Political Roundtable - Part VII

[dckingsfan]

For the most part, I think that is already being done.

I would disagree with that. The NRA primarily but other gun lobby groups as well have
been incredibly effective in stoking the fears of confiscation that simple common sense
steps are politically non-viable, another example of the current dysfunction of our
system at this time as large majorities support limited reforms.

First I think we need to stop talking about gun bans (we agree). Won't happen and only amplifies the fears of
legitimate owners. But there are things that can and should be done that might help a little and given the
size of our problem, even a little help should be considered a good thing and pursued. Registration and
background checks and closing loopholes having to do with ownership transfer would be a very good place
to start. Compare gun ownership rules to car ownership rules. They're a lot more lax. I don't see why they
should be.

Agreed. There should be testing for gun ownership just like testing for a drivers license. If you are just a gun collector - the firing pin/mechanism is turned in until/unless you pass the test.

Register Guns. License to use the gun. Violent agreement with you debro...

I think if you try to ban guns, you just get into the prohibition problem or our current drug problem - it just creates gangs that happily sell the guns.

[Zonkerbl]

Time to ban the manufacture and import of guns.

I respect the intent, but we have to deal with reality. Banning of guns will not stop criminals. And the outright ban won't happen in our lifetimes.

And even if it does? Black markets will continue to exist where these weapons can be acquired. Mexico, Central/South America aren't going to stop selling guns, so they'll come right across the border with the drugs.

It sounds sad, but an *increased* police and security presence is needed. Right now, sadly, is a great time to invest in private security companies. They've been a booming business all over the 3rd world, and protect nearly every building and home.

It won't solve the ideological problems, but it's an effective band aid.

Fact time:
1) Black President? Won't happen in our lifetimes. Until someone is brave enough to try we don't actually know if it is possible. It was achieved in the UK and Australia so we have no excuse for our cowardice.
2) Black market guns in Australia cost $25,000 each. That's acceptable to me. If the only criminals who have guns are the ones organized and sophisticated enough to pay $25,000 for their guns, I'm pretty sure the FBI and the NSA will be able to keep tabs on them.
3) Gun control rules are completely ineffective. 80% of the massacres we are trying to prevent are by people who purchased their guns perfectly legally. If you don't have a history of mental illness or a criminal record you will be able to buy a gun. It's not a moral problem that we can legislate away. It's a statistical one - the more guns there are in this country, the more likely it is that a massacre will happen, the more armed robberies there will be, the more successful teenage suicides there will be. The only solution that has a chance at being effective is to reduce the number of guns in this country by imposing a ban on the manufacture and import of guns.

[dobrojim]

which won't happen. We have to take the steps we can actually take even if they won't eliminate
the problem completely. Otherwise I would wholeheartedly agree with you.

[Zonkerbl]

which won't happen. We have to take the steps we can actually take even if they won't eliminate
the problem completely. Otherwise I would wholeheartedly agree with you.

Don't be a coward. It can happen if enough of us stand up for ourselves against the bullying of gun nuts.

[dckingsfan]

Time to ban the manufacture and import of guns.

I respect the intent, but we have to deal with reality. Banning of guns will not stop criminals. And the outright ban won't happen in our lifetimes.

And even if it does? Black markets will continue to exist where these weapons can be acquired. Mexico, Central/South America aren't going to stop selling guns, so they'll come right across the border with the drugs.

It sounds sad, but an *increased* police and security presence is needed. Right now, sadly, is a great time to invest in private security companies. They've been a booming business all over the 3rd world, and protect nearly every building and home.

It won't solve the ideological problems, but it's an effective band aid.

Fact time:
1) Black President? Won't happen in our lifetimes. Until someone is brave enough to try we don't actually know if it is possible. It was achieved in the UK and Australia so we have no excuse for our cowardice.
2) Black market guns in Australia cost $25,000 each. That's acceptable to me. If the only criminals who have guns are the ones organized and sophisticated enough to pay $25,000 for their guns, I'm pretty sure the FBI and the NSA will be able to keep tabs on them.

