can we talk about this...?

by russell

The "this" in the headline is "guns".

The back home in Indiana thread petered out into (somehow, once again) a discussion of guns.  The topic is obviously of interest to a lot of people, and equally obviously seems to be one of the hardest things to talk about.

I thought I would try a front-page on the topic, to see if we could actually have a useful conversation.  I don't know if we can, or not.  It's an experiment.

I want to start by remembering a comment from JanieM, one of my favorite long-time, now-gone ObWi regulars:

How can I make it safe for you to hear what I need to say?

Words to live by.  In the interest of (possibly, with luck) making it possible to even broach the topic, I'll say where I, personally, am coming from in the great gun debate.

I have no interest in taking people's guns away.  I think it's fine if people own and use firearms.  I think they are obliged to do so safely and responsibly.  I think most, by far, gun owners do so.

I understand why guns freak people out.  They're dangerous.  I'm not sure much more than that needs be said.

I also understand why folks who like guns are frustrated by the debate about guns.  Lots of people have strong negative feelings about guns, but don't know much about them.  Lots of people have really negative opinions about gun owners, again without knowing much about them.

I think both sides typically enter any discussion about guns with blinders on.  I think both sides hold some things to be true that aren't really so.  It seemed like some folks wanted to discuss this stuff, so I thought I'd put a front-page post up.

To kick if off, I thought I'd offer 6 Things Gun Lovers And Haters Can Agree On, from Cracked magazine.  I don't know what it says about our public life, but if I want to find a thoughtful, insightful, fair-minded and plainly-stated discussion of any current day issue, the most consistent and reliable source I know is Cracked magazine.  

It's a hot topic, so for this thread and this thread only I will lay down some ground rules.

If folks seem like they are thread-jacking or going wildly off topic, I will try to return the discussion to the topic at hand.  If that fails, I will shut it down.

If things get abusive or overly heated, I will shut it down.

If it gets to the point where everyone is just saying the same things over and over and over and nobody is listening, I will shut it down.

The kitty has given you a discussion, if you can keep it.  Carry on.

Comments

[wj]

It seems like there may be two disperate groups who want gun control.

1) those who are concerned about gun-related crimes. They want registrations and such, in order to make it easier to solve such crimes. And they want things like background checks to make it harder for criminals to buy guns. Those two might not work as exected, but that seems to be the thinking behind them.

2) those who are concerned about mass assaults. They talk about Columbine High and self-styled militias running around pretending (practicing) to be military-types. These are the folks who get worked up about "assault weapons" -- regardless of what legal definitions are invented for that label. What they are really worried about are (crazy) people running amok and killing lots of people.

Both groups get lumped together as "gun control advocates." But they really are talking about totally different problems, and have totally different proposed solutions. Put another way, it is entirely possible to address one group's concerns, while not even touching the other group's concerns.

[liberal japonicus]

disparate or desperate?

(not to threadjack, but that set of words never looks right)

some grist for the mill, it's been posted here before

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/

[hairshirthedonist]

Ahhh .... nope,

[hairshirthedonist]

Oh, crap. I used a comma instead of a period. Commas are what got us into this mess in the first place.

[russell]

It seems like there may be two disperate groups who want gun control.

FWIW, I would put myself in the first category.

I'm not especially interested in gun registration one way or the other, however I am interested in closing loopholes for the background checks via private sale.

My understanding, perhaps faulty, is that there are a large number of firearms sold via private sale, without any, or sufficient, enforcement of the background check.

FWIW, I'm not sure if that qualifies as me being in favor of "gun control", unless any restriction or regulation on the ownership or use of firearms, at all, is considered "gun control".

I don't think there is anything short of either an outright ban on firearms, or a highly intrusive regime of mental health monitoring, that would make much of a dent in spectacular mass assaults. I'm not sure there's that much of a common thread through the incidents that would let anybody know or predict who, or when, such assaults are going to happen. Possibly, people that know the would-be perpetrators might have clue, otherwise I think we're in the realm of sociopathic and insane individuals.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

I figure that a felon that really wants a gun will probably get one.

Now, if all felons had a absolutely irrevocable lifetime ban on gun ownership, then, upon conviction they should get a tattoo declaring their status, and anyone that sells a gun to them becomes a felon too. And hey, someone that wants to make sure that they can't buy a gun in a fit of depression? Just visit the local tattoo shop!

But probably never be acceptable. Too much like "Mark of The Beast", or something.

What I would like to see is a requirement that, before buying that first (legal) gun, the new owner has to pass a gun-safety class; run by the NRA would be fine. They get their certificate, good for life. Just like passing a driver's test, but without the every few years renewal/eye test/fee stuff. Just: know the rules, know how to do things safely.

I really, really wish I knew how to stop the incidents of little kids shooting guns (or getting accidentally shot). It's horribly tragic. There's probably some combination of biometrics etc., that might help, but for now I'd just happy if gun-owners get some safety training, in the hopes that it would cut down on the accidents.

As I mentioned before, putting holes in targets is too much fun to let a bunch of homicidal a**holes ruin it. Doesn't mean we have to make it easy for them.

[bobbyp]

What about the Australia example?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/

[hairshirthedonist]

My take is that there are just too many guns out there, and what should be legal guns become illegal guns. It's unfortunate that (would-be) law-abiding gun owners have to be potentially inconvenienced because of that, but it's an imperfect world.

I don't even have a strong grasp on what policies would or would not be effective, but I don't have a problem in principle with regulations or restrictions on various aspects of gun/ammo ownership/purchases.

In the heat of the moment, say, after a bunch of six-year-old were gunned down by a deranged older kid, I wanted to ban or strictly limit this or that kind of gun or magazine. I don't know who well any of that would actually work.

The one thing I do know is that the United States doesn't exist in a vacuum, and there are other countries with other policies that seem to work reasonably well. Even if those policies don't exacly square with our constitution, approximations of them could potentially be created to do so.

I honestly don't have a beef with people who like guns, per se. It's not something that affects my daily life, to be sure. I'm not out to get anyone or to have the government be a step closer to being our unquestionable overlords or to prevent people from taking reasonable precautions to protect themselves. I don't personally see the need to own guns, myself, but odds are, my being a total-bad ass is going to be enough in the vast majority of cases. (I kid, of course, about being a bad-ass, except when I'm drunk and actually believe it.)

I've gotten weary over this debate, nearly to the point that I don't really give a fnck until some completely tragic bullsh1t happens and I care again, until I don't.

It still think a lot of people have a sort of neurotic obsession with guns in this country, though, if I'm being honest about it.

[russell]

What I would like to see is a requirement that, before buying that first (legal) gun, the new owner has to pass a gun-safety class; run by the NRA would be fine.

I also think that is a great idea, and to my eye at least doesn't conflict with the general concept of the enumerated right.

I'm OK with the NRA running it, although the police or, for example, the national guard could also do it. Whatever works.

When I got my MC license, I took a class and got the license. No biggie, I learned a lot, and since the state instituted the program my understanding is that MC accidents have gone down. Win/win.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

russell: it's what "well-regulated" ought to mean.

[sapient]

Not sure why we have to have weapons that shoot targets over and over and over again without reloading.

It's fun for some people, I know. So is torturing animals, for some people. Question is, what's the upside?

[navarro]

@russell

are you trolling brett bellmore with this post?

[Icarus]

Should we require training and a license to exercise free speech? The pen, after all,verily, being mightier than the sword. More wars, resulting in millions of times more deaths than citizen on citizen shootings, have resulted from an irresponsible media machine following irresponsible political machinations.

Overwhelmingly, gun owners, whether they have single shot black powder replicas or modern high capacity semi-auto assault rifle look-alikes, are law abiding and never harm anyone.

The bulk of gun homicides are criminal on criminal are can further be reduced to, essentially, an urban phenomenon.

So, mostly, urban thugs are shooting each other over drug dealing turf or sneakers. I'd shed a tear for them, but I can't seem to find one for some reason.

Folks, this is a non-issue that is served up as a heated plate of elect-me-I'll-do-something-about-it by urban liberals to urban liberals.

Far more people are killed by irresponsible drivers (how's that licensing process working out?). Far more children drown in swimming pools than are shot. More people die from overdoses on prescription medicine (ex; narcotics) - how's that government licensing/control working out?

Life is full of hazards and I don't, from a rational perspective, understand why guns are the hazard du jour for political grandstanding.

