Gun Control

[Kiyoat Husker]

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/12/08/458952821/congress-still-limits-health-research-on-gun-violence

"Mass shootings and police shootings have spurred calls for authorities to take action to reduce the violence. But policymakers may be stymied by the dearth of public health research into both gun violence and deaths that involve the police. One big obstacle: congressional restrictions on funding of such research at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

Maybe it would help if funds were used to study gun violence. But hey, all lives matter, every life is sacred, 100% pro lifer, heart beats.

Here is an article in the LA Times that talks about the history of NRA blocking research. Take this with a grain of salt, as there seems to be a strongly liberal tenor to the writing. I am a liberal, but I'm trying to read a little more critically, and recognize the biased flaming I see from all sources. This is still factual data.

I already posted this earlier, but here are some quotes:

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-research-funding-20160614-snap-story.html

Infuriated by CDC-funded research suggesting that having firearms in the home sharply increased the risks of homicide, the NRA goaded Congress in 1996 into stripping the injury center’s funding for gun violence research – $2.6 million. Congress then passed a measure drafted by then-Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ga.) forbidding the CDC to spend funds “to advocate or promote gun control.” (The NRA initially hoped to eradicate the injury center entirely.)

After the Newtown massacre of schoolchildren in 2012, President Obama issued an executive order instructing the CDC to “conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it.” But the agency has refused to do so unless it receives a specific appropriation to cover the research. Congress played its obligatory role in acting as the NRA’s cat’s-paw by repeatedly rejecting bills to provide $10 million for the work.

“Removing the money from the budget and enacting the Dickey Amendment were the first and second shots across the bow by the NRA,” Rosenberg says. “The third shot is the idea that if you do this research, you’ll be hassled” by the NRA. “The result is that the CDC basically does nothing in gun violence research.

 

[Danny Bateman]

Let me ask this

What answers are you looking for by asking the question of "why do you need a gun?" Do you think anyone who is thinking that it is his duty to buy a gun, drive 800 miles to Washington DC and shoot congressmen while playing baseball is honestly going to answer this? I would probably put down "hunting". Why wouldn't this person do the same thing? In other words, nothing is gained.

Now, let's say this is put in place and some purposes are allowed and some not. The debate then is going to be what purposes are allowed. So, what purposes, in your mind, are going to be allowed and what aren't?

Of course that test wouldn't catch very many people. But if you were to make people jump through just a COUPLE hoops (albeit easy ones) that might deter even just a few of the lazier people who want firearms for the wrong reasons, wouldn't that be an improvement? My thought process is that if you're not even capable of filling out an extremely brief application stating why you want the gun, take a background check and getting someone to vouch for you, you're flippant enough to not deserve a gun. If you can't handle even that, how seriously will you take gun safety?

I've long been an advocate of the implementation of universal background checks. IA State Husker laid out the problems with background checks above, but it's such a no-brainer with very high public support (90%+)... why not? Is it really that big of an inconvenience?

 

[Enhance]

We already determine who the "good people" and "bad people" are. Most people who want stronger gun control laws simply want those security channels to be tougher and more difficult to overcome. I don't think that's an inherently difficult thing to do, until you get to points two and three, and I agree with you there.

I don't have the statistics, but haven't most of the guns used in American domestic terror attacks been legally obtained? I think knowing who the "bad people" are is a little more difficult than you are presuming.

I won't suggest that I know a solution to preventing gun violence in America, but It would be nice to see some research on the subject to help us inform policy. Sadly, there is very little of that research available, thanks to the NRA:

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-research-funding-20160614-snap-story.html

Lack of research has been an incredible hindrance, no doubt.

As Landlord pointed out, guns used in domestic terror attacks are an extreme minority of the number of gun related deaths. The bigger problems are gun deaths related to crimes, domestic violence, accidental deaths and suicides. Knowing who the bad people are will never be an exact science, but there's a lot more we could be doing to ensure the wrong people can't get guns.

That's why, at it's core, I don't think determining who can and can't have a gun is inherently difficult. If other countries can figure it out and have exponentially lower gun death totals, we should be able to find a way, too. At least, that's the hope.

 

[Enhance]

Let me ask this

What answers are you looking for by asking the question of "why do you need a gun?" Do you think anyone who is thinking that it is his duty to buy a gun, drive 800 miles to Washington DC and shoot congressmen while playing baseball is honestly going to answer this? I would probably put down "hunting". Why wouldn't this person do the same thing? In other words, nothing is gained.