1A) Getting rid of 1/2 Billion Guns difficulty >>>> Black President
2A) Australia is an island/doesn't border on Mexico - are we going to build a wall?
3) There are licensed guns in Australia - it isn't an outright ban - especially in the outback.
4) You might need to check my facts on this one but - I believe that they have spent north of $500 million to collect approximately 7 million firearms (of which 2.8 million were prohibited), and have collected less than 1 million thus far. So, can we table the highway fund and divert it to gun collection?

[TheSecretWeapon]

The same report also mentioned a figure of 108,000, gave reason to question the 3 million figure (an extrapolation from a small sample), cited no parallel figure for ,"offensive use by criminals," and added some wishy washy nuance to the discussion of effectiveness/benefit of victim gun use. Typical vague and sloppily written government report.

The problem is that deterrence is a hard thing to measure. How do you report a non-incident that was averted because an innocent person brandished a gun and warded off an attacker? How many of these incidents are tracked? And furthermore, how many criminals decide not to break into homes or attack families because they have a concern that the homeowner is armed?

John Lott tried to answer this questions with More Guns Less Crime by examining on a county-by-county basis, how changes in gun laws affect the violence rate relative to other counties which had no change in gun laws. Lott's findings show that, in general, gun restrictions don't reduce violence. Others have disputed Lott's findings. I'm not a good enough statistician to evaluate the merits of Lott's efforts or those of his detractors, but it seems to me we ought to try and investigate this issue before acting. Certainly there's anecdotal evidence (Chicago, Washington DC) that suggests that gun bans contribute to an extremely high crime rate.

My common sense tells me that in some cases, perhaps many cases, gun ownership would have a deterrent effect. A bad guy with a gun in a town without guns, versus in a well armed town, seems like the difference might be important to a bad guy's approach. Like you, I don't know how to measure the pluses and minuses. I would still prefer a world where few people and very few bad guys had guns. I think that world would be safer.

There are something like 270-300 million guns in private ownership in America. Roughly 40% of American households own a gun. Trying to correlate crime levels to jurisdictions with differing regulations would seem to be a fool's errand. There's no way for a "criminal" to determine with any reliability before attempting a crime whether someone in a particular area has gun or doesn't.

[TheSecretWeapon]

Here's gun control I'd support:

1. Every gun must be registered.
2. Every gun owner must be licensed. The license must be renewed every 5 years, with a required competency test. "Competency" meaning safe handling and safe shooting, NOT "hit what you aim at."
3. Every gun owner must carry insurance. Just like every car owner.
4. Every gun should be equipped with and/or retrofitted with a bio-passport so that it can be fired only by the gun owner.

In general, I think we'd be wise to think for ourselves on this issue rather than blindly adhering to a document written in a time when there was no electricity and the only weapons available were single-shot, muzzle-loading muskets.

[Zonkerbl]

I respect the intent, but we have to deal with reality. Banning of guns will not stop criminals. And the outright ban won't happen in our lifetimes.

And even if it does? Black markets will continue to exist where these weapons can be acquired. Mexico, Central/South America aren't going to stop selling guns, so they'll come right across the border with the drugs.

It sounds sad, but an *increased* police and security presence is needed. Right now, sadly, is a great time to invest in private security companies. They've been a booming business all over the 3rd world, and protect nearly every building and home.

It won't solve the ideological problems, but it's an effective band aid.

Fact time:
1) Black President? Won't happen in our lifetimes. Until someone is brave enough to try we don't actually know if it is possible. It was achieved in the UK and Australia so we have no excuse for our cowardice.
2) Black market guns in Australia cost $25,000 each. That's acceptable to me. If the only criminals who have guns are the ones organized and sophisticated enough to pay $25,000 for their guns, I'm pretty sure the FBI and the NSA will be able to keep tabs on them.