What's the upside? Well, there's the incalculable - yet very real - number of citizens that have defended themselves and families, lawfully, from unlawful assaults, home invasions, rapes and such. Then there's the even more incalculable, but likely real, restraint of the government to impose itself, unconstitutionally, on the populace because it fears an armed populace.

A caveat being, should insane people own guns? The answer is obviously a resounding "NO". But insane people shouldn't drive motor vehicles or own sharp knives or vials of poison or a myriad of other things that they could use to do harm to others.

Insane people, psychopaths and other amoral or negatively temperamental people are a problem; guns or no guns. Collective punishment (i.e. deletion of Constitutional rights) of the majority due to the potential bad acts of the deranged minority cannot be the rule of law in a free society.

[russell]

no, i'm not.

I am, personally, interested in the issue, because it's a serious point of division, and it's also a topic that people can't seem to discuss without yelling at each other.

it came up in another thread, it seemed like several people had things to say, and it seemed like it might be possible to have a conversation.

so, I thought i'd take a chance and put it out there.

that's it.

[Turbulence]

Guns don't bother me but gun people do: there's a culture of carelessness and stupidity about America's gun owners. That doesn't mean that every gun owner is a careless idiot, but it does mean that people are encouraged to act that way, and lo and behold, they do.

Here's another way of looking at it. I'm a hobbyist acrobat. My hobby is actually pretty dangerous, relative to stamp collecting. But I work in a community dedicated to safety. And every single time I lay hands on a partner, I think about what can go wrong and how we can prevent that from happening. Every single time I touch an apparatus, I think about what can go wrong and whether I can be safe. I surround myself with people who take safety seriously and we hold each other accountable.

That doesn't seem to happen in the gun world. Every few days, we get to read about another gun-toting idiot who killed his kid or his friend or his neighbor or let his kid kill him or his sibling or a friend through utter fracking stupidity. Really basic things like "assume there's always a round in the chamber" or "check to see if there's a round in the chamber" or "don't leave your firearm accessible to children" or "store your weapon apart from ammo" just go unheeded. And people die. And nothing happens to those responsible.

Now I get that every group has idiots (I weep at some of the terrifyingly dangerous acro tricks I've seen on youtube). But I don't see gun owners calling out idiot gun owners. The NRA sends out tons of mailings to scare the crap out of people ("Obama is coming to take ALL your guns!") but they never seem to send out mailings saying "this idiot was stupid and caused his 5 year old kid to kill his 2 year old sister: don't be stupid like him!". And because "responsible" gun owners never do a damn thing to improve the behavior of stupid idiot gun owners, a lot of people end up having their stupidity encouraged, rather than discouraged.

I'd be willing to give gun owners as a group a lot more leeway and trust if they acted like responsible people, but every thing the community does is based on evading responsibility. Gun registry? No way. Restrictions on mentally ill people owning guns? No. Any kind of punishment for negligent people whose idiotic gun-owning behavior causes their kids to die? Absolutely not.

[Icarus]

Russell, I understand. It is a major bone of contention. I am pro- gun/pro 2nd amendment. I know several law enforcement officers - a Sheriff, some of his deputies and a couple State Troopers that agree with me (that's all of the LEO's I know).

I know two people that have suffered from snow mobile accidents. One died and one is paralyzed from the neck down. The latter is a friend and used to be a work colleague. I think snow mobiling is stupid and dangerous and with no upside other than some reckless idiots' fleeting sensation of "fun" and should be banned - but that's just me.

When I think of gun opponents I think of them being the same as my opposition to snow mobiles.

But there seems to be something more fundamental on the line - both on the pro and con side - when it comes to guns. I am curious how this thread will shake out. I wish there were more rural pro gun types to throw in here.

[wj]

Once upon a time (i.e. in the 1950s) the NRA was pretty focused on gun safety. But then they acquired a President who figured out they could grow and makes tons of money by transforing themselves into a lobby/ad agency for the gun industry, A focus which they maintain to this day.

[Icarus]

"Restrictions on mentally ill people owning guns? "

T, I think you are being hyperbolic. Yes people have preventable accidents with guns; just as they have preventable accidents with a myriad of other household objects.

The NRA does, as it always has, promote gun safety. It continues to offer a variety of classes and instructor certification. The characterization of the NRA here is straight out of some liberal OZ.

Now, as for the mentally, the NRA absolutely would like to see them NOT owning guns. In days of old the mentally ill were locked away. Liberals, for better or worse, let them out into the community with far reduced supervision.

Now, you tell me, how are these people to be identified? A tattoo on their foreheads? Under what circumstance? How are they to be prevented from committing a variety of serious social ills; among which acquiring and using a gun is only one? Yet you want to put the blame on the NRA for this situation? How bout when they drive and kill? Want to blame Ford Motor for that?

I think you work too hard at jamming square pegs into what you have identified, by force of ideological adherence, as villainous round holes.

[bobbyp]

The bulk of gun homicides are criminal on criminal

This does not appear to be true:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/key-gun-violence-statistics

Far more children drown in swimming pools than are shot.

Does not appear to be true, either.

http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html

Folks, this is a non-issue that is served up as a heated plate of elect-me-I'll-do-something-about-it by urban liberals to urban liberals.

Yes. The libruls. Damn them to hell. Seeking local control over what you characterize as a local (urban) issue that concerns public safety.

How effing dare they?

And right out of the gate, the locus of rational discussion is shattered. Because the issue is not safety, it becomes a dark and menacing something else. It's all about "them".

Libruls.

[Icarus]

http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html

10/day drown, Bobbyp. I don't see where you links refute what I say. The statistics are a mishmash manipulated to display the worst possible scenario; and to get your librul blood up.

I notice you didn't even try to refute the prescription drug related deaths; drugs that are as heavily regulated and controlled as can be.

So, it's a public safety issue to you. My question to you is how did this particular public safety issue - if that's what it really is - rise to the political forefront, whereas as a wide range of others have not?

To illustrate, how many deaths have resulted from a freedom of speech? Some examples being, "Witches are behind it, burn them", "The free mason poisoned the wells", "it's the Zionist Rats", "Remember the Maine", "The commies fired on our ship in the Gulf of Tonkin", "We know they have weapons of mass destruction and we know they are East, West, North and South of Baghdad" all of which got the public moving into action.

But yeah. let's parse whether or not there is statistically significant difference between drowning and gun deaths. 'cause you don't like guns at some visceral level and the rest of the BIG problems...well they're too big.

[Countme-In]

I've read both the Cracked article recommended by Russell and the Atlantic piece lj linked to and I have some impressions, but I'm too tired tonight to pursue them.

Probably tomorrow.

Icarus makes some good points, as in what and how to control with some efficacy, but the snowmobile comparison seems about as apt as Brett's multi-thousand book collection being compared to a guy hoarding 50,000 rounds of ammo- as a red flag.

Let me know when a guy takes out 15 moviegoers with a snowmobile or goes from classroom to classroom mowing kids down with an Arctic Cat.

The kids drowning comparison would be appropriate if kids were drowning OTHER kids.

Now, drowning accidents may compare with gun accidents in numbers.

Actually, backyard drownings have risen to the forefront of safety/zoning regulation issues at the local level.

[Countme-In]

In Florida may ask about their patients about household hazards, like the presence of backyard swimming pools in households with small kids, but they are prohibited in most instances from raising the subject of guns in households.

Maybe swimming pools manufacturers need a rabid NSWA headed by Dwayne La Aquafree.

But swimming pool manufactuers haven't gone off the rails.

http://smartgunlaws.org/eleventh-circuit-upholds-florida-law-preventing-doctors-from-asking-about-ownership-2/

[worn]

In days of old the mentally ill were locked away. Liberals, for better or worse, let them out into the community with far reduced supervision.

For as long as I can recall, it's been a consistent trope on the left that it was Reagan who 'let out' the mentally ill. Imagine my surprise to learn it was actually the "liberals" who did this.

This article from long ago makes the phenomenon appear more structural/institutional than your attributed cause. But hey, we all gotta have our bogeymen, right?

[Countme-In]

That'd be "doctors" doing the asking.

[Patrick]

Isn't the NRA strongly opposed to disarming people with mental health issues, even when the disarming is done by a court? I regularly see articles about the "gun grabbers" taking away some law abiding citizen's guns just because of a few restraining orders and a history of mental instability.

I know they want to put the mentally ill on a public registry, I remember the NRA's speech on that, but I also recall the NRA being really against disarming people with mental health problems. So I'm pretty sure the registry thing is just supposed to hurt the mentally ill for the political benefit of gun owners.

