem is to shoot it. Same thing with suicide. The statistic floating around out there is that something like 20 veterans kill themselves every day. Again, gun = solution.

So like with drunk driving and smoking and seat belts we need to embark on a decades-long project to change the culture. No, it is not "cool" to smoke. No, it is not "cool" to get behind the wheel after a few cocktails. Buckle up.

And the thing is, advertising works. Marketing works. Hammering the same message over and over again in the media and popular culture can make a difference. The message from this weekend's marches is "gun violence is a bad thing." Seems like an obvious truth, but we need to hit that message over and over again. For a generation or so. Shooting someone is not a good idea. A gun isn't a solution to whatever ails you. Escalation of this arms race is a dead end. We need ad campaigns and public service announcements and every branch of government pushing the message and it has to be consistent and constant.

As far as laws go, we already have gun control. Stop by your neighborhood firearms dealer and ask if you can buy a fully automatic rifle like an M16. The answer is "no." Machine guns are tightly restricted and even the NRA and some 2nd Amendment advocates are okay with that. So we need to expand those laws incrementally until such time as an AR15 will be just as hard to obtain as an M16. It will take a long time, but again, like changing the public perception of tobacco it is a worthy effort.

 

[bilby]

Off the top of my head I'd say we need to approach the problem like we did with seat belts, cigarettes and drunk driving. We have to change the culture.

Simply passing a law won't be enough. We need to counter the NRA's argument that the solution to gun violence is more gun violence. Part of that is changing the NRA itself, which I understand is a big ask, but there was a time when the organization was almost 100 percent about educating people about gun safety. Back in the 1970s I took an NRA sponsored gun safety course and the primary message was that you never, ever, ever pointed a gun at another human being. Ever. Even accidentally. You checked what was down range. Checked your field of fire. If there was even a remote chance of a round putting another human being at risk you didn't fire.

Today it seems like the NRA's message is the opposite. That there's vanishingly few situations that cannot be solved by the judicious use of a firearm.

IMO, that's why we seem to have a plethora of mass shootings. The perpetrators have taken that message to heart, and have decided that the best way to solve a problem is to shoot it. Same thing with suicide. The statistic floating around out there is that something like 20 veterans kill themselves every day. Again, gun = solution.

So like with drunk driving and smoking and seat belts we need to embark on a decades-long project to change the culture. No, it is not "cool" to smoke. No, it is not "cool" to get behind the wheel after a few cocktails. Buckle up.

And the thing is, advertising works. Marketing works. Hammering the same message over and over again in the media and popular culture can make a difference. The message from this weekend's marches is "gun violence is a bad thing." Seems like an obvious truth, but we need to hit that message over and over again. For a generation or so. Shooting someone is not a good idea. A gun isn't a solution to whatever ails you. Escalation of this arms race is a dead end. We need ad campaigns and public service announcements and every branch of government pushing the message and it has to be consistent and constant.

As far as laws go, we already have gun control. Stop by your neighborhood firearms dealer and ask if you can buy a fully automatic rifle like an M16. The answer is "no." Machine guns are tightly restricted and even the NRA and some 2nd Amendment advocates are okay with that. So we need to expand those laws incrementally until such time as an AR15 will be just as hard to obtain as an M16. It will take a long time, but again, like changing the public perception of tobacco it is a worthy effort.

Heroes and 'good guys' in movies no longer smoke.

If you seriously want to change the gun culture, you need to stop having heroes in movies who use guns.

Batman and the Jedi are the only mainstream movie heroes I can immediately think of who have neither superpowers nor a gun - barring historical stuff set before guns were commonplace. And of course, the Jedi thing is more about a return to the noble days of swordsmanship than it is a rejection of gun culture. Plenty of people who fight alongside the Jedi are armed with blasters.

Yipee-ki-yay, motherfuckers.
My name is Bond. James Bond.
I'll be back.

Guns are practically the defining tool of the hero. Just as a cigarette made a man a real man, back in the day.

He can't be a man, 'cos he doesn't smoke
The same cigarettes as me

 

[Patooka]

Maybe, but MacGuyver and Doctor Who spring to mind as non-gun heroes. Michael Weston used guns in Burn Notice, but it wasn't his primary thing and turned his nose down on the "shoot first" philosophy. And if you are going to change the culture, you need awareness. That requires information, and distributing of information.

 

[Tigers!]

Why not ammo harder to get?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Just from the outside looking in, here's a thought; overturn the Dickey Amendment.

Until some proper research and facts are presented, you're never going to win an argument against someone who believes cars are a dangerous as firearms, rifles that have a higher rate of fire than a K-98 are not to be considered military, if you don't own a gun you will be raped and murdered by next Thursday and your AR-15 will protect you against a government sanctioned M-1 Abrams assault on your house. Gun nuts belief in Fantasyville is stronger than any argument involving common fucking sense. You're going to need facts, and that requires research.

+1

Start by allowing, or better yet, by encouraging lots and lots of detailed research. Then come up with regulations that fit the facts.