1A) Getting rid of 1/2 Billion Guns difficulty >>>> Black President
2A) Australia is an island/doesn't border on Mexico - are we going to build a wall?
3) There are licensed guns in Australia - it isn't an outright ban - especially in the outback.
4) You might need to check my facts on this one but - I believe that they have spent north of $500 million to collect approximately 7 million firearms (of which 2.8 million were prohibited), and have collected less than 1 million thus far. So, can we table the highway fund and divert it to gun collection?

1A) How do you know this? You don't. You assume it without facts.
2A) (Your number system is confusing me) Mexico doesn't manufacture guns. We are the biggest manufacturer of guns world wide. If we ban their manufacture the world supply of guns will go down dramatically.
3) I'm not proposing a ban on the ownership of guns. I'm proposing a ban on their manufacture and import. THANK YOU! This is the first time I've had an opportunity to explain this. There's absolutely no restriction in the Constitution on the supply of guns, only that we can't disallow their ownership. Fine, you can own guns, but we're just not going to make them or import them, and we're going to buy back the ones that exist now and melt them down.
4) How much do you think innocent children's lives are worth? Do you really want to have that argument out loud? If I were public official, there's no possible way I could lose that argument. Let's tally up how many people die at the hands of guns each year and figure out what that's worth. The standard statistical value of life ranges from $5 million to $7.5 million. In 2013 33,000 people died as a result of gunshot wounds (11,000 homicides, 21,000 suicides, 500 deaths from accidental discharge and some deaths from "unknown"). Let's adjust for suicides - the overall success rate of suicide attempts is 10%, but suicide attempts involving firearms have a success rate of 90%, so let's use 80% of the 21,000 suicides. $5 million * 29,000 = $145 BILLION WITH A B. Any amount we spend on a complete firearm buyback that is less than $145 billion, we come out ahead. There are 300 million guns in this country, so we come out ahead as long as we spend less than $483 per gun. Bleah, that number didn't come out as high as I would like but there. According to your figures the Australians are spending what, $71 per gun?

[montestewart]

The problem is that deterrence is a hard thing to measure. How do you report a non-incident that was averted because an innocent person brandished a gun and warded off an attacker? How many of these incidents are tracked? And furthermore, how many criminals decide not to break into homes or attack families because they have a concern that the homeowner is armed?

John Lott tried to answer this questions with More Guns Less Crime by examining on a county-by-county basis, how changes in gun laws affect the violence rate relative to other counties which had no change in gun laws. Lott's findings show that, in general, gun restrictions don't reduce violence. Others have disputed Lott's findings. I'm not a good enough statistician to evaluate the merits of Lott's efforts or those of his detractors, but it seems to me we ought to try and investigate this issue before acting. Certainly there's anecdotal evidence (Chicago, Washington DC) that suggests that gun bans contribute to an extremely high crime rate.

My common sense tells me that in some cases, perhaps many cases, gun ownership would have a deterrent effect. A bad guy with a gun in a town without guns, versus in a well armed town, seems like the difference might be important to a bad guy's approach. Like you, I don't know how to measure the pluses and minuses. I would still prefer a world where few people and very few bad guys had guns. I think that world would be safer.

There are something like 270-300 million guns in private ownership in America. Roughly 40% of American households own a gun. Trying to correlate crime levels to jurisdictions with differing regulations would seem to be a fool's errand. There's no way for a "criminal" to determine with any reliability before attempting a crime whether someone in a particular area has gun or doesn't.

Gilbert Arenas is a good example of the difficulty. He had (maybe still has) a huge gun collection.

Depending on how statistics are recorded or presented, it might seem that everyone in his neighborhood has a gun in the house, when in fact he might be the only one in the neighborhood with a gun.