Or maybe the idea is that if you know your neighbor has mental health problems, you can buy guns and clutch them to your chest whenever you see him? I dunno.

[Nigel]

What strikes an outside observer as unusual is the insistence on the constitutional importance of gun ownership.

Is there anywhere else on earth, not under Sharia law*, which similarly puts the right to own a gun on a par with (say) free speech ?

* http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_rights

[liberal japonicus]

In days of old the mentally ill were locked away. Liberals, for better or worse, let them out into the community with far reduced supervision.

It would be good to acknowledge that this move towards mainstreaming occurred in large part because of the advent of drugs that seemed to deal with mental illness effectively. Liberals, in so far as they didn't really support locking up people when they could be participating in society, helped this along, but as I understand it, the main driver was the Republican ascendancy which took took Carter's ideas of local autonomy and ran them into the ground. 2 links if you are interested

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_legacy_violence_the_homeless_mental_illness/

http://www.sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas.html

[Brett Bellmore]

From that Cracked article, while I mostly agree with the conclusions, #1 is utter BS.

Look, there are too many actual politicians, some of them still in office, who've said outright they want to take your (my) guns away. I used to have one for a Congressman. Bought a Calico carbine with 100 round magazines just to piss him off. Still have it, it turned out to be nice for plinking.

There are too many gun control groups that stated this was their goal, before they realized that maybe admitting it was bad PR, and that they ought to lie about what they want.

There are too many jurisdictions in the US that have set out to DO IT. Registered guns promising they didn't mean to take them away, and then changed their minds about that.

I'm willing to believe the author of that article doesn't want to take my guns away. But, "nobody"? If he really believes that, he's an idiot. He should have stuck with, "Not enough to attempt it, most places."

"Once upon a time (i.e. in the 1950s) the NRA was pretty focused on gun safety. But then they acquired a President who figured out they could grow and makes tons of money by transforing themselves into a lobby/ad agency for the gun industry, A focus which they maintain to this day."

Gun controller mythology: That the NRA is some kind of gun industry astroturf, that the switch from exclusively gun safety to gun safety and 2nd amendment rights was internally originated.

Google "NRA Cincinatti revolt"; I was around back then, and interested. While I wasn't there in person, I'm pretty familiar with what went down, have met some of the people who were. The NRA became a 2nd amendment lobby because the membership demanded it become one, and then kicked out the people in charge when they resisted. At this point, aside from the occasional false flag "gun rights group" created by the DNC's PR firm, the NRA is actually the most moderate of the gun rights groups around, most of them are much more hard core. Because most of them are more responsive to the membership than the NRA. (So many revolutions are 360 degrees, and the NRA, too, later changed it's rules to prevent another Cincinatti revolt.)

"Isn't the NRA strongly opposed to disarming people with mental health issues, even when the disarming is done by a court?"

The NRA notices that you get a right to a jury trial when accused of a crime, and get some dude in a white coat making the decision without any adversary process or much in the way of safeguards when accused of being mentally ill. And comes to the same conclusion some anti-gun groups have: A mental health exception to the 2nd amendment looks awfully prone to abuse, unless the standards for applying it become a LOT more strict.

We see this as a bug in need of fixing, they see it as a feature in need of use.

Anyway, think about this: Do you really want to discourage people who own guns from seeking psychiatric help if they need it? Because taking their guns away if they do is a pretty good way to keep gun owners who need help from looking for it.

"What strikes an outside observer as unusual is the insistence on the constitutional importance of gun ownership."

Hey, it's in our constitution. That does kind of make it a constitutional issue.

Off to work soon, and I might drop off the net without warning in the near future. Sis took a turn for the worse, and will be checking into hospice instead of chemo. And I'm her executor. Damn, being the older brother ought to mean she gets to deal with my death, not the other way around! If I don't respond to something, I've got a lot on my mind.

[Countme-In]

Peace be with you and and your sister, Brett.

[russell]

He should have stuck with, "Not enough to attempt it, most places."

What if that's as good as it gets?

Do you really want to discourage people who own guns from seeking psychiatric help if they need it?

That's a reasonable point. The counter-argument, of course, is do we really want people who need psychiatric help to have firearms?

So, maybe somethings gotta give.

Also: Icarus, thanks for joining us here. You're making a number of statements of fact here, it will be useful to everyone if you could substantiate them.

[Nigel]

"What strikes an outside observer as unusual is the insistence on the constitutional importance of gun ownership."

Hey, it's in our constitution. That does kind of make it a constitutional issue.

The operative word there was 'unusual'.

I'm not disputing that it's in the second amendment - just pointing out that from the an outside point of view, it's more than a little strange.

In representative democracies, most of your constitutional (or common laws) rights have direct equivalents or analogues (habeas corpus; due process; freedom of conscience; freedom of speech; right to privacy; right to fair trial etc), and we would find their absence strange or disturbing.
That simply is not true for the 'right' to bear arms.

I'll accept that the UK's 1689 Bill of Rights - which provided the skeleton to its US counterpart:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction
did grant a right to bear arms, but that was situational, rather than fundamental -
(In reference to the complaint that James II:
"did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome."
"...By causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law."
The Bill granted:
"That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law...")

The idea that the right to bear arms is today a bulwark against tyranny, half a century after Gandhi, and in the age of the Kalashnikov, is on the face of it without justification.
It is instructive, I think, that the only other legal system which provides for it as a right is Sharia law.

In any event, what the Count said.
All the best, Brett.

[russell]

And, sorry to hear about your sister, Brett.

[cleek]

Yes people have preventable accidents with guns; just as they have preventable accidents with a myriad of other household objects.

the basic flaw in the analogy is that guns are designed and intended to kill. (yes, you can shoot targets, but that's called 'target practice' for a reason: the same reason those targets are often silhouettes of people or animals.) nothing else in that myriad of other household objects are designed specifically to kill.

snowmobiles aren't designed to kill. cars aren't. ropes aren't. staircases aren't. cigarette lighters aren't. even (most) knives aren't - and the knives that are designed specifically to kill aren't the kind of knives you commonly find in a house.

a gun accident is primarily accidental in the target, not in the application.

i get that the 2nd A exists. but it's doubtful that nobody will ever convince me that the intent behind it is the state of affairs that we have today.

[Brett Bellmore]

Thanks. It's tough, but "Nobody gets out of life alive." I just wish I didn't live 12 hour's drive away, and my brother on the other side of the continent. Neither of us can afford to be there for her the way we'd like to.

There is a lesson in this, I'd ask everybody to take to heart: When I went through chemo back in 2010, I was physically fit, and if not slim, at least not more than moderately overweight. And the chemo still left me weak enough that I'd break into a sweat walking across a room.

My sister was sedentary and grossly overweight when this began, and so it didn't take much to make her an invalid requiring 24 hour care. And weak enough that the side effects of the only drug showing any promise would likely kill her.

Being physically fit is more important than you realize.

Oh, and don't, don't DON'T opt for the low deductable policy with a high co-pay. Just don't. All it takes is one diagnosis, and you're looking at a quarter million a year in copays. Don't get the insurance that covers flu shots, and leaves you high and dry when you get cancer.

[Slartibartfast]

My understanding, perhaps faulty, is that there are a large number of firearms sold via private sale, without any, or sufficient, enforcement of the background check.

I may have this completely wrong, but my understanding of things is this: up until relatively recently (1990s?) there were no background checks mandated, and really no mechanism in place to facilitate them. For private sales currently, there are no background checks required, and currently there is no way for an individual to check the background of the person they are selling the gun to. Just as, for example, I as an automobile owner cannot really positively identify the purchaser; I simply sign over the title.

The big objection to background checks for personal sales is as I understand it that individuals currently cannot perform them, and that any such requirement would constitute an undue burden.

I am not here to argue that point in either direction, honestly. Just to note my apprisal of things.

I personally would appreciate it if we'd all treat this as a conversation of things which could (but not necessarily will) be, and refrain from conservative vs. liberal point-scoring. For once, please. I know: easy for me to say, given that I am (for personal workload and other reasons that I'd be happy to talk about later&elsewhere) not participating. But rehashing the history an who's to blame and who is being stupid & obstinate is not contributing to the conversation that Russell seeks along the lines of what do we do now, differently, if anything?

This is only a request on my part. I'd beg, if doing so would make a difference.

[cleek]

Brett, sorry about your sister.

[Slartibartfast]

cleek also speaks for me in this matter, Brett.

