Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[PsYcNeT]

It's not like this all being proposed in the dark. There are numerous examples of gun control measures (from outright bans to stronger barriers to entry) resulting in far lower deathrates than what we see in the US.

You can talk all day about US Exceptionalism with regards to "inalienable rights" and "gun culture" and "penis replacement machines" but the numbers are there. It's undeniable that while a culture shift would obviously help, immediate barrier to ownership, purchasing, and licensing beyond what currently exists would see tangible results as well.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

It's undeniable that while a culture shift would obviously help, immediate barrier to ownership, purchasing, and licensing beyond what currently exists would see tangible results as well.

I totally agree. But realistically, that sort of change is only going to happen incrementally. There are 300 million guns in the country - the culture shift is going to be a decades-long process. There's no overnight fix. So the implementation of new licensing and purchasing restrictions that are relatively benign seems like a good place to start, as well as some measure (I'm open to ideas) that will allow us to look at the statistics for school shootings next year and declare a political win. That is, "there was one per week before, and that dropped to one every three weeks" would be a victory at this point.

From some people all you hear about is an assault weapon ban. I'm fine with banning high-capacity magazines and bump stocks and even AR-15s, I don't care, but it seems like that route is asking for a lot of political headache for not really a ton of upside in terms of "lives saved".

[ResAlien]

That line of thinking is a part of the problem. It’s a defeatist attitude that any change must take decades and be incremental. The only reason that’s “true” is to protect the political careers of those in office. Meaningful gun control could be had tomorrow but no public servant is willing to risk their career for the greater public good. The rest of this culture argument is just noise. Australia is a perfect example, their gun culture was just as deeply ingrained as America and they managed to figure it out in about six weeks.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

That line of thinking is a part of the problem. It’s a defeatist attitude that any change must take decades and be incremental. The only reason that’s “true” is to protect the political careers of those in office. Meaningful gun control could be had tomorrow but no public servant is willing to risk their career for the greater public good. The rest of this culture argument is just noise. Australia is a perfect example, their gun culture was just as deeply ingrained as America and they managed to figure it out in about six weeks.

Everyone uses Australia as an example, but there are no analogies to be had with Australia and the USA (or anywhere else for that matter). Again, there are 300 million guns in circulation in the USA. The Australian buyback program was, first, provided for in Australia's constitution, and second, only resulted in 660,000 guns being taken out of circulation. That wouldn't even make a difference. They budgeted $500 million for it, by the way - about $554 million in today's US dollars. Now multiply that by four hundred fifty four to get to your 300 million guns. Anyone have 227 billion dollars lying around to accomplish this buyback? What worked in Australia won't work in the USA.

I'm not defeatist, and I'm not remotely suggesting that nothing be done. I'm saying that there actually needs to be a long-term plan if there's going to be any meaningful change, whereas the attitude from people like you seems to be "just do stuff". Well, no, that's not helpful. A sober assessment of the problem is needed to produce solutions that will a) make the biggest impact, b) for the lowest political cost (because there's going to need to be more of these changes in the future), c) that can actually get done given the political realities of the country.

Your "no, we can fix everything overnight right now if everyone just does it this way" is hilariously naive and not a serious approach to the problem.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

That line of thinking is a part of the problem. It’s a defeatist attitude that any change must take decades and be incremental. The only reason that’s “true” is to protect the political careers of those in office. Meaningful gun control could be had tomorrow but no public servant is willing to risk their career for the greater public good. The rest of this culture argument is just noise. Australia is a perfect example, their gun culture was just as deeply ingrained as America and they managed to figure it out in about six weeks.

It's the polarization of the US that prevents anything from happening. There could be gun control tomorrow. There could be universal basic healthcare tomorrow. There is plenty of money to go around. But neither side wants to 'give up' anything to the other with the paranoid fear and more will be lost. They are well entrenched.

[wittynickname]

The argument that "oh this is going to take a long time to change and it won't really do anything" is so asinine to me.

Drunk driving laws in the 70s were a joke. My dad was caught driving under the influence with an open container in the vehicle and the officer who pulled him over just told him to go straight home. No arrest, no ticket, just a pathetic warning.