I think in rural areas of Wyoming, Colorado, Northern and Western Minnesota, Northern California, etc. the odds are much greater that there are guns in the house than in Northern Virginia, New York suburbs, etc., but my wife's aunt lived alone in a house north of Laramie and wouldn't allow guns in the house. She also wouldn't let us sleep in the same room until we had a proper church wedding. Different world.

[fishercob]

Here's gun control I'd support:

1. Every gun must be registered.
2. Every gun owner must be licensed. The license must be renewed every 5 years, with a required competency test. "Competency" meaning safe handling and safe shooting, NOT "hit what you aim at."
3. Every gun owner must carry insurance. Just like every car owner.
4. Every gun should be equipped with and/or retrofitted with a bio-passport so that it can be fired only by the gun owner.

In general, I think we'd be wise to think for ourselves on this issue rather than blindly adhering to a document written in a time when there was no electricity and the only weapons available were single-shot, muzzle-loading muskets.

Don't tread on me!!!!!!!!!!

[dobrojim]

2A) (Your number system is confusing me) Mexico doesn't manufacture guns. We are the biggest manufacturer of guns world wide. If we ban their manufacture the world supply of guns will go down dramatically.

The supply of newly manufactured guns would decrease dramatically. That's a far cry from
the supply of guns (period) would go down.

[dobrojim]

Here's gun control I'd support:

1. Every gun must be registered.
2. Every gun owner must be licensed. The license must be renewed every 5 years, with a required competency test. "Competency" meaning safe handling and safe shooting, NOT "hit what you aim at."
3. Every gun owner must carry insurance. Just like every car owner.
4. Every gun should be equipped with and/or retrofitted with a bio-passport so that it can be fired only by the gun owner.

In general, I think we'd be wise to think for ourselves on this issue rather than blindly adhering to a document written in a time when there was no electricity and the only weapons available were single-shot, muzzle-loading muskets.

There you go. No restrictions on how many muskets or flintlocks you want to have.
I'm good with that.

[fishercob]

So because you point out one state that doesn't track with my theory, it renders my entire theory wrong? I can say the same thing to you regarding your "gun control equals less crime" hypothesis. Explain to me why states with rabid gun-toting freaks like Wyoming, South Dakota and Idaho have such an extremely low homicide rate?

I will. My mother's side of the family was in Kansas and Oklahoma. My wife's family is from Wyoming and Colorado. Frontier. Everyone had guns and knew how to use them, primarily for hunting, but also for protection of life and property, as there wasn't a whole lot of quick response law enforcement. My mother could shoot a rifle, as could all her relatives. My great grandfather accidentally shot himself when he laid his coat on a chair and the pistol in the coat pocket discharged, because even out on the frontier, stupid accidents happen. There are surely plenty of people now in those states who have guns they don't need, and probably a few freaks who just shouldn't have guns, but the gun culture in those and similar states seems much different from gun culture in the East, the South, or Southern California.

How do you separate any examination of gun violence in the South from its slave economy roots and post-slavery racial hatred? Urban areas of the East Coast and Southern California have long been plagued by class conflicts manifesting as neighborhood cultural/racial conflicts. The presence of guns in these areas seems much different and much more dangerous than the presence of guns in Wyoming, Utah, etc. And I don't think it's simply explained by any one factor; racial/cultural homogeneity, population density, equality/inequality, history of gun culture or criminality, all may contribute to current rates of gun violence. And then there's the manliness of it all. Guns will be a lot safer when they stop being cool. All guns should be pink and lavender. Although that actually sounds kind of cool. Strike that.

The U.S. has one of the highest private gun ownership rates in the world (if not the highest) because people in the U.S. spend a lot of money on things they don't need, and they have the money to spend. I know a few gun owners in the DC area, and while some of them are experienced, regularly hunting or target shooting, others just seem to want to own a gun in the same way one owns a sports car, pool table, huge flat screen TV, swimming pool, etc. I think this acquisitive and perhaps status seeking gun ownership distorts the correlation between gun ownership and deterrence. If everyone in a well policed well-to-do gated community, in a wealthy suburb far away from poor, crime ridden neighborhoods, has a gun, is that totality of gun ownership keeping down the crime rate, or is it perhaps all those other factors?

