Broad approaches to gun control/regulation

[petronius]

As I read through all the posts today, I'm thinking that there are three basic approaches to gun control/regulation:

1. Controlling availability - this would be laws intended to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them, including strategies like registration, background checks, and so on, as well as laws like restrictive CCW intended to keep guns out of public space,
   
   
2. Controlling lethality - things like 'assault weapons' bans that are intended to reduce the lethality/effectiveness of privately owned guns, and
   
   
3. Education - mandatory training like California's Handgun Safety Certificate, safety presentations in school, etc.

Since it seems like all of DU is talking guns these days, I'm wondering which of these areas seems like the most fruitful area for conversation - i.e., in which is it likely that some common ground on reasonable regulation might be found? And at the same time, which of these broad strategies has the greatest chance of being useful - creating improvements in public safety without unduly infringing on gun owners' rights? Or is it none and none?

My initial impression is that the education route has the least risk of controversy, and the best chance of reducing accidents but not crime. Controlling availability has the most 'power' but lots of pitfalls, and trying to control firearm lethality is the weakest route.

(And I apologize for not posting this in GD, LBN, Meta, Cooking & Baking, HoF, or any of the other new gungeon-annexes; I thought I'd be a rebel and put it here... )

[Kaleva]

1. I think one will need a combination of all three.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

2. Education and proper enforcement of current laws. do away with the war on drugs. Enact a National

Medicare System which would include availability of good mental health. Put the arts, music and phys ed back in the schools. Go to a more European type School structure.

Need JOBS!!

Inner city Youths need some type of Summer Camps in rural settings.

see my journal for more of my thoughts on this issue if you are interested, thanks.

[rrneck]

4. Put the arts music and phys ed back in the schools

[radicalliberal]

9. What sort of phys ed do you have in mind?

Do you support genuine fitness programs for nonathletic students who have no interest in sports, or do you (like seemingly most people, including "progressives" who should know better) support the "old P.E." of compulsory sports with its institutionalized bullying of nonathletic students (especially boys) that actually discourage the sedentary kids from becoming physically active? Believe me, I know which approach works. I've personally experienced both in my life.

[rrneck]

12. I love the way you ask a question.

How about we put these four guys in charge?

I think your first option is the best.

[sarisataka]

3. Branching guns into the gun forum are we?

How novel

Controlling availability - this would be laws intended to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them, including strategies like registration, background checks, and so on, as well as laws like restrictive CCW intended to keep guns out of public space,

This would have some measure of success. If we could get the two reasonable people on each side to sit down and craft some good laws I would expect a small but noticeable effect.

Controlling lethality - things like 'assault weapons' bans that are intended to reduce the lethality/effectiveness of privately owned guns, and

At the risk of being offensive, this is ridiculous. Guns are lethal weapons, they will only make you dead once. Until a more reliable less-lethal weapon system is designed, guns are what we have.

Education - mandatory training like California's Handgun Safety Certificate, safety presentations in school, etc.

As you point out the least controversial and likely to have the greatest effect. Education will hopefully take some of the luster off the 'guns are cool' mentality. Combined with tighter background checks, there could be a significant decrease in deaths from guns.

Unfortunately none of this will stop the determined psycho.

[ehrenfeucht games]

15. Gun manufactures who make semi-automatics produce a defective product. They should be sued.

>> Controlling lethality - things like 'assault weapons' bans that are intended to reduce
>> the lethality/effectiveness of privately owned guns, and

> At the risk of being offensive, this is ridiculous. Guns are lethal weapons,
> they will only make you dead once. Until a more reliable less-lethal
> weapon system is designed, guns are what we have.

Semi-automatics appear to have design problems with their firing rate, relying on nothing more than an itchy trigger finger to act as a governor for limiting the rate of flow of bullets.

Surely, the technology exists to design better governors than this obviously faulty primitive mechanism.

Manufacturers should be sued out of existence, if they are unable to master proper safety technology for manufacturing their consumer products.

If the manufacturers of consumer products are really this technologically incompetent, then they should simply not be allowed to make consumer products.

Gun manufactures should be subject to the same sort of product liability laws and regulations as any other consumer product.

[sarisataka]

20. If they make a defective product

they should be liable. As in if more than one round is fired when the trigger is pulled, it would be defective,

A semi-automatic is fully under the control of the operator. The faulty primitive mechanism is a human being.
It is the same mechanism that operates aircraft, cars, trains, lawnmowers, toasters and spoons... among many other things. All of them can be harmful if misused. To use a firearm to commit murder is a misuse of the product. As with any other product, it is impossible to prevent every type of misuse.