Then they strengthened those laws. In the 40 years since, the rate of death because of drunk driving has steadily dropped. No, it didn't change overnight, but fewer and fewer people are dying because of drunk drivers. Sure it still happens--you can't stop every single criminal from every single criminal act--but the point is that progress was made.

The same people complaining that "this will take ages" are also complaining that small changes to gun control laws "won't have much effect" but if you can save what, 2000 lives per year with "minor" gun control legislation in the first year, then maybe 2500 a couple of years later, 3000 in the years after that, etc. Maybe in 40 years we'll look back and say "wow look at the decline in deaths from gun violence."

Sitting on our hands and fussing over whether one method or another is strong or effective enough sure as hell isn't making anything better.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Australia is a perfect example, their gun culture was just as deeply ingrained as America and they managed to figure it out in about six weeks.

I'd say that is far from the case. Even back in 1996, the gun ownership rate was nowhere near that of the US and there was ingrained "right" to own a gun. The second point is that a huge part of what Australia did was to institute a buyback program that provided "just compensation" for firearms turned in. The same kind of program in the US would run into the high hundreds of billions to accomplish (I'd be willing to bet that guns now are worth a lot more than back then), there would need to be the political will to spend such a massive amount to remove firearms from circulation.

Corsi is correct, a lot of what people start calling for just pushes gun owners further towards the NRA and drives donations, political pressure to resist gun laws and firearms sales. I think there are changes that could be successfully passed and would have an impact.

Implementing a shall issue licensing system like Canada's and changing the rules surrounding private, in-state sales would probably pass muster with most politicians. Regulating CCW on a federal level, with a requirement for a minimum number of training hours, demonstrated proficiency and a gun safety class for first time gun owners could probably be expected to pass as well.

Increased penalties for crime committed with a firearm and limiting the options for pleading those charges down might also be a deterrent.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The Australian buyback program was, first, provided for in Australia's constitution, and second, only resulted in 660,000 guns being taken out of circulation. That wouldn't even make a difference. They budgeted $500 million for it, by the way - about $554 million in today's US dollars. Now multiply that by four hundred fifty four to get to your 300 million guns. Anyone have 227 billion dollars lying around to accomplish this buyback? What worked in Australia won't work in the USA.

Just wanted to touch on this separately since it's a good point. Australia spent an average of $840 per gun buying them back. There is no way that you manage to do it for that cheap these days.

Yes, there are "cheap" guns around that price, but there are a lot that run into the thousands, even before optics etc... For example, compensation for a Benelli M4 shotgun would be about $3,000. AR with optics could go above $5,000; some semi-automatic pistols, $1,000+

[PsYcNeT]

Why would they bother buying back optics? Most are detachable and are unnecessary to the buyback.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Just wanted to touch on this separately since it's a good point. Australia spent an average of $840 per gun buying them back. There is no way that you manage to do it for that cheap these days.

Yes, there are "cheap" guns around that price, but there are a lot that run into the thousands, even before optics etc... For example, compensation for a Benelli M4 shotgun would be about $3,000. AR with optics could go above $5,000; some semi-automatic pistols, $1,000+

And yet I feel like if you did a buyback program for 900 a pop, plenty of the weapons that actually cause most of the deaths in the US every year would be off the streets. No, you wouldn't get the ARs, but a lot of the smaller guns. There are lots of poor people in the US who could probably use $900.

Again with the all-or-nothing approach. It does not have to be all or nothing with one piece of legislation.

Do a buyback program--if you can cut down the number of guns in the US from 300 million to 250 million, maybe 200 fewer people shoot themselves and die via suicide, maybe 50 fewer estranged wives get shot by their exes. Then you modernize firearms records--maybe that keeps 100 criminals from accessing weapons and saves 25 lives. Strengthen the background check policy, maybe you save 50 more lives. Etc, etc, etc.

If you make incremental changes here and there, all those saved lives add up over time.