Careful montestewart. You might start sounding too much like me.

You clearly accept the premise that gun possession by responsible people in rural areas can result in a low-crime environment. You also mentioned that the lack of quick response by law enforcement in rural areas, indicating that gun possession might indeed be a necessary deterrent in these areas and might actually reduce violence. So we've established that guns are a good thing in certain areas of the country. I would expand that to include some suburban and urban areas. The crime rate in downtown Cheyenne, Wyoming isn't much different than out in the sticks.

The problem, as you mentioned, is how to deal with areas with, shall we say, less responsible people. It would be nice to snap our fingers and make all the guns in those areas disappear, but that's fantasy. There are about 270 million guns out there right now. And if we continue to permit guns in rural areas, there will inevitably be a black market supply of guns to urban areas.

Don't pussy out, nate. Say what you mean.

[nate33]

As far as the Constitution goes, the relatively recent court rulings which seemingly affirm an individual
right to bear arms clearly move away from 'original intent'. They need to somehow be reversed.
And no one needs an assault rifle. There is no legitimate civilian purpose for ownership of one.
No one needs a gun that can fire 30 rounds in seconds without reloading. No legitimate civilian purpose.
No one needs armor piercing ammo. That kind of thing.

As I understand it, automatic weapons are already banned. Nobody can have a gun that can fire 30 rounds in seconds. There are semi-automatic guns, but that just means the gun can be fired twice in a row without an elaborate resetting procedure. You still have to squeeze the trigger once for each shot fired. Basically, the only guns are are not semi-automatic are bolt action shot guns and 6-shooter revolvers.

Other than the automatic versus semi-automatic issue, there isn't really anything different between an "assault rifle" and a "rifle". It's deliberate obfuscation. The distinction that matters is "automatic" versus "semi-automatic"; and "automatic" weapons are already banned, everywhere.

And the armor piercing ammo is another red herring. Police body armor is designed to stop bullets from a handgun. Any type of rifle will pierce the armor, no armor piercing bullet is necessary. And it's not like we have a rash of homicide cases where people wearing body armor are killed because the suspect used armor piercing bullets.

Again, the issue is people not guns. There aren't any reasonable restrictions on the actual physical guns out there that would make any difference, unless you want to ban guns altogether. We should continue to make efforts to ensure that dangerous people can't get guns, but frankly, all those laws are already on the books. The only remaining area where I think headway can be made is on enforcement. It's currently too easy for bad guys to circumvent the restrictions in place and obtain guns because of gun show loopholes and things like that. The bad people are breaking existing law, they're just not getting caught.

[nate33]

Here's gun control I'd support:

1. Every gun must be registered.
2. Every gun owner must be licensed. The license must be renewed every 5 years, with a required competency test. "Competency" meaning safe handling and safe shooting, NOT "hit what you aim at."
3. Every gun owner must carry insurance. Just like every car owner.
4. Every gun should be equipped with and/or retrofitted with a bio-passport so that it can be fired only by the gun owner.

In general, I think we'd be wise to think for ourselves on this issue rather than blindly adhering to a document written in a time when there was no electricity and the only weapons available were single-shot, muzzle-loading muskets.

I don't have a problem with the first 3 proposals, but I'm not really convinced they would make much difference. We don't have a problem with incompetent people murdering people with guns. The problem is that they're all too competent with the guns.

The 4th suggestion is interesting. I would have been against it 10 years ago because the technology would be extremely cost prohibitive, but maybe not so much anymore. I don't know how feasible the retrofit requirement is, but certainly they could make that a requirement for all newly manufactured guns.