[ehrenfeucht games]

31. So, if a car's engine had the power to go 400mph, with a leadfoot on the gas pedal, ...

...you'd be opposed to the government requiring a governor of some type to limit the speed of the car?

[sarisataka]

32. As long as it is consistent

We have cars that can more than double the highest allowed speed in the US, do we consider them defective or sue the manufacturer because the car is too fast? Ever car commercial shows the car going very fast or being operated recklessly; there is a tiny disclaimer that you should not do this. Are car makers held responsible for those who do not follow the disclaimer?

No we hold the operator of the vehicle responsible for misusing it.

[Ashgrey77]

33. I own a Honda superbike that will do 180mph+ without breaking a sweat.

I hardly ever hear anyone complain about that. If you think guns are dangerous, my motorcycle is WAY more dangerous than any gun. Any no, I didn't have to take a class to learn how to ride it, or to get my license, and I don't even have to wear a helmet if I don't want to.

[friendly_iconoclast]

37. Hence the word 'donorcycle'....

[Abq_Sarah]

38. Absolutely

It doesn't matter what speed the vehicle is capable of achieving, you need a responsible person behind the wheel. Personally, I think 3/4 of the people behind the wheel at any given time in my state should never have been granted a license to drive but luckily for them, my personal fear of their erratic and irresponsible actions do not dictate their ability to drive.

[virginia mountainman]

5. My thoughts

Controlling availability - this would be laws intended to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them, including strategies like registration, background checks, and so on, as well as laws like restrictive CCW intended to keep guns out of public space,

No problem with background checks, registration is a non-starter. I don't like the idea of a government list to "who owns what". America is very different today than it was when I was young, today, I saw a video of a "government agent" or a group of police, turning police dogs loose on babies in strollers...where do we go from here?!

As for CCW restrictions, whats the point?? Most of these mass shootings happen in "gun free zones" all that does is insure that the law abiding are unarmed, and time has proven that the law abiding are not the ones you must worry about. The theater in Colorado was a "gun free zone" it absoluty did not stop the killer.

Controlling lethality - things like 'assault weapons' bans that are intended to reduce the lethality/effectiveness of privately owned guns, and

Semi automatic rifles are here to stay, and have been for well over 100 years. They happen to be the best selling rifles in America. Attempts to ban them only make them more desirable. And lethal?? The 12 gauge shotgun, is one of the most lethal, and powerful weapons a civilian can own. At close range a 12 gauge loaded with buckshot is a FEARSOME WEAPON, and WILL remove limbs from the targeted person. Once all is said and done, I expect to learn that the most deadly weapon he used in the theater that night was the shotgun. The AR15 is just a little more than a glorified .22 in power, and it is not lethal unless you hit an organ, or a main artery. I know this because, I was raised a hunter, and understand "what gun, would be used for what purpose" actually Guns, like the AR15 in its standard caliber of 5.56 or .223, are BANNED in many states for hunting, not due to magazine capacity, but because they are too weak to reliably make a clean, merciful kill. Guns of that type tend to wound, not kill. And sadly that is by design, and the rifles military heritage if you wound an enemy soldier on the battlefield, it takes 2 more out of action to care for him...If you kill him, he does not take anyone else out of the battle, since he no longer needs care.

Education - mandatory training like California's Handgun Safety Certificate, safety presentations in school, etc.

I am 100% with you on that one.

[TPaine7]

6. Can you share a link to the police dogs vs babies? Thanks. n/t

[virginia mountainman]

7. It is unreal...

[petronius]

8. That's really scary looking - seems like the dog escaped and went a bit nuts

rather than being released, but there ought to be some consequences for that.

I saw in the Times this morning that Anaheim PD had another officer-involved shooting last night, but at least in this case the officer was fire on first. Still, could be a hot summer in the OC if this isn't defused...

[jimmy the one]

18. glorified 22?

sarisataka: At the risk of being offensive, this is ridiculous. Guns are lethal weapons, they will only make you dead once. Until a more reliable less-lethal weapon system is designed, guns are what we have.

Agree, what you wrote is ridiculous (to what you replied to). Tell you what, I challenge you to a duel. You can use a 22 caliber handgun using 22 shorts, & I'll use an M16, from 150 yards. You can even shoot first (head helmets & heart plate required).
In wwII american gis complained about the m1 carbine, that it sometimes took 3 body hits to bring down a japanese enemy. (the garand m1 was better of course). Semantic games need not apply when speaking of lethality.