[russell]

I personally would appreciate it if we'd all treat this as a conversation of things which could (but not necessarily will) be, and refrain from conservative vs. liberal point-scoring.

Yes, that's what I'm hoping for here.

I made this comment to Brett earlier:

What if that's as good as it gets?

That was somewhat cryptic, I'd like to expand on it.

I think it's correct to say that there are some people who'd like to take away the guns. Certainly, at least some guns. Total ban on handguns, no semi-automatic weapons, nothing that resembles an AR-15.

What I don't think is likely is that those folks are likely to prevail in any significant way. Because a lot of people want to own firearms.

My impression, as a non-gun-owner, is that many gun owners feel that they have to draw a very hard line, and fight every attempt at any regulation of firearms at all, because it will the camel's nose under the tent. Silencers today, my handgun tomorrow. High-capacity magazines today, all semi-automatic guns tomorrow. And, the day after that, all guns.

As a result, there is little room for negotiation. Even what strikes non-gun-owners, and many gun owners, as reasonable proposals are resisted tooth and nail. Complete with, literally, threats of physical violence.

Most people are not interested in preventing responsible gun owners from owning and using guns. By "most" I mean a really overwhelming majority of the population. I don't have polls and studies to back that claim up, it just seems pretty clearly true to me.

People that are concerned about guns are concerned primarily about (a) people who shouldn't have guns getting them, (b) people who do own guns using them irresponsibly.

What I'm curious to hear from folks who are against any further regulation is where the room for negotiation is.

I think a lot of people would be fine with leaving gun owners the hell alone if they felt that their concerns - legitimate concerns, concerning their own personal safety and public safety at large - were addressed.

I'm sure gun owners have their own set of concerns that they feel are not being considered.

The idea that the right to bear arms is today a bulwark against tyranny, half a century after Gandhi, and in the age of the Kalashnikov, is on the face of it without justification.

I have a couple of thoughts about this.

IMO there actually is value - "bulwark against tyranny" value - in widespread ownership of firearms.

It's true that what any modern military brings to bear dwarfs what any private owner is ever going to have in terms of firepower. But, to revisit a point Brett made on another thread, it's also true that a government seeking to impose its will by force is not only going to have to overpower the population, but govern it. And, if it wants to do so with a standing military made up of citizens of that country, it's going to have to rely on that military to go to war with their own family and neighbors.

Widespread ownership of firearms makes both of those things problematic. Basically, it raises the risk and cost significantly. It doesn't make it impossible to impose some kind of forcible rule, it just makes it a lot more expensive. And, so, less likely.

That said, most of the successful efforts to expand civil rights and political freedom in the US have occurred through peaceful means. No guns. So, what I take to be your point in naming Gandhi is apt.

I think in many ways the relevance of the 2nd A has been attenuated by history. It was written in reference to, and in the context of, a set of institutions and practices that no longer exist - a civilian militia with nearly full citizen participation and under civil control, no federal standing army. IMO it made much more sense - not "was more legitimate", just made more plain common sense - in that context than it does in ours.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The idea that the right to bear arms is today a bulwark against tyranny, half a century after Gandhi, and in the age of the Kalashnikov, is on the face of it without justification."

There's this tendency, when somebody insists on doing X in order to achieve Y, and simply won't accept that X can't achieve Y, to start looking for Z.

This is a foolish tendency. You should be willing to recognize that the advocate of X might just be irrational, and incapable of accepting that X won't achieve Y. Or, they might just want X because you don't want it, and they're your cultural enemy, just want to screw you over. Or maybe they want it for reasons A-Q, but can't say so, because those don't poll as well as Y.

Why is Z tyranny, in this case? A number of reasons.

1. Averting tyranny was the original justification for the 2nd amendment, which creates a presumption anyone who wants to be rid of it wants tyranny.

2. Advocates of gun control tend to also be advocates of big government, which makes the idea that they might want tyranny somewhat plausible to those who want generally less government.

3. Taking a right away from somebody who isn't doing anything wrong is a bit tyrannical, let's face it.

4. Burning all those people alive at Waco, looked like the sort of thing an aspiring tyrant might do.

I personally don't think most gun controllers want gun control to ease the route to tyranny. They're just phobic about guns, incapable of reasoning clearly about them, and groping about for something that at least looks like a rational justification for policies that are motivated by their psychological problems.

Unfortunately, that doesn't unburn those people at Waco, does it? Irrational people can be pretty dangerous.

[thompson]

Brett:

I'm sorry to hear about your sister.

Regarding the subject, I want to touch in on one of the claims made in the cracked article, that nobody owns guns for self defense.

I don't think that's the most common reason people own guns, nor do I think that gun ownership is the one thing holding back a crime wave.

Crime is down across the country, for many reasons, but its not gone. I have friends and family members that have been victims of violent crime. I don't begrudge people that want a weapon to protect themselves.

And I know people that do. I know people that live in bad neighborhoods, I know some that live rurally (i.e. emergency response will be slow), and some others that want it just in case. A friend's brother has a CCW, because as a contractor, he's often driving around in bad areas with $10,000s of equipment hitched to his truck.

Again, I don't think the issue of 2A rights hinges on self-defense, but I don't begrudge people for wanting a weapon to protect themselves.

The big objection to background checks for personal sales is as I understand it that individuals currently cannot perform them

CA, for example, requires private sales to go through a dealer. Basically, buyer and seller show up at dealer, dealer handles the background check, takes a cut, fills out paperwork, etc.

I think that's a workable system worth considering, but it might constitute an undue burden (I have a friend that recently went through this...it was a huge pain. Various CA hurdles resulted in a ~month wait and a lot of driving around). Just something I'm floating out there for discussion.

Regarding undue burden, I want to echo what Brett said on the other thread regarding suppressors. In general, they don't decrease the sound that much, but I think they could be a real benefit to hearing safety at ranges, especially indoor ones. In honor of the OP, I'll also link to Cracked:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18576_5-ridiculous-gun-myths-everyone-believes-thanks-to-movies.html

Regarding Turb's comment:

there's a culture of carelessness and stupidity about America's gun owners.

I don't think that's true. I know a lot of gun owners, and they are all careful and extremely safety conscious when it comes to firearms. Is the same true for every gun owner? No, of course not. But I don't think there is a 'culture' of carelessness and stupidity.

[Slartibartfast]

Burning all those people alive at Waco

I'd just like to note in passing that "burning all those people alive" wasn't something that anyone set out to do. It happened, undisputably, but as a result of negligence and perhaps hubris, not as a deliberate imposition.

Please try and recognize when you're indulging in bombast (even unintentionally), and try and dial it down a bit. Please.

[Brett Bellmore]

"What I don't think is likely is that those folks are likely to prevail in any significant way. Because a lot of people want to own firearms."

Well, yeah. And are taking that hard-line position you decry in the next paragraph.

Basically, I don't want people to mistake a hard fought stalemate for peace, a tug of war with both sides straining for all they're worth for people just standing there.

The reason we've still got these guns isn't that there hasn't been a serious push to take them away. It's because we fought back, and continue fighting back.

We stop fighting back, they win, because they haven't stopped fighting. They've just stopped winning.

[cleek]

I think in many ways the relevance of the 2nd A has been attenuated by history.

i'll add:

the types of guns available in the 1780s were nothing like what we have today. today's guns are cheaper, more accurate, more reliable, more powerful, faster to load and fire, and much easier to acquire.

the people who wrote the 2nd A could not have imagined a person wielding the kind of firepower a person today can wield. a person simply couldn't walk into a theater and shoot 80 people. one, sure.

it's a different world. the 2nd A is anachronistic.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I'd just like to note in passing that "burning all those people alive" wasn't something that anyone set out to do."

I don't think they set out to burn them alive, either. More a case of not setting out to not burn them alive, actually. Unfortunately, while reckless disregard for human life isn't quite the same thing as actual homicidal motives, the end results are often indistingushable.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

The constitutional setup (no standing army, citizen militias organized by States) was anachronistic, oh, around 1812 or so.

Nice idea. Didn't work so well in practice for 'national defense'.

[Icarus]

"...the basic flaw in the analogy is that guns are designed and intended to kill..."

I'm not sure why that distinction is important. A loved one killed by a drunk driver or overdosed on oxycontin is just as dead and missed as a loved one killed by a gun.

However, I will stipulate to the idea that guns are designed to be deadly weapons. OK, well, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to self defense is fundamental (see District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago ) and that a gun is not only a good means of self defense, it is also a right enumerated in the Constitution.