[dobrojim]

I believe you're mistaken. At least from a practical standpoint, we have easy availability of things that
only the military ought to have access to. And your argument re armor piercing bullets still ring hollow.
What is the civilian necessity?

[nate33]

The problem, as you mentioned, is how to deal with areas with, shall we say, less responsible people. It would be nice to snap our fingers and make all the guns in those areas disappear, but that's fantasy. There are about 270 million guns out there right now. And if we continue to permit guns in rural areas, there will inevitably be a black market supply of guns to urban areas.

Don't pussy out, nate. Say what you mean.

Funny. I merely summarized montestewart's position with more concise language, but when I say it, it activates your "Offense Detector".

[TheSecretWeapon]

Here's gun control I'd support:

1. Every gun must be registered.
2. Every gun owner must be licensed. The license must be renewed every 5 years, with a required competency test. "Competency" meaning safe handling and safe shooting, NOT "hit what you aim at."
3. Every gun owner must carry insurance. Just like every car owner.
4. Every gun should be equipped with and/or retrofitted with a bio-passport so that it can be fired only by the gun owner.

In general, I think we'd be wise to think for ourselves on this issue rather than blindly adhering to a document written in a time when there was no electricity and the only weapons available were single-shot, muzzle-loading muskets.

I don't have a problem with the first 3 proposals, but I'm not really convinced they would make much difference. We don't have a problem with incompetent people murdering people with guns. The problem is that they're all too competent with the guns.

The 4th suggestion is interesting. I would have been against it 10 years ago because the technology would be extremely cost prohibitive, but maybe not so much anymore. I don't know how feasible the retrofit requirement is, but certainly they could make that a requirement for all newly manufactured guns.

How about this on the 4th idea -- a buyback/retrofit program? Basically, we'll buy your gun from you or we'll pay that same amount toward fitting it with a bio-passport.

[nate33]

Here's gun control I'd support:

1. Every gun must be registered.
2. Every gun owner must be licensed. The license must be renewed every 5 years, with a required competency test. "Competency" meaning safe handling and safe shooting, NOT "hit what you aim at."
3. Every gun owner must carry insurance. Just like every car owner.
4. Every gun should be equipped with and/or retrofitted with a bio-passport so that it can be fired only by the gun owner.

In general, I think we'd be wise to think for ourselves on this issue rather than blindly adhering to a document written in a time when there was no electricity and the only weapons available were single-shot, muzzle-loading muskets.

I don't have a problem with the first 3 proposals, but I'm not really convinced they would make much difference. We don't have a problem with incompetent people murdering people with guns. The problem is that they're all too competent with the guns.

The 4th suggestion is interesting. I would have been against it 10 years ago because the technology would be extremely cost prohibitive, but maybe not so much anymore. I don't know how feasible the retrofit requirement is, but certainly they could make that a requirement for all newly manufactured guns.

How about this on the 4th idea -- a buyback/retrofit program? Basically, we'll buy your gun from you or we'll pay that same amount toward fitting it with a bio-passport.

From a practical perspective, I'm not sure how easy it would be to add a retrofit biometric scanner to an existing gun without there being considerable potential for unit to fail just when needed. I would expect a great deal of trepidation from the gun owners, and justifiably so.

For new weapons, I'm assuming that the integration of a bio-metric scanner would be much more durable and reliable.

[Zonkerbl]

The problem, as you mentioned, is how to deal with areas with, shall we say, less responsible people. It would be nice to snap our fingers and make all the guns in those areas disappear, but that's fantasy. There are about 270 million guns out there right now. And if we continue to permit guns in rural areas, there will inevitably be a black market supply of guns to urban areas.

Don't pussy out, nate. Say what you mean.

Funny. I merely summarized montestewart's position with more concise language, but when I say it, it activates your "Offense Detector".

Densely populated low income urban areas. I believe the dynamics of the problem are the same in every country in the world. The fact that those areas happen to have a high proportion of African Americans in the United States is irrelevant to the argument being made here.