Va mtnman: The AR15 is just a little more than a glorified .22 in power, and it is not lethal unless you hit an organ, or a main artery.
I know this because, I was raised a hunter, and understand "what gun, would be used for what purpose" actually Guns, like the AR15 in its standard caliber of 5.56 or .223, are BANNED in many states for hunting, not due to magazine capacity, but because they are too weak to reliably make a clean, merciful kill. Guns of that type tend to wound, not kill.

pffft; not that you're wrong on all, but calling it a glorified 22 is like calling a harley davidson 1100 a glorified moped.
.. bullet energy is determined by kinetic energy, and the formula is thus:
Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x mass x velocity squared
A 22 short might have a muzzle velocity of 1100 fps, & the .223 from the AR15 a muzzle vel of 3,000 fps.

KE 22 short = 1/2 x ~40 grains x 1100 x 1100 = 24 million
KE .223 fmj = 1/2 x ~60 grains x 3,000 x 3,000 = 270 million

so the AR15 .223 fmj delivers 11 times more kinetic energy to the target, than the 22 short.
.. the .223 can cavitate inside the body, creating a kind of shock wave around the bullet path, 1 to 2 inches in diameter, disrupting tissue & organs etc. A 22 will generally just create a wound similar to being stabbed with a long dagger thrust.
.. the .223 tends to fragment into 2 parts which create two bullet paths thru the body, one or both cavitating.

You are correct it, the m16 = AR15 more or less, was designed as much to wound terribly rather than kill, as well as being much lighter to carry about with the .223s bandolier. Actually a better way to put it is that it was designed to kill but if it didn't, it would leave a terrible ghastly wound which would divert troops to tend to the victim.
But the m16 is far more lethal than most rifles, in spite of this. It can take an arm off at the shoulder (see kinetic energy above), which does'nt kill immediately but 2 minutes should do it. The body holes are such that they can't be survived much.

.. what part of sheanadoah you in, vmm? lynchbg?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

26. At least part of what you say has a scientific basis. What is your source for saying that

"In wwII american gis complained about the m1 carbine, that it sometimes took 3 body hits to bring down a japanese enemy. (the garand m1 was better of course)."

[Marengo]

36. Would you by chance have a cite for...

"the m16 = AR15 more or less, was designed as much to wound terribly rather than kill"?

I've heard the 5.56 was designed specifically to wound for the logistical considerations you state, but then have also heard that this is a myth.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

10. 1)Tax break/refund for gun safes 2)Free Body Armor for everyone 3)teach guns in schools

All of these suggestions address some facet of controlling availability, reducing lethality of incidents, and educating minors about the proper/safe handling & operation of firearms - AS proposed in the OP.

[flamin lib]

16. So everybody is supposed to subsidize your hobby? I'd like a taxbreak/refund for new sails

because it would relax me and make it less likely to kill people.

Counter offer: make it legally mandatory to all you suggest at the firearm owner's cost or fine the livin' shit out of them.

It's the stick approach. Ya' can keep the carrot.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

19. Clearly you're not intersted in helping to keep guns more secure and people safer.

All three of these will encounter no constitutional hurdles and will make guns harder to obtain as well keep people more informed & protected. The fact that you're not interested in helping the situation (anything is better than nothing, after all) shows that your real reason for the pursuit of gun control isn't safety... but rather the guns. It's OK, just admit it.

[flamin lib]

21. I thought you were kidding in post #10. Really, I did.

I'm supposed to buy you a gun safe? And body armor? Gee I just recovering from #10 and now you hit me with this! Oh and teach guns in school! Yeah, right next to Creationism! Like I've said, one of the world's great religions!

What about all that 'responsible gun ownership'? You want me to pay you to be responsible? Should I also pay you to put the guns in the safe?

Oh! I got it! You want free body armor so you can play paint ball with your 9mm, right?

I'm breathless! I really thought you were kidding! Too fucking funny.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

22. Hey, I'm just following suit...

You got DUers all over the place clamoring for delusional pipe dreams like Repealing the 2nd Amendment, Semi-Auto Bans, 3 round limits, compulsory buybacks/confiscations, one round limits and all other sorts of ridiculous asinine suggestions. And when you point out the absurdity of their suggestions, the response you get is either "NRA Talking Points!" or "Somethings better than nothing and we need to act NOW!!!"

I might as well join the party and make some suggestions that are never gonna happen until Hell freezes over too! Lets ALL make ridiculous suggestions, YAY! Hell, at least my solutions might address the three points in the OP and aren't blatantly unconstitutional.

[flamin lib]

23. Whew! My confidence in rationality is somewhat renewed. I did get a laugh tho . . .nt

[ehrenfeucht games]

11. All three.

And let's repeal the Second Amendment while we are at it.

