stephen426
New member
I know that most anti-gun people will never be swayed, but I believe intelligent and respectful dialogue goes a long way. These debates always pop up after every horrific and senseless mass shooting. I know as responsible gun owners, we would love nothing more than to see an end to these tragedies, but at the same time, we do not want senseless legislation that would have no effect on crime while taking away our rights.
There was actually a pretty fair article written in the New York Times that was posted by a friend of a friend. Here is a link to the article:
Here was my reply to the post:
Thanks for the article Paul. It was actually pretty fairly written. Let's look at some of the suggestions and discuss them further. I'm going to use multiple replies so it is easier to see the links I am referring to. I want my sources available so you can determine whether or not they are biased or verifiable. The idea is to debate this intelligently and to figure out how to come up with ideas the make sense and are effective in actually reducing gun violence.
1. There are almost as many gun in the US as there are people. Only 6 states require some sort of registration.
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/.../gun-owner.../registration/
The only guns that are required to be registered federally are those covered under the National Firearms Act of 1934, which includes fully automatic weapons (machine guns), short barreled shotguns and rifles, and silencers. Those weapons must be registered with the BATF. Eight states actually have laws preventing the registration of firearms (other than NFA weapons).
So with that said, how would the government enforce gun registration? Most gun owners I know are staunchly against gun registration as it may be used for the purposes of gun confiscation at a later time.
That is where the car analogy falls short. Guns are much smaller than cars and are easily concealed. If your registration sticker is expired, you can get pulled over for it.
With a concealed weapon, no one will know you are armed unless applying aggressive stop and frisk tactics (which totally violates the 4th and 14th Amendment).
Also, the article stated that guns kill about as many people as cars. It later went on to clarify that roughly 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides. There were approximately 3,500 deaths attributed to guns classified as other (just over 10%) that are probably attributed to accidental shootings. That makes me question what category the 996 fatal police shootings fall under (justifiable homicides)? It also showed that there were 589 deaths associated with self defense shootings (1.6%).
The article puts that figure right next to 456 deaths from mass shootings (1.2%), which makes the self defense look small. My issue with that is many self defense situations are deescalated without ever having to fire a shot. Also, how many self defense shootings do not result in death?
That is a lot to start on so I will work on the next part in a separate reply.
I had a busy weekend so he replied: Also the article never makes the argument that guns kill about as many people as guns do. I don't think you read the article above carefully. So there is nothing to debate here.
My reply was:
Sorry for the delayed response. The article compared guns to cars. Cars are registered and have license plates so that the owners can be held accountable. If you run a red light, blow through a toll, or speed, a traffic cam will take your picture and hold you accountable. If your car is stolen, it is registered so a run of the VIN number can easily show it was stolen and who the rightