General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Gun Is Never The Problem: A Guide To Right-Wing Responses To Mass Shootings
But the single proximate factor in all mass shootings, and in all gun violence really, is that it is easy for dangerous people to access high-powered firearms. Lack of access to firearms typically makes it difficult for would-be mass murderers to carry out their plans. For instance, experts say mass stabbings are extremely rare in the United States. To the contrary, 69 percent of all homicides are committed with a gun. Of 37 public mass killings since 2006, 33 involved firearms, while the Boston Marathon bombings, an incident involving a car, and two cases of arson accounted for the other four incidents.
Furthermore, academic research has linked the easy availability of firearms to homicide. According to numerous studies, "where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide." Compared to other high income nations which typically more strongly regulate the availability of firearms, the United States' gun homicide rate is 19.5 times higher, leading to an overall homicide rate that is 6.9 times higher. Research has also shown, "across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded."
Following the April 2 shooting at Fort Hood that left three victims dead and 16 others wounded, conservative media have refused to acknowledge the role of easy access to firearms in shootings and have instead claimed mass shootings are caused by video games, mental health problems, the "culture war," and by a deficiency in the number of firearms carried by the general public.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/04/07/the-gun-is-never-the-problem-a-guide-to-right-w/198768
billh58
(6,635 posts)GOP = Guns Over People.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)This is my generic response to gun threads. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70s, I dropped out of the NRA because they became more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that werent secured are out of control in our society. As such, heres what I now think should the requirements to possess a gun. Im not debating the legal language, I just think its the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because its clear that they should never have had a gun.
1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a renewable license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or registration I don't care.
2.) To get a license, they should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learners license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home.
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability policy insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) outside of home or when transporting it to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.).
9.) All guns should be registered. If you buy, sell, give away, inherit, or the gun changes hands by any other transaction, the registration should be recorded. Ammunition should be tagged.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process (if ever).
Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a drivers license you need a license to fish, rent scuba equipment, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)dilby
(2,273 posts)Everything you describe will basically make it so the wealthy will be the only ones who are able to exercise their 2nd Amendment. Kind of reminds me of a Poll Tax.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)I've been background checked by the BATF&E, FBI, Texas DPS, Tarrant Co. , and Arlington Police. It cost me $30.
If you can afford a gun and the ammo to learn to use it you can afford the rest of the package.
dilby
(2,273 posts)If it was just a background check at $30 that is fine, what they are listing is more like Thousands of dollars.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)If you can afford the fucking gun you can afford the rest of the package. If not the fridge probably empty and ya should be spend ing your money on better things.
dilby
(2,273 posts)And making the requirement to own one expensive directly affects the poor. So you support a system where rich people have more rights than poor people.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)If you can afford the fucking gun you can afford the rest of the package. If you can't you don't need the fucking gun.
derby378
(30,252 posts)BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Gunners seem to believe that the 2A guarantees easy access to as many guns as possible. The suggestions here fit with that part you keep forgetting about in that very text: WELL REGULATED.
NutmegYankee
(16,201 posts)As opposed to the militias often fleeing the battlefield in the War of American Revolution. Something our founding fathers were very aware of. The Constitution wasn't set up to maintain a standing army. Citizens of our country were expected to own arms and practice use as a civic duty similar to what Switzerland did. However, a brilliant artillery officer from France made the concept of unprofessional armies non-workable with his tactics, and the rest is history. Even the National guard isn't militia - It's professionally trained like the reserves of other countries.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)derby378
(30,252 posts)There's a lot of people who seem to think we only read the latter part of the Second Amendment, and that routine is getting old.
Instead of taking 30-year-old solutions out of the Brady Campaign/MAIG playbook, maybe it's time to evolve new ideas. We've tried to discuss a few on DU in the past.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution and that a flat license tax here involves restraints in advance the constitutional liberties of Press and Religion and inevitably tends to suppress their existence. That the ordinance is non-discriminatory and that is applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise is immaterial. The liberties granted by the first amendment are and in a preferred position. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and exist independently of the states authority , the inquiry as to whether the state has given something for which it cannot ask a return, is irrelevant. No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it"
That pretty well refutes...well...all of this nonsense.
And anti-gun absolutists tend to forget that they do not get to define amendment 2 for everyone else.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)Do you think unstable and dangerous people should possess guns? If not, then there has to be controls.
beevul
(12,194 posts)What part of "No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it" do you not understand?
"Do you think unstable and dangerous people should possess guns? If not, then there has to be controls."
Absolutely. Control the dangerous and unstable people, and leave the rest of us the hell alone.
Response to Sancho (Reply #26)
Hip_Flask This message was self-deleted by its author.
Hip_Flask
(233 posts)90% of this would fail on its face...
Sancho
(9,070 posts)What it costs you in a license fee is just like any other sport....and as it cost society more and more for the violence, the cost to be safe goes up.
You can always elect someone to put a tax on everyone to share the cost. That's not the issue.
Do you think unstable and dangerous people should possess guns? If not, then there has to be controls.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Unless you have a problem with the Fifth Amendment.
Paladin
(28,267 posts)BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)I would add that one must have an approved safe storage for all guns as many of these accidents happen with unsecured guns.
I also feel there should be some sort of limit. The idea that anyone can build an arsenal if they so choose is madness. We're talking about lethal weapons, not stamps or coins.
But then again, I think we should adopt Canadian or Australian gun laws or any sane restrictions because what we have now is absolutely horrifying.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)Sancho
(9,070 posts)Do you think unstable and dangerous people should possess guns?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)"Most of you know that a license is no big deal."
Murdock vs Pennsylvania says different.
"Besides a drivers license..."
You don't need a drivers license to own a car or to use one on private property.
"...you need a license to fish"
But not to own a fishing rod.
"...rent scuba equipment..."
But not to own it, or the compressor which refills the tanks.
"operate a boat"
Maybe in some places, but not in most.
Conflation. Of ownership versus usage in public. Typical.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)Do you think unstable and dangerous people should possess guns?
Please answer the question.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Oakenshield
(614 posts)Couldn't agree more.
Bryce Butler
(338 posts)pscot
(21,024 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Here's an academic study that says "shall issue" CCW states have a lower murder rate and it notes that other studies conflate homicide with murder.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Add to that, that the gun control absolutists ignore the other hundred million people who own 300 million guns, who didn't and won't be shooting anyone accidentally or deliberately within their lifetime...
Other than to blame them and the guns they own for it when someone bad in a country of 300 million does something bad with a gun.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)Bazinga
(331 posts)Isn't it considered "worth it" if it saves just one life?
I've never understood why the focus is gun crimes, gun suicides, or gun murders. Shouldn't the focus be on lowering the total of all of these?
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)Murders. While murders overall are down, murders with guns are flat, hence guns are not linked to a decrease in murders.
More guns means more death by gun just as more swimming pools means more drownings in pools.
Bazinga
(331 posts)Guns in the right hands apparently is linked to a decrease in murder. I'll admit that it is just as post hoc as "states with the tightest gun laws have the fewest gun crimes." But it certainly doesn't support more guns = more crime (a much more relevant relationship than more guns = more gun crime)
The swimming pool analogy has this weakness; while guns can be and have been used to prevent shootings, no swimming pool has ever been used to prevent a drowning.
Bazinga
(331 posts)You don't have to read past the abstract to find this;
"Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states."
Emphasis mine.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)hundreds of thousands of lives each year if we just ban abortion. Gun grabbers and pro-lifers both have the same mentality.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)Do you think unstable and dangerous people should possess guns?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)The number of households with a gun are at an all-time low.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Surveys w/o physical verification of the accuracy of responses depend entirely on the veracity of the respondents. In today's socio-political climate (at least in many parts of the country), I would be very surprised indeed if a good-sized portion of the people surveyed weren't unwilling to tell a stranger that they had firearms. Assurances of anonymity frequently fall on deaf ears. Would gun owners who lie to researchers account for the majority of the "decline" in gun-owning households I strongly suspect so. Gun sales are up enormously in recent years...and in my view this increase is too large to be accounted for my a vast increase in sales to a shrinking customer base.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I suppose that was at least somehow relevant to my reply. Kinda...
jeff47
(26,549 posts)They wanted a result, and when polls did not show that result, they made up reasons for the polls to be wrong.
Households with a gun is at a 40-year low (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html).
You are arguing that this result is due to massive, widespread paranoia. Because that fits the narrative you want.
You are also ignoring how this fits nicely into other surveys showing that the surge in gun purchases over the last few years is mostly due to people buying a 2nd+ gun. To make this fit with your claim, people are lying about gun ownership in the first survey, but telling the truth in other surveys.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I'm aware of the research indicating many "2nd gun" purchases. I'm not ignoring that it fits with the research claiming to show a significant drop in percentage of households with guns...because if the theory of underreporting gun ownership to curious strangers is valid, then that correspondence would be expected.
My analysis of the reliability on unverified sampling research has nothing to do with my preferences in the matter, nor it it remotely an uncommon objection to that methodology. Anyone with even the slightest grounding in statistical methodology is aware of this problem with survey polling.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)They do seem pretty good at dropping buzzwords as an excuse to ignore scientific research though.
sarisataka
(18,706 posts)Hosts reconsidered this as newsworthy.
Unlocking for further discussion.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Bazinga
(331 posts)That the ratio of threads started to total posts should be something worth consideration. In SecMo's case it would tell you all you really need to know about his contribution to the "conversation."
derby378
(30,252 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)where your opinion is in the minority.
but good luck with that.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Woo hoo! Perfect score!
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)seems like it.
Hip_Flask
(233 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)all the ones i found were right wing stuff, and i have my doubts about those sources.
do you read and believe a lot of that stuff? do you enjoy the Daily Caller?
alp227
(32,044 posts)It's been discussed on DU already, having originated in right wing media like Fox News and Daily Caller, the very media that Media Matters dissects. http://www.democraticunderground.com/117215542
When has David Brock or the "gun control left" ever wanted to ban armed guards?
Hip_Flask
(233 posts)... but rather that they are usually left entirely out of the conversation so that the elite will still have access to them.
'Cause they're super duper important and not a part of the lowly mob who have no need...
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)while being licensed to carry handguns in CA, no mean feat.
alp227
(32,044 posts)I thought gun control advocates supported licensed and regulated possession of firearms hence the "well regulated militia" portion of the 2nd amendment.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)RKBA is a recognized right of the people; the "well regulated militia" clause is the government's limited statement of interest in that individual right, not a conditioning of it. And in the context of the time, "well regulated" meant that citizens in a militia should have knowledge of how to use a firearm suitable for military service. (Training beyond that is outlined in Article 1.) So if I were called out for militia duty, I would report with a suitable, working weapon & ammunition which I knew how to use.
A constitutional right is not restricted by treating different classes of people unequally. Stallone's getting a license under a "may issue" system is an example of unequal treatment as he is likely able to get one while some poor shmuck in Los Angeles who must walk a dark street for blocks to get to work is unlikely. The schmuck is not accorded his Second OR his Fourteenth Amendment rights. Feinstein got her CCW as well in SF of all places.
The corrupted may issue system is a creature of post Civil War Southern state laws. Shall issue licenses in states where issued are constitutionally fair.
alp227
(32,044 posts)Anyone who demonstrates competence of using a gun, knowledge of safety rules, and has liability insurance should be able to get a permit.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)I support competency testing and knowledge of the law as it pertains to the carrying of weapons. This probably puts me at odds with some 2A defenders, and residents of Vermont, Alaska, etc. who allow carry without testing/permitting, but that is a state's prerogative I don't go with liability insurance requirements for exercising a constitutional right. If someone causes unlawful damage/injury by use of a gun, let him/her be sued.
I'm not sure what the disagreement is, other than the insurance suggestion. Am I missing something?
alp227
(32,044 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)The gun control outlook is highly elitist, and that breeds hypocrisy and consequential credibility problems. Moore, Feinstein, Stallone, Edward Kennedy, Mediamatters, and others evidently see little problem with hypocrisy. Elitism will do that.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Iggo
(47,561 posts)Calista241
(5,586 posts)The court is going to weigh in on what it means to "bear arms." Who knows what they're going to say when that happens.