[oneshooter]

13. Have you started doing that yet?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

14. nice post, Lee Mercer, Jr

[Pullo]

17. And prove Wayne LaPierre right by seeking to do so

If you don't like the NRA now, just wait and see how powerful they become if there's a serious push to repeal the 2nd.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

27. You're right. Wayne LaPierre, before the AWB, was a low-level functionary in the Democratic Party.

[Eleanors38]

35. It's a-comin.' See my post below.

[iiibbb]

24. My response

(1) Likely to succeed. Expand background checks, especially for first time purchasers. Better links for reportable mental health disqualifies.

(2) I think it is frankly a misconception that so called "assault weapons" are any more lethal and/or effective than other weapon types.

(3) Education is fine. I don't have problems with having an general safety certification program that is tied to purchases; I would have more trouble with "proficiency" being a requisite. I would just make this for first time purchases and good for 5 years.

[One_Life_To_Give]

25. Graduated Licensees

Background checks, Storage requirements and Psych exams graduated upon the potential public hazard. Applied to all public and private. If it is safe for Police to posses an M16 then an individual will be eligible to meet the same requirements. Certainly no politician shall enjoy any preferential treatment not available to the general public.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

28. "the education route has the least risk of controversy"? Just wait until someone points out that

it is an "NRA talking point."

[jimmy the one]

29. m1 carbine

MacIntosh: At least part of what you say has a scientific basis. What is your source for saying that
"In wwII american gis complained about the m1 carbine, that it sometimes took 3 body hits to bring down a japanese enemy. (the garand m1 was better of course)."

I was working from memory, came across it years back when I was interested in the m1 garand, which pops either brought back from wwII south pacific (papua new guinea), or bought a replica here in states - we kids played with it as kids, demilled. Uncertainty arises since I've read that garands, & all army rifles, could not be taken home unless on certain circumstances, like an honor gift.

The first M1 carbines were delivered in mid-1942, with initial priority given to troops in the European Theater of Operations (ETO)
The M1 carbine with its reduced-power .30 cartridge was not originally intended to serve as a primary weapon for combat infantrymen, nor was it comparable to more powerful assault rifles developed late in the war. Nevertheless, the carbine was soon widely issued to infantry officers, American paratroopers, NCOs, ammunition bearers, forward artillery observers, and other frontline troops.
... In the Pacific theater, soldiers and guerrilla forces operating in heavy jungle with only occasional enemy contact praised the carbine for its small size, light weight, and firepower.
.. Other soldiers and marines engaged in frequent daily firefights (particularly those serving in the Philippines) found the weapon to have insufficient stopping power and penetration. Reports of the carbine's failure to stop enemy soldiers, sometimes after multiple hits, appeared in individual after-action reports, postwar evaluations, and service histories of both the Army and Marine..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_carbine

I've also read that it wasn't a true carbine of the garand, but an m1 carbine in name only, with significant differences, dunno what.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

30. Thanks. The Wiki links certainly seem to confirm that certain WW II stories (but not Korean War or

Viet Nam experiences where the M1 carbine was also used) were the basis for the occasional stories that GI's from WW II complained about the reported lack of stopping power of the M1 carbine.

My experience includes carrying the M-14 and firing both the M1 and the M1 carbine. Those from WW II who were experienced with the M1 Garand and its 30.06 cartridges could very well find the 7.62 cartridges used by the M1 carbine and the M-14 to be less than optimum. But, of course, the same persons would probably reject the smaller .223 rounds and the M-16 as well.

The WIKI comment appears to be based upon an inadequate sample. If the M1 carbine really lacked stopping power and was widely criticized by GI's for lacking stopping power, the stories should have included complaints from the Korean War and the early Viet Nam War vets that used them. If the 7.62 round is actually inadequate and too small in comparison to the 30.06, the M-14's and the M-16's should never have been adopted. (Howver, if there is a legitimate basis for an experienced shooter to criticize the M1 carbine, it is that they were affected by heat and they had a tendancy to jam. I was able to jam one with a first-time use with less than 20 rounds. It couldn't be freed up until it cooled down. Nothwithstanding the "M1" designation, the mechanism design is different than the M1 Garand.)

[Eleanors38]

34. There is a problem with the education approach...

Certainly, better training for CC is desireable, nut that is not adequate.

We meed an education campaign thru the media (social and mass) to promote securing arms at home, promoting training even where not required, de-bunking media-created myths about guns, advancing positive shooting sports activities, advancing responsible role models, & many more. This could be through PSAs & paid programming. BUT what are the odds MSM & networks will go along?

MSM has created a culture war. They are totally invested in this war. IMO, they would't take ad money for programming which showed anything which would deviate from its agitprop.