In the absence of good data, idiocy can flourish, and people can believe any crazy shit they like.

Research would be a good thing. The left wouldn't like it, though--too many of their arguments are based on nonsense.

- - - Updated - - -

Why not ammo harder to get?

Anything along these lines hurts the innocent far more than it hurts the bad guy.

My understanding is that Israel actually has a method of restricting ammo that works, but it's based on special circumstances. Basically, you have severe lifetime limits on how much ammo you can buy. However, this does not apply to what you use on the range.

The thing is there's no place other than ranges to shoot other than in self defense. No hunting. (It's too developed, nothing there to hunt.)

 

[bilby]

Research would be a good thing. The left wouldn't like it, though--too many of their arguments are based on nonsense.

How could we possibly know, in the absence of any actual research?

It's not 'the left' who liked the data so little that they made collection of it illegal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Research would be a good thing. The left wouldn't like it, though--too many of their arguments are based on nonsense.

How could we possibly know, in the absence of any actual research?

It's not 'the left' who liked the data so little that they made collection of it illegal.

The left was trying to preordain the results. That's why it got stomped on.

 

[Rhea]

You've got a pretty major case of not paying attention to the problems with the ideas.

So to sum up: Loren: no ideas, no proposals, it’ll never work, don’t change a thing.
Gotcha, thanks. No need for you to reply any further on this thread.

 

[Rhea]

Off the top of my head I'd say we need to approach the problem like we did with seat belts, cigarettes and drunk driving. We have to change the culture.

So like with drunk driving and smoking and seat belts we need to embark on a decades-long project to change the culture. No, it is not "cool" to smoke. No, it is not "cool" to get behind the wheel after a few cocktails. Buckle up.

.

I agree with this whole post as one main arm of progress. I agree that propaganda can be a very good thing and should be applied to things like this. And I think we can do it successfully.

The NRA has had decades to be the propaganda arm for _safe_ gun use, but as you point out, they have been the opposite in recent decades.

Yes, lots to be gained here. And I don’t think the focus on improved laws needs to be cut out from that. We can do both.

 

[Rhea]

some fear that biometrics might prevent them from being a hero

Rednecks can't kill toilets in their woods for fun while drunk

So you weren't intending to address the issue in good faith.

Sure I am. What are your ideas?
Bear in mind that I live next door to people who use semi-automatic and modified fully-automatic weapons to shoot toilets in the woods. This is a thing here. You might think I was just being glib or hyperbolic, but I was actually talking about real people. Every house on my street has a gun in it, including mine. I do not know any gun owner in my town who owns fewer than three guns, and some folks who own over 200.

 

[Rhea]

The reason I wrote the proposals the way I did is based on what research currently exists.

It is decisively known that most criminal guns are indeed bought through straw-man pruchases and that moreover only a tiny fraction of gun-shops do it. There are many tesitmonies from ATF veterans who substantiate this with numbers in scholarly articles. They even lay out what is needed to stop it, but current laws do not do enough and we aren’t passing new ones. Hence my proposal. These handgun “sales” CAN be stopped by making sure that the person selling is resposible for selling to appropriate people.

Loren says biometrics won’t work. And of course he doesn’t know. One reason he doesn’t know is that one company tried to make them and sell them and they were threatened and driven out of business. So people couldn’t even voluntarily buy them. How craven is that?

 

[bilby]

Research would be a good thing. The left wouldn't like it, though--too many of their arguments are based on nonsense.

How could we possibly know, in the absence of any actual research?

It's not 'the left' who liked the data so little that they made collection of it illegal.

The left was trying to preordain the results. That's why it got stomped on.

Sure.

I hope you didn't get any of that on your shoes.

 

[Patooka]

Research would be a good thing. The left wouldn't like it, though--too many of their arguments are based on nonsense.

How could we possibly know, in the absence of any actual research?

It's not 'the left' who liked the data so little that they made collection of it illegal.

The left was trying to preordain the results. That's why it got stomped on.

That's my bullshit quota for the day thank you. I suspect that during the 50's and 60's you would have stomped on hard research on the effects of tobacco smoking as well because; conspiracy!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The reason I wrote the proposals the way I did is based on what research currently exists.

It is decisively known that most criminal guns are indeed bought through straw-man pruchases and that moreover only a tiny fraction of gun-shops do it. There are many tesitmonies from ATF veterans who substantiate this with numbers in scholarly articles. They even lay out what is needed to stop it, but current laws do not do enough and we aren’t passing new ones. Hence my proposal. These handgun “sales” CAN be stopped by making sure that the person selling is resposible for selling to appropriate people.j

[Citation needed]

Loren says biometrics won’t work. And of course he doesn’t know. One reason he doesn’t know is that one company tried to make them and sell them and they were threatened and driven out of business. So people couldn’t even voluntarily buy them. How craven is that?

Make a fingerprint reader that can read a damaged fingerprint. Good luck!

One company made a system that worked reasonably well in perfect conditions. Nobody has made a system that works reliably in bad conditions and that's what is required for something for a self defense weapon.