What to do about guns then? The answer would seem to be "nothing" other than offer and promote classes (k-9 curriculum maybe?) centered on responsible gun ownership and to enforce existing laws that attempt to keep them out of the hands of known dangerous criminals and diagnosed seriously mentally ill.

Now, do I personally believe that some people shouldn't own guns because, for one reason or another they cannot be trusted to be safe and responsible? Absolutely. Apparently there are even some law enforcement that fall into this category.

I also believe that there are people who are too compromised or too irresponsible to vote or exercise other 1st amendment rights. I repeat that the media and the ballot box has been the genesis of more death and destruction than privately owned guns have ever caused. Who is in favor of restricting voter rights or censoring the press?

[thompson]

And...I was about to say what russell said about a bulwark against tyranny. But he beat me to it. But one minor point:

a civilian militia with nearly full citizen participation and under civil control, no federal standing army.

I think our standing army is far too large. I would rather it was far smaller, without nearly as much force projection. In short, I think an increased National Guard and militia would be a better way to go, even today.

We're less likely to call up the militia to invade the middle east, if nothing else.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, about 1812 or so. One of the ideas behind the militia system, was that it would discourage foreign adventures, because the militia were more a tool of defense than aggression.

Then along comes the war of 1812, and the militia system turns out to work just as it was intended. It's just that the war of 1812 wasn't a defensive war on our part.

Basically, the militia system got tossed because it worked too well doing what it was intended to do.

[Icarus]

ooooops. I meant to say a k - 12 curriculum. I was looking at the dog across the street when I wrote the comment. Funny how that works.

[wj]

The NRA does, as it always has, promote gun safety. It continues to offer a variety of classes and instructor certification. The characterization of the NRA here is straight out of some liberal OZ.

Icarus, I didn't say that they no longer do gun safety. I said that their focus was no longer there.

Which, in the conservative OZ I live in seems to be the case -- based on the fact that I see lots of stuff from them about (opposing) gun control. But nothing, at all, about gun safety, courses in gun safety, etc. At best, they are hiding their light under a bushel.

[Brett Bellmore]

"What to do about guns then? The answer would seem to be "nothing" other than offer and promote classes (k-9 curriculum maybe?) centered on responsible gun ownership "

Yes. Don't mandate a safety course before you can buy a gun. Just mandate a safety course, that everybody gets, before they're old enough to own a gun. Make it a regular part of the curriculum.

Like it was when I took it.

BTW, my son just got "Red" on his daily report, because he pointed his finger like a gun during recess. I assure you, marking him down for this had nothing to do with public safety, the finger wasn't loaded.

[wj]

For as long as I can recall, it's been a consistent trope on the left that it was Reagan who 'let out' the mentally ill. Imagine my surprise to learn it was actually the "liberals" who did this.

Worn, as someone who was actually in California when the mental hospitals were replaced by "community care," let me observe that the driver was, indeed, from liberals. Community care was going to provide better care, and better prospects for recovery, at no increase in price,.

And the biggest failure was, IMHO, the fact that the promised "community care" was never funded. The mentally ill were released from the mental hospitals, but there was nothing for them when they got to the community. Which is why they make up a substantial portion of the homeless population.

[hairshirthedonist]

I repeat that the media and the ballot box has been the genesis of more death and destruction than privately owned guns have ever caused. Who is in favor of restricting voter rights or censoring the press?

Really? Do you think those things have ever prevented death and destruction? Do think those things are essential to a stable (quasi-)democracy? Do you think we sould do away with elections and have some other means of succession of power? I wonder what sort of death and destruction that might unleash. I wonder what sort of things certain arms of the government might undertake without a free press exposing them.

This particular angle is like arguing that the US should have stayed out of WWII based on the number of people we killed and the numbers of Americans who died, without considering what would have happened had we stayed out.

The lens is too narrowly focused.

[Ufficio]

I'd just like to note in passing that "burning all those people alive" wasn't something that anyone set out to do.

According to the Danforth report, it was. It's just that the people who set out to do it were the Davidians themselves.

[hairshirthedonist]

So what I'm hearing, from Icarus, is that there is simply no problem with guns in this country, at least not one of significance relative to a bunch of other things - all of which boils down to, "No, you can't talk about guns, because there's really nothing to talk about."

[Brett Bellmore]

"Icarus, I didn't say that they no longer do gun safety. I said that their focus was no longer there."

More or less has to be: Not much point in being a gun safety organization in a country where you couldn't own guns. Got to defend the right to own them, or there's nothing to handle safely.

Same reason the membership revolted when when the NRA started to build a gun museum, and was about to close their D.C. offices; We didn't want to be a historical society with a nifty museum where we could go look at the guns we could no longer own, which is what the pre-revolt NRA leadership were planning for: The NRA's role in a post gun America.

[McKinneyTexas]

My understanding, perhaps faulty, is that there are a large number of firearms sold via private sale, without any, or sufficient, enforcement of the background check.

Probably true. Two potential solutions: First, as a part of driver's license issuance, a person is stamped 'approved' or 'not approved' for gun purchase. The seller has to document the DL and approval notation. This is an off-the-cuff thought prompted by the common sense of Russell's post--not that all posts here aren't eminently common-sensical. Second is to vigorously prosecute and incarcerate firearms possession by felons and others statutorily disqualified from gun ownership.

I disagree that there is not a sizeable number of mainly urban supporters of very strict UK/Australia-type gun control regimes. My son lives in New Jersey. Apparently--perhaps this is urban legend--if you want to go to the skeet range (not target practice, Cleek, just skeet shooting), your shotgun has to be in the back of the car, under lock and key, and your shotgun shells also in the back of the car, under separate lock and key.

If this is the case, or approximately the case, this is a stupid regulation to impose on law abiding citizens. One problem I'm pretty sure we haven't had is crime sprees that have their genesis in sporting weapons stolen from the back of cars while en route to the rifle or skeet range. But, there is a mindset among many that the more limitations that can be imposed, in some macro, cosmic way, tragedies will be reduced.

Turbulence is more right than people give him credit for up to a point. There are several subsets of the gun culture that are felony stupid about a lot of things, including compliance with a lot of other laws. People do leave loaded guns around where kids can lay hands on them. Kids are raised not to be hyper-careful around guns. Between the two, too many stupid things happen.

How to fix stupid--that is one for the ages.

[russell]

If folks seem like they are thread-jacking or going wildly off topic

4. Burning all those people alive at Waco, looked like the sort of thing an aspiring tyrant might do.

I'd like to take the incident at Waco out of the mix for this thread.

It's not wildly off topic, but is a likely exit ramp for getting there.

Not saying it's not an important event or issue, just trying to keep this thread on track.

Thanks!

[wj]

Brett:

I, too, am sorry to hear about your sister.

And I entirely agree with you that it's critical to get the right insurance. I've gone with a plan that basically means I pay for all the routine stuff. But if something really serious happens, the insurance kicks in. Call it moderate co-pay, moderate deductable.

[wj]

I don't think they set out [at Waco] to burn them alive, either. More a case of not setting out to not burn them alive, actually. Unfortunately, while reckless disregard for human life isn't quite the same thing as actual homicidal motives, the end results are often indistingushable.

Am I the only one to notice that this view (that end results are important, regardless of motives) is identical to what many gun control advocates say about gun in private hands?

[Brett Bellmore]

That's fine. I think you can't really understand the gun control fight back in the 90's without mentioning Waco, but it's relevance to today's gun control debate is limited.

[cleek]

I'm not sure why that distinction is important.

it's important because things which are intended to do one thing are regulated/policed/restricted/whatever differently from things intended to do another thing, even if the former can be misused to perform the latter's intended thing.

[wj]

there is a mindset among many that the more limitations that can be imposed, in some macro, cosmic way, tragedies will be reduced.

That's quite true.

But I wonder, which is the cause and which is the effect? Do we have silly gun controls because those writing them want to impose lots of controls? Or do those writing them go that way because they cannot get sensible rules passed?

Perhaps someone who has watched a legislature debating some of these laws can offer an answer.

[thompson]

There are several subsets of the gun culture that are felony stupid about a lot of things

Fair. I was just attempting to point out that those subcultures are hardly universal.

[Icarus]

"So what I'm hearing, from Icarus, is that there is simply no problem with guns in this country, at least not one of significance relative to a bunch of other things"

Not exactly, but close. Something we could do about guns is ensure that citizens, starting at an early age, know all about them and how to handle them. Educate.