You're not going to ban guns in the US. You are always gonna have the "take it from my cold, dead hands" types. But you also have plenty of sane, logical gun owners who would embrace common sense gun control measures.

My question is this: how many potential lives need to be saved to make a piece of legislation worthwhile? 10? 50? 5000?

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

And yet I feel like if you did a buyback program for 900 a pop, plenty of the weapons that actually cause most of the deaths in the US every year would be off the streets. No, you wouldn't get the ARs, but a lot of the smaller guns. There are lots of poor people in the US who could probably use $900.

Again with the all-or-nothing approach. It does not have to be all or nothing with one piece of legislation.

Do a buyback program--if you can cut down the number of guns in the US from 300 million to 250 million, maybe 200 fewer people shoot themselves and die via suicide, maybe 50 fewer estranged wives get shot by their exes. Then you modernize firearms records--maybe that keeps 100 criminals from accessing weapons and saves 25 lives. Strengthen the background check policy, maybe you save 50 more lives. Etc, etc, etc.

If you make incremental changes here and there, all those saved lives add up over time.

You're not going to ban guns in the US. You are always gonna have the "take it from my cold, dead hands" types. But you also have plenty of sane, logical gun owners who would embrace common sense gun control measures.

My question is this: how many potential lives need to be saved to make a piece of legislation worthwhile? 10? 50? 5000?

You can't win this argument against the right because to them it's not the guns that are killing people.

Remember that the GOP lies about what the Dems believe, and twist it to stoke fears and emotions in their base. Protecting gay rights is an attack on Christianity! They won't stop until every Church in America is shuttered. (And, it's illegal to celebrate Christmas in America). Tax cuts for the rich will trickle down and make everyone wealthy! Dems hate business owners and want to keep everyone poor, otherwise they will lose their voters' support. Dems want healthcare for every American because they are jealous of rich people, and want to take away rich people's advantages. Social safety nets are nothing but lazy brown and black people living high on the hog off of your hard earned money!

I could go on forever but you being in American already know almost everything is a strawman of a ludicrous idea "all Liberals believe," and they believe it because they hate/want to destroy America.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

My question is this: how many potential lives need to be saved to make a piece of legislation worthwhile? 10? 50? 5000?

You really have to decide how you save the most lives. Drop 200 billion in health care and you'll save thousands more lives.

One thing I read is that the most effective way to add gun legislation is not one single tactic. It's a combination of many approaches...buybacks, policy, laws, taxes, restrictions...all of it. Not just one thing.

[nik-]

Any gun control solution in the US is a multi generation solution in my opinion. It'll be a case of locking down the purchases and letting the existing guns age out. It'll take a long time, but you need to start somewhere.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Just wanted to touch on this separately since it's a good point. Australia spent an average of $840 per gun buying them back. There is no way that you manage to do it for that cheap these days.

Yes, there are "cheap" guns around that price, but there are a lot that run into the thousands, even before optics etc... For example, compensation for a Benelli M4 shotgun would be about $3,000. AR with optics could go above $5,000; some semi-automatic pistols, $1,000+

There's also the point that most (if not all?) of the guns involved in the buyback there were long guns. The vast majority of gun violence committed in the USA involves handguns. Even if you did manage, somehow, to get every semi-automatic rifle out of public hands in the USA, you'd still have only barely started to address the problem. Which, again, isn't a reason to be defeatist and do nothing, but you can't make any useful inroads towards solving a problem without appreciating what the problem looks like and its magnitude.

All of which being said, if someone can come up with a buyback program that makes fiscal sense and can explain why it would be worth doing, it's totally worth exploring. I just don't know what a program like that would look like, in the American case.

It seems to me that the best bang-for-buck, in terms of both political capital and real dollars, is to gradually increase licensing requirements until you get to a point where there are fairly strict training requirements. In Canada, if you want to own a restricted weapon (including any handgun) you have to take two separate courses before getting your license. Even that seems too lenient for me - re-training every few years should be a part of the regime, in my view. But once even a minimalist version of a system like that is in place, it's a structure you can build on over time to bulk up the requirements. And it plays to the "pride in being a responsible gun owner" schtick that's always a card played by even the most frothing-at-the-mouth gun advocates.