Now, let's say this is put in place and some purposes are allowed and some not. The debate then is going to be what purposes are allowed. So, what purposes, in your mind, are going to be allowed and what aren't?

Of course that test wouldn't catch very many people. But if you were to make people jump through just a COUPLE hoops (albeit easy ones) that might deter even just a few of the lazier people who want firearms for the wrong reasons, wouldn't that be an improvement? My thought process is that if you're not even capable of filling out an extremely brief application stating why you want the gun, take a background check and getting someone to vouch for you, you're flippant enough to not deserve a gun. If you can't handle even that, how seriously will you take gun safety?

I've long been an advocate of the implementation of universal background checks. IA State Husker laid out the problems with background checks above, but it's such a no-brainer with very high public support (90%+)... why not? Is it really that big of an inconvenience?

It shouldn't be an inconvenience, but there are plenty of people who believe further arming citizens is the answer and that guns should be easier to get than they are.

I'm mostly in line with your way of thinking. Personally, I even enjoy guns. Firing them is fun and I believe people should be able to own them under reasonable circumstances, but there is far too much supply and too few checks/balances in place. In some cases, it's easier to buy a gun than to get your license from the DMV, get birth control, buy a cell phone plan at Verizon or get a passport.

 

[NUance]

 

[NM11046]

We already determine who the "good people" and "bad people" are. Most people who want stronger gun control laws simply want those security channels to be tougher and more difficult to overcome. I don't think that's an inherently difficult thing to do, until you get to points two and three, and I agree with you there.

I don't have the statistics, but haven't most of the guns used in American domestic terror attacks been legally obtained? I think knowing who the "bad people" are is a little more difficult than you are presuming.

I won't suggest that I know a solution to preventing gun violence in America, but It would be nice to see some research on the subject to help us inform policy. Sadly, there is very little of that research available, thanks to the NRA:

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-research-funding-20160614-snap-story.html

Lack of research has been an incredible hindrance, no doubt.

As Landlord pointed out, guns used in domestic terror attacks are an extreme minority of the number of gun related deaths. The bigger problems are gun deaths related to crimes, domestic violence, accidental deaths and suicides. Knowing who the bad people are will never be an exact science, but there's a lot more we could be doing to ensure the wrong people can't get guns.

That's why, at it's core, I don't think determining who can and can't have a gun is inherently difficult. If other countries can figure it out and have exponentially lower gun death totals, we should be able to find a way, too. At least, that's the hope.

And let's be honest - we need to at this point try something. We have proven time and time again that the current system isn't working.

 

[Saunders]

I'm a gun guy, and I've said before that I'm fine with a national license & Universal background check. Roll up the license/UBC thing as part of a deal to scale back the ludicrous nature of the NFA, and it would get approval by the cast majority of gun owners in a heartbeat. Make all states have the same laws, and get rid of the ridiculous variations from state to state.

But it won't happen.

The problem is neither pro or anti gun people want to compromise. Because the people pushing the anti-gun legislation don't want to compromise any more than the pro-gun people do. And the pro-gun people won't give anything up without getting something in return.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I said it was worth investigating and potentially implementing. I never once said I "support" it or that I would be "OK" with it.

And yes, before vetting the points I made, you said "I would have to draw the line." That's immediate obstinance to an alternative you don't fully understand and have not taken the time to investigate. You don't see that as a problem? As sticking your foot in the dirt?

I gave my opinion on what I know at the time. If you come up with more information to make me rethink my opinion I will. Nothing I said claims I am closing my mind to the idea and nothing in the world can make me change it. Over time, I have changed my opinion on a number of things.

You can keep down this path of complaining about my post all you want, but, nothing I said should have sent you into a tizzy like it did. So....if you continue with this, you'll be talking to yourself. If you want to further discuss the original topic....great.

 

[Kiyoat Husker]

I'm a gun guy, and I've said before that I'm fine with a national license & Universal background check. Roll up the license/UBC thing as part of a deal to scale back the ludicrous nature of the NFA, and it would get approval by the cast majority of gun owners in a heartbeat. Make all states have the same laws, and get rid of the ridiculous variations from state to state.

But it won't happen.

The problem is neither pro or anti gun people want to compromise. Because the people pushing the anti-gun legislation don't want to compromise any more than the pro-gun people do. And the pro-gun people won't give anything up without getting something in return.