This is the opposite of what the anti-gunners are doing and the anti-gunners remind me of the proponents of the "war on drugs" and their historic counterparts in the prohibition movement, who, in their zeal, have done nothing to reduce drug/alcohol use and whose actions created a violent black market, unregulated dangerous drug product and a stigma that makes people shy away from treatment.

- all of which boils down to, "No, you can't talk about guns, because there's really nothing to talk about."

Talk away, by all means.

"How to fix stupid--that is one for the ages"

Right. Some want to take away the right of many as a solution for the stupidity of a few. That's what all of the anti-gunner proposals boil down to.

I think increased exposure to guns coupled with increased quality education would ameliorate at least some of the stupid.

[thompson]

Or do those writing them go that way because they cannot get sensible rules passed?

wj, that doesn't make sense to me. If they can't get sensible rules past, what good (beyond pettiness) are insensible rules?

[cleek]

Something we could do about guns is ensure that citizens, starting at an early age, know all about them and how to handle them.

what makes this strange to read is that Kansas, under the leadership of arch-conservative Sam Brownback, has just eliminated its requirement for mandatory training course. an 8 hour class was too much of a burden.

they also eliminated the requirements for permits and certification for concealed carry.

given that all of Brownback's other schemes have backfired spectacularly, i don't expect this one to lead to anything good, either.

[byomtov]

McK,

Second is to vigorously prosecute and incarcerate firearms possession by felons and others statutorily disqualified from gun ownership.

Sorry. I don't see how this is to be done. Are the police supposed to randomly check on disqualified individuals? No. They are not going to do that. Those individuals will be caught and charged once they have committed a crime using a gun. In other words, this suggestion has no preventive value whatsoever.

The background check on private sales seems so sensible that find opposition to it just plain irrational. I read thompson's comment about it above, but do not believe that the process has to be so clumsy.

[cleek]

Some want to take away the right of many as a solution for the stupidity of a few.

and "the few" are responsible for a big chunk of the 30,000+ people who die, and the 80,000+ who are injured, every year in the US from guns.

300 shootings per day, on average.

this is not a small problem.

[hairshirthedonist]

About your sister, Brett, I wish you strength and resolve. I'd like to wish more, but some things in life are what they are. There's not really an up side.

(I get the sense that, like me, you might get mildly annoyed when people try to look on the bright side of something that doesn't really have one. Look it square in the face and deal with it as it is, the best you can. That's what you'll do.)

[Nigel]

Regarding russell's post,

IMO there actually is value - "bulwark against tyranny" value - in widespread ownership of firearms.

I'm not really buying this. My 'age of the Kalashnikov' comment reflected the widespread ownership of firearms worldwide having been quite the opposite of a bulwark against tyranny; consider, for instance the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

it's also true that a government seeking to impose its will by force is not only going to have to overpower the population, but govern it. And, if it wants to do so with a standing military made up of citizens of that country, it's going to have to rely on that military to go to war with their own family and neighbors.

Indeed. But that remains true whether or not they have guns.

Widespread ownership of firearms makes both of those things problematic. Basically, it raises the risk and cost significantly. It doesn't make it impossible to impose some kind of forcible rule, it just makes it a lot more expensive. And, so, less likely.

I'm struggling to think of a single example which might justify that hypothetical calculation.

That said, most of the successful efforts to expand civil rights and political freedom in the US have occurred through peaceful means. No guns. So, what I take to be your point in naming Gandhi is apt.
Replace "in the US" with "worldwide", and you have my point.

Just to be clear, I'm not against gun ownership per se.
I just think the 'freedom'; 'basic civil right' fetish is idiotic.

I don't even know where to start with Brett's x y and z, so I gave up.

As for WACO, has anything even vaguely comparable happened anywhere else in the world where the second amendment doesn't exist ?

[Brett Bellmore]

"But I wonder, which is the cause and which is the effect? Do we have silly gun controls because those writing them want to impose lots of controls? Or do those writing them go that way because they cannot get sensible rules passed?"

I think there's a number of things going on here.

1. Most of the actually sensible rules got enacted a long, long time ago, because they weren't all that contraversial. Proper backstops for ranges, guns shouldn't blow up in your hand when you pull the trigger, stuff like that.

2. Most gun laws are drafted by gun controllers, which is to say, people who are flat out hostile to gun ownership.

So, they're drafted by people who are militantly ignorant about firearms, and reflexively disbelieving anything firearms owners have to say. So, they're cut off from actual information about firearms, and amazingly gullible when it comes to disinformation from their own side.

And, because they're hostile to gun ownership, they tend to draft the laws so as to have various gotchas in them, to be easily subject to abusive enforcement, inconvenience is viewed as a positive, not a problem...

And because of this, gun owners tend to oppose all regulation, because it IS coming from people who are hostile to gun ownership, and tends to be booby trapped. And even if sensible, provides yet another opportunity for abusive enforcement.

Basically, you've got the regulations being written by people who are ideologically and culturally hostile to the people who are regulated. This is a recipe for a real mess.

[russell]

it's been a consistent trope on the left that it was Reagan who 'let out' the mentally ill.

With respect, I'd like to take the question of who emptied the asylums and sent people with psychiatric issues back into the community off the table, for this thread.

A worthwhile topic, I would just like to keep this thread on track.

Also, I'd like to reiterate my request to take Waco off the table for discussion, in this thread.

For the purpose of this thread, I'm fine with stipulating that it was a disturbing incident and gave a lot of people concern about the government's actions there.

Thanks!

[wj]

Some want to take away the right of many as a solution for the stupidity of a few. That's what all of the anti-gunner proposals boil down to.

I think increased exposure to guns coupled with increased quality education would ameliorate at least some of the stupid.

Some states certainly have tighter controls on gun ownership than others. Does anyone have a link to some statistics on the prevelence of "stupid behavior with guns getting people injured or killed" in those states? Versus those states where there are minimal controls?

That would seem to at least give us some basis for arguing one way or the other on whether controls are
a) something that works,
b) irrelevant, or
c) something that actually makes things worse.

[byomtov]

I think one thing that would help the debate enormously is a little - well, a lot - more information and honesty on both sides. The Cracked article points out a number of misconceptions non-gun people have about "assault weapons" and the like, including how often they are used in crimes and so on.

But let's get real on the other side as well. The US has a vastly higher rate of gun violence, including suicides, than almost every other advanced industrial society. It also has easier access to guns. To deny that these two facts are related is just dishonest. (And by the way, if you want to discount "thugs shooting thugs" then you should subtract those incidents from other countries' dath rates as well).

Guns are dangerous. They kill people. In the US they kill a lot of people. (Yes. Cars kill people too. But compare rates of ownership and use and this argument oretty much goes away.) It would be nice if we could reduce those numbers.

So here's the thing. How do we do that in a way that is acceptable to those who like guns?

[McKinneyTexas]

But I wonder, which is the cause and which is the effect? Do we have silly gun controls because those writing them want to impose lots of controls? Or do those writing them go that way because they cannot get sensible rules passed?

Sorry, but the logic her is that because we can't get something (undefined) smart done, we'll do something stupid instead, because it is easier to do stupid than smart.

Sorry. I don't see how this is to be done. Are the police supposed to randomly check on disqualified individuals? No. They are not going to do that. Those individuals will be caught and charged once they have committed a crime using a gun. In other words, this suggestion has no preventive value whatsoever.

Felons and others are apprehended all the time in possession of firearms. Routine traffic stops and interviews during investigations are two ways that bad people encounter the police.

and "the few" are responsible for a big chunk of the 30,000+ people who die, and the 80,000+ who are injured, every year in the US from guns.

300 shootings per day, on average.

The stats I've seen on accidental death/injury are pretty small. I'd like to see what you have that is different. Roughly half the homicides are suicides, or at least that was the case the last time I looked.

And, because they're hostile to gun ownership, they tend to draft the laws so as to have various gotchas in them, to be easily subject to abusive enforcement, inconvenience is viewed as a positive, not a problem...

There is more to this than many will acknowledge. Bloomberg, when he was mayor of NYC, made it his policy to arrest travelers passing through NY airports with properly declared and packaged guns if their flight required them to recheck their bags--or so the story went (my recollection is the story was true, but I could be wrong). This is the kind of chickenshit that makes it hard for there to be trust. But then along comes Lefty Russell and lays out a pretty balanced view. So, maybe big picture-wise, both sides on a number of key issues should exercise a bit of internal restraint and then see just how much daylight there is between their two positions. Ok, that's not happening. Fuck.