The same strategy can be applied to magazines. Sure, buy any gun you like, but you can't have more than 20 bullets in it at a time. Then in a few years, maybe it's 15. Maybe we get to 10, eventually. I just don't see any other way to do it than to start small, where anyone who's not religiously committed to their second amendment rights is likely to say, "well, that seems pretty reasonable, honestly".

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by nik-

Any gun control solution in the US is a multi generation solution in my opinion. It'll be a case of locking down the purchases and letting the existing guns age out. It'll take a long time, but you need to start somewhere.

The right is paranoid. Starting somewhere, anywhere is the beginning of the end.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

The right is paranoid. Starting somewhere, anywhere is the beginning of the end.

The reason you see this reaction is because it seems that every time there is a shooting, gun control proponents immediately jump to blanket bans and proposals that essentially target law abiding owners and users, yet do little to curb the commission of actual crimes.

I seriously doubt an amnesty/buyback would face much resistance and as wittynickname mentioned, it will provide a financial incentive to those who have no need/want for their guns.

No one would be opposed to spending a bunch of money to modernize the background check system to make sure that they are done efficiently, have updated records and actually have the desired result, which is keeping prohibited people from purchasing a firearm. It might be a bit harder, but you could probably also get ammunition subject to a NICS check as well if you could show the system worked well. Modernizing the system could also pave the way for private, in-state sales to be subject to a NICS check as well, closing the "loophole" that exists.

A shall issue licensing system like Canada's would probably take a while longer to implement, but could be done so long as the barriers to entry are not excessive. A starting point for this could be federal level changes to the CCW laws requiring training and demonstrated proficiency and a safety course for first time owners.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Corsi is correct, a lot of what people start calling for just pushes gun owners further towards the NRA and drives donations, political pressure to resist gun laws and firearms sales. I think there are changes that could be successfully passed and would have an impact.

I disagree with this. The majority of the nation agrees that there needs to be greater regulation on guns. The NRA is just a very vocal and very well funded group who makes a lot of noise to make people think the opposite. Whenever survey comes out that speaks for the majority, the NRA drowns that out with ridiculous arguments that it is a blatant attack on the 2nd amendment, which it is not. It is a feeling of the majority, 60+ percent, that want outright bans on certain weapons, which is not an attack on the 2nd amendment. Anton Scallia was the Supreme Court Justice who stated as much. So its time for the media to stop presenting this false equivalency and speak directly to the numbers and what the real mood of the nation it. Unfortunately they don't, because 2nd amendment arguments are sexy and bring in good consumption numbers.

Regulating CCW on a federal level, with a requirement for a minimum number of training hours, demonstrated proficiency and a gun safety class for first time gun owners could probably be expected to pass as well.

Regulation like this is always difficult to address. Regulation ion the national level is great, but based on whose standards though? Do you go with the most restrictive (best idea) or the least restrictive (bad idea)?

Also, the requirements you speak of are requirements for obtaining a CCW. You don't just walk into a store and purchase a permit. There is a process, including a substantial background check, conducted in your local community where you are likely the greatest risk.

Increased penalties for crime committed with a firearm and limiting the options for pleading those charges down might also be a deterrent.

Those already exist.

[wwkayaker]

An argument for repealing the second amendment from a former Justice should get some more debate going.

http://time.com/5216782/john-paul-st...ond-amendment/

[afc wimbledon]

Personally I would start with a ban on the production and sale of semi automatics and a law that requires all gun owners to have a gun safe for their guns, that alone would make have the numpties get rid of a chunk of their weaponry just because a gun safe for more than one or 2 rifles is expensive and large

You don't take any ones guns away, you just make buying them impossible and storing them damn expensive

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Well, really, the way you get it through is that it's actually not terribly expensive anymore. It's also no longer the case that opponents can argue "well what if someone's breaking in, I don't want to take a bunch of time trying to open a combination lock". You can get a pretty damned good fingerprint safe for well under $1000.