I agree that the Pro-gun people refuse to compromise, which is why any small amount of legislation regarding stricter laws never gets any traction. I'm curious if you have any example of anti-gun groups refusing to compromise? What do the gun rights groups want that they don't already have? Access to fully-automatic weapons? Explosives?

 

[Saunders]

I'm a gun guy, and I've said before that I'm fine with a national license & Universal background check. Roll up the license/UBC thing as part of a deal to scale back the ludicrous nature of the NFA, and it would get approval by the cast majority of gun owners in a heartbeat. Make all states have the same laws, and get rid of the ridiculous variations from state to state.

But it won't happen.

The problem is neither pro or anti gun people want to compromise. Because the people pushing the anti-gun legislation don't want to compromise any more than the pro-gun people do. And the pro-gun people won't give anything up without getting something in return.

I agree that the Pro-gun people refuse to compromise, which is why any small amount of legislation regarding stricter laws never gets any traction. I'm curious if you have any example of anti-gun groups refusing to compromise? What do the gun rights groups want that they don't already have? Access to fully-automatic weapons? Explosives?

To start: Nationwide CCW reciprocity, removing SBR's ("short" barreled rifles) and suppressors from the NFA list, simplified transport laws. Making things national law would help immensely, but that's gonna require states like NY and California to scale back on some of their absurd laws.

But it will never happen, because the Anti's won't give any ground, and that's why the pro's won't either.

 

[zoogs]

Antis not giving /enough/ ground really does not seem like the main problem here. Nor do they seem like the states rights people.

 

[teachercd]

A dad in Indiana (I think) just shot and killed his 9 year old daughter while teaching his two sons about gun safety. So sad.

 

[Kiyoat Husker]

I'm a gun guy, and I've said before that I'm fine with a national license & Universal background check. Roll up the license/UBC thing as part of a deal to scale back the ludicrous nature of the NFA, and it would get approval by the cast majority of gun owners in a heartbeat. Make all states have the same laws, and get rid of the ridiculous variations from state to state.

But it won't happen.

The problem is neither pro or anti gun people want to compromise. Because the people pushing the anti-gun legislation don't want to compromise any more than the pro-gun people do. And the pro-gun people won't give anything up without getting something in return.

I agree that the Pro-gun people refuse to compromise, which is why any small amount of legislation regarding stricter laws never gets any traction. I'm curious if you have any example of anti-gun groups refusing to compromise? What do the gun rights groups want that they don't already have? Access to fully-automatic weapons? Explosives?

To start: Nationwide CCW reciprocity, removing SBR's ("short" barreled rifles) and suppressors from the NFA list, simplified transport laws. Making things national law would help immensely, but that's gonna require states like NY and California to scale back on some of their absurd laws.

But it will never happen, because the Anti's won't give any ground, and that's why the pro's won't either.

If those proposals are backed up with data, (showing how current law doesn't make sense in terms of curtailing gun violence), then I don't know why a reasonable legislator wouldn't look at it in a compromise. The NRA certainly has the lobbying power. Laws are not infallible, and a re-interpretation of them after years of "testing" is warranted, I think. Heck, that's why we have amendments to the constitution.

I'm guessing the difficulty stems from the contentiousness of the issue. Kind of like abortion. People have "dug in" their feet and have drawn party-lines. It makes people on both sides blind to compromise, or even common sense. Reps and Senators are more concerned with re-election than passing legislation. The Rhetoric works to "rile up" the constituency and fuel elections, so they can't be seen making compromises after that. They'd be branded a traitor to their party.

 

[zoogs]

You're making an argument that there's equal unwillingness to compromise on both sides, right? I'm saying that doesn't appear to be the case.

Also, though my own thoughts may not align exactly, the areas "Anti" tend to demand such as UBC seem to quite popularly supported. There's a big mismatch between popular opinion and what is even touchable politically, and this is in one direction.

On the other hand, decrying the stigma and restrictions on assault weapons and suppressors?...fair or not, these are not the injustices in gun control legislation that the public at large are clamoring to address. Are they?

 

[Saunders]

And I accidentally deleted my post thanks to mobile....

The short answer is yes, the anti's don't want actual compromise any more than the NRA. Because that means a "trade" of some sort. So you have an impass of the NRA lobbying arm going up against the anti -gun lobbying arm lead by Bloomberg.

And then the moderates like me are stuck shaking our heads.