[Brett Bellmore]

"what makes this strange to read is that Kansas, under the leadership of arch-conservative Sam Brownback, has just eliminated its requirement for mandatory training course. an 8 hour class was too much of a burden.

they also eliminated the requirements for permits and certification for concealed carry."

This actually makes sense, if you think about it.

Consider that, in practice, people with concealed carry permits have a lower abuse rate than the police. The rate of actual problems is phenomenally low.

Consider also, that a large number of states have adopted concealed carry reform, with wildly different levels of regulation and training requirements. And the states that have the 'lax' requirements haven't seen any more problems than the states with the 'strict' requirements.

Now, if you don't consider inconveniencing gun owners a downside, there's no reason to consider over-kill in regulating guns to be a problem. But that's not Brownback. He actually is in a position where he regards inconvenience to gun owners as a downside, and so has to balance it against benefits. If he has evidence from other states, that many of the requirements Kansas is imposing don't actually provide any benefit, why shouldn't he relax them?

It's not like he regards harrassing gun owners as an independent benefit.

[cleek]

Something we could do about guns is ensure that citizens, starting at an early age, know all about them and how to handle them.

... lemme add...

i do agree with what i quoted there. if we're going to have a society where guns are potentially everywhere, it makes all kinds of sense to ensure that everyone knows how to handle them (of course that would mean mandatory education, which would certainly be anathema to someone).

but, yes, mandatory gun training sounds like a find idea to me.

because, liberal though i am, i have owned (and purchased, and then sold) guns in the past. i took the NRA training course. i killed a bunch of small wild animals and blew up a lot of bottles and cans. and then i figured out that i don't like killing things. and i do appreciate the mechanics and craftsmanship and even the aesthetics of a finely made gun. and i can certainly see why people would want to collect them. but i know that a gun in my house would just make me uncomfortable. because, like i said above, their primary purpose is to kill, and i'm not interested in killing. and i certainly wouldn't want a gun of mine adding to the accidental death count, and the idea of intentionally killing a person just makes me ill.

so, when i see gun fetishists fantasizing about plugging other people in righteous anger, i don't nod along in agreement. i wince.

[worn]

wj @ 9:55

Fair enough. I wasn't actually yet walking the earth in the time frame you & the article reference; I think my opinions about this aren't worth too much in that regard. But more importantly, I'd rather hew to Slart's earlier suggestion that commenters drive this thread towards left-right finger pointing, a suggestion I am glad to accept - for I am most interested in whether a rational discussion can be had on a topic that seems to bring forth so much irrationality.

Plus, I need to be getting ready for this trip to far west Texas I am about to embark upon with my father and uncle. There has already been a heated discussion between the two about exactly what sort of firepower is going to be needed for what is supposed to be a family reunion type event. Last I heard, my uncle thought he and my dad should be carrying long arms with me providing pistol cover from the perimeter as needed. My dad is on record as saying he doesn't really wish to get into any situation we are forced to shoot our way out of. This a literally the conversation they had.

Me? I'm just going to keep the voice recorder rolling for the entire journey.

[wj]

Sorry, but the logic her is that because we can't get something (undefined) smart done, we'll do something stupid instead, because it is easier to do stupid than smart.

Granted, it's stupid. Doesn't mean it isn't happening.

[worn]

Also: late to the conversation & OT, but just wanted to take a moment to also wish Brett all the best in facing what I am absolutely sure is a most trying time for he and his family. Take care, Brett.

[wj]

"...they also eliminated the requirements for permits and certification for concealed carry."

This actually makes sense, if you think about it.

Consider that, in practice, people with concealed carry permits have a lower abuse rate than the police. The rate of actual problems is phenomenally low.

It only makes sense if you assume that it is having a concealed carry permit which causes people to not abuse guns. Rather than, for example, that the effort required to get a permit filtered out those likely to abuse.

[cleek]

The stats I've seen on accidental death/injury are pretty small. I'd like to see what you have that is different.

i wasn't distinguishing between accidental and intentional with those numbers. those are simply total gun-related injuries and deaths.

Consider that, in practice, people with concealed carry permits have a lower abuse rate than the police.

Kansas is doing away with permits and training. well-trained, permitted CC people will not be Kansans.

[McKinneyTexas]

So here's the thing. How do we do that in a way that is acceptable to those who like guns?

Gun crime is down, as is most violent crime. It will never be down *enough*, but it is measurably down. Suicide is a function of depression and other mental imbalances/disorders. Our suicide rates are no different from a number of other western countries, the only difference is the method.

More crimes are committed in the US with guns because there are more guns. We have more car deaths because we have more cars. Some stuff can't be fixed beyond a certain point.

This actually makes sense, if you think about it.

No, it doesn't. If it did, it would make sense to issue drivers licenses without administering minimum driver competency tests. There are 300 million plus Americans, most of who live in crowded, urban environments. Too many of us are too close to too many others. We are crowded. I'd like to know that, when I'm asleep, that my neighbor has responsibly stored his/her pistols etc and knows how to use them. Requiring gun safety courses as part of issuing a concealed carry or hunting license is not an undue imposition. Texas is pretty loose on gun stuff, but we have a two day course for concealed weapons carry and a mandatory hunter safety course. No one's ass is being broken by either.

I'm not sure a general licensing requirement wouldn't pass constitutional muster and I'd be in favor of it if *it would end the discussion going forward.* The Big Fear is that it is the camel's nose inside the tent. If the committed gun controllers operated at Russell's level of good faith, I would make that deal.

[Icarus]

wj, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-heroux/the-correlation-of-gun-la_b_4528290.html

McKinney, right, the anti-gunners float all kinds of incorrect statistics about gun deaths: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities

"so, when i see gun fetishists fantasizing about plugging other people in righteous anger, i don't nod along in agreement. i wince."

As a gun owner and one who has trained to use a gun for self defense, what you describe makes me wince too. But again we have a very unfair characterization of gun owners that demonstrates why it is so difficult to talk about guns.

[russell]

That's fine.

Thanks Brett, I appreciate it.

My 'age of the Kalashnikov' comment reflected the widespread ownership of firearms worldwide having been quite the opposite of a bulwark against tyranny; consider, for instance the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

That's a completely valid point.

The 2nd A assumed a civilian population who participated, almost universally, in a militia that was under civil control at the state level.

The existence of a civil authority, subsidiary to the federal government, which also had a military capability of its own is probably a unique feature, or a nearly unique feature, of the US's history.

Part of the context of the 2nd A was the surrendering of sovereignty or near-sovereignty by the states, to the federal government, as part of the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution.

Folks were concerned about totally giving up local control of the militias in favor of a standing, professional federal army as part of that deal.

Again, IMO the relevance of all of that is somewhat attenuated by history. But that's a lot of the motivation at the time the 2nd A was written.

I'm struggling to think of a single example which might justify that hypothetical calculation.

A possible example might be the labor struggles of the late 19th / early 20th C.

Folks on the labor side literally went to war with folks representing industrialists, and government was largely on the side of the industrialists. By "on the side of" I mean supporting them with armed force.

Absent the guns, I'm not sure labor would have done as well. So, a *possible* example.

So, they're drafted by people who are militantly ignorant about firearms

Leaving out the "militantly", I think this is a reasonable objection. Understanding very basic things like, for instance, the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons seems like a reasonable requirement for people writing legislation.

The background check on private sales seems so sensible that find opposition to it just plain irrational.

I agree with this, completely. If there were one thing I would like to see change in current policy, it would be stronger enforcement of the background check requirement.

How to fix stupid--that is one for the ages.

For the sake of argument, I would propose some simple things.

If you handle a firearm in ways that don't comply with well-known safety practices, and someone gets hurt, you lose the right and privilege of having a firearm. Temporarily, if that makes it easier for folks to accept, but if so, to get the guns back you have to take a class in proper gun safety.

You are also liable for whatever civil or criminal charges apply to harming other people through personal carelessness or negligence.

Or: to own and use a firearm, you have to carry liability insurance. If you do stupid stuff and your insurer finds out, it costs you. Let the market sort out the numbskulls.

Would any of that be acceptable?

Also - way upthread - I agree with thompson's comment about people having guns for personal protection. IMO that's actually fairly common, and also IMO is legitimate.

[McKinneyTexas]

Plus, I need to be getting ready for this trip to far west Texas I am about to embark upon with my father and uncle. There has already been a heated discussion between the two about exactly what sort of firepower is going to be needed for what is supposed to be a family reunion type event. Last I heard, my uncle thought he and my dad should be carrying long arms with me providing pistol cover from the perimeter as needed. My dad is on record as saying he doesn't really wish to get into any situation we are forced to shoot our way out of. This a literally the conversation they had.

In west Texas? Seriously? Your family will be the only folks out there.

[Brett Bellmore]

"But let's get real on the other side as well. The US has a vastly higher rate of gun violence, including suicides, than almost every other advanced industrial society. It also has easier access to guns. To deny that these two facts are related is just dishonest."

But, I don't care about "gun violence", I care about violence. I don't care about "gun suicide", I care about suicide.

America has a higher level of violence than many other countries. Maybe if we had fewer guns, we'd have less of that violence involving guns. But "stabbed to death" is still dead. Suicide by overdose is still dead.

Why this obsession about the means?

Why this obsession about a means, that almost everybody in possession of it does NOT use for the objectionable end?

[wj]

Icarus, thanks for the links.

[McKinneyTexas]

If you handle a firearm in ways that don't comply with well-known safety practices, and someone gets hurt, you lose the right and privilege of having a firearm. Temporarily, if that makes it easier for folks to accept, but if so, to get the guns back you have to take a class in proper gun safety.

Agreed. If temporary, it should vary with the level of harm/stupidity.

You are also liable for whatever civil or criminal charges apply to harming other people through personal carelessness or negligence.

This is already civil law. Don't know about criminal, but when kids are involved, some statutes reach an adult's conduct, as they should.

Or: to own and use a firearm, you have to carry liability insurance. If you do stupid stuff and your insurer finds out, it costs you. Let the market sort out the numbskulls.

And for folks who are otherwise pristine but lack the funds? I disagree because it lets relative wealth determine who gets to exercise a right. And, it criminalizes missing a premium payment. Consider this: a gun owner required to pay for ACA and then lacking the funds to pay for gun insurance would have to sell his/her guns to comply with one law or the other. And, from the other end of it, insurers might balk at making "gun owner" insurance available.

[Brett Bellmore]

"No, it doesn't. If it did, it would make sense to issue drivers licenses without administering minimum driver competency tests."

If you had some states issuing driver's licenses without administering any competence tests, and in practice they had no higher level of traffic accidents than states that did require testing, it would make perfect sense for the states that do administer such tests to drop them.

A regulation, an imposition on the public, is a cost. If you see no additional benefit from imposing that cost, compared to not imposing it, then it is irrational to impose the cost.

Unless you're consumed with animus towards the people who will bear the cost, and thus view the cost itself as a benefit.

Which, unfortunately, is a perfectly good description of your average gun controller. They don't care about imposing costs on gun owners, because gun owners are the enemy, costs to them are themselves a benefit.

But Brownback isn't a gun controller, if a regulation provides no benefit, why should he retain it? And the evidence from states with 'lax' regulation is that strict regulations do not produce any benefits over letting anybody who can own a gun carry concealed.

[Countme-In]

OK, so we have Icarus' request for quality training and then we have facts on the ground such as Brownback's canceling all required training in Kansas, with the full-throated support of the NRA and the Black Panthers, though I noticed the latter were not called to testify in the hearings.

They call them hearings because people hear but don't listen.

Brownback is a lot closer to the sun and his wings haven't melted yet, which tells me the Overton Window on weapons regulation has shifted to the very stupid side, as opposed to the very stupid other side and there is a sniper standing in it, and it's not a kitten.

So, if the NRA, the supposedly moderate ones, has gone from what it was in the past, which seemed pretty acceptable to me and Ronald Reagan, to what it is today, it's not me that changed, it's the NRA and Ronald Reagan.

Basically, you've got the regulations being written by people who are ideologically and culturally hostile to any regulation of weapons whatsoever.

I agree with Turbulence and McTX's qualified agreement with Turbulence.

So, what's it going to be, Kansas or something a little less stupid?

By the way, in lj's article, just to point out that I'm a trouble-making outlier on the gun issue, the Ku Klux Klan confiscated weapons from freed slaves, which would seem to put the former at least part way on my side of the confiscation argument, but wait, what should have happened is the freed blacks should have shot the Klan clowns dead in their tracks and THEN offered to place their own weapons and ammo in an armory with restrictions on any use outside of hunting, if everyone else agreed to that measure, or to have them outright confiscated.

I have other recipes, but later.

So now, the snowmobile thing seems apt once again, in this context: innocent, law-abiding snowmobilers are punished via regulation by having to observe the rules of the trail, which were imposed because of a few dumbasses.

Like everything.

Why is regulation considered punishment of the innocent?

I don't consider the prevention of my car plowing through the median greenery a punishment just because some jackass ruined the pure joy of median strip navigation by turning into oncoming traffic a few times.

[cleek]

Why this obsession about the means?

guns are not knives. they are more deadly, efficient, and prone to causing accidental death or serious injury than any knife. nobody has ever been killed in their home by a knife thrown by someone who accidentally threw a knife into a wall in the house across the street.

it's like saying a bike and car can get you to the same place so we shouldn't spend so much effort regulating cars, while spending none regulating bikes.

[russell]

America has a higher level of violence than many other countries.

I agree with the comment from Bernie that you are responding to here, but IMO this is also a very apt point.

There are countries with very high levels of gun ownership - Switzerland, Finland - but which don't have anything like our level of violent crime and assault, whether gun-related or not.

It would be worth addressing.

Why this obsession about the means?

IMO the reason gun violence, specifically, gets attention is because of the remarkable efficiency of guns as a means of harming other people.

You can kill folks with a knife, but not from 100 yards away.

You can kill folks with a hammer or a bat, but their options for defending themselves and/or enlisting someone else in their defense are better than with a gun.

Guns are just really effective.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right. A gun is, mostly, a tool for killing things. As sometimes people are entitled to kill things, they are entitled to the means to kill things.

But if you're concerned about violence, a society where people are homocidally inclined, but just lack one particular tool of violence, seems to me to be a strange thing to aspire to. Just as pretending that the people most inclined to commit violence will reliquish the means, even as they commit all manner of other crimes, seems a bizzare thing to do.

And if you're opposed to suicide, you'd think you'd actually care about evidence that suicides just substitute other means, and continue to kill themselves, if you deny them guns.

But, gun controllers are not defined by their opposition to violence, or their opposition to suicide. They're defined by their opposition to guns. And it shows, boy does it ever. It shows in the way they focus laser-like on one particular means, and ignore that they've chosen a most indirect and ineffective route to their supposed goals.

Or maybe it's just pretext, all that talk about murder and suicide, and they just hate guns. I think that makes more sense of it.

[Icarus]

"Why this obsession about a means, that almost everybody in possession of it does NOT use for the objectionable end?"

Brett, ostensibly, the anti-gunners believe that if you remove the means the objectionable end is ameliorated. The reasoning being that guns are so extraordinarily lethal and easy to use that substitute methods would not only be less effective (i.e. cause less death), but would probably be used less frequently (e.g. too risky to the attacker, too awkward, too painful in the case of suicide).

I actually think this is a reasonable argument, though I ultimately disagree that the solution is to ban guns or even to impose more onerous laws (and I too believe there is sufficient evidence to suggest that a large group under the gun control tent DOES want to ban guns to the level of Australia or England and, given an opening, they'd drive right through it).

[wj]

if you're concerned about violence, a society where people are homocidally inclined, but just lack one particular tool of violence, seems to me to be a strange thing to aspire to.

Fair enough. So how would you, as a libertarian, propose going about changing a society where people are homocidially inclined? After all, if that is the problem that gun controllers really are (or should be) concerned about, what would be an acceptable path for them to take instead of gun control?

[russell]

And for folks who are otherwise pristine but lack the funds?

I hear you, but just to push back slightly, here is the NRA's liability insurance program.

$100 a year gets you half a million in coverage.

There are, no doubt, folks for whom $100 is a hurdle, but compared to the price of firearms and ammunition, it seems like not that much money, at least to me.

As noted, not trying to argue with you, just a mild pushback.

Also - Count, welcome to the discussion. I have no wish to step on anyone's style here on ObWi, however as a request I will ask that we keep the tone moderate on this thread, specifically.

Thanks to one and all for the reasonable tone thus far, I more than appreciate it.

[cleek]

are there a lot of pro-suicide out there?

[russell]

Or maybe it's just pretext, all that talk about murder and suicide, and they just hate guns. I think that makes more sense of it.

Please, no mind reading. At least here, for now.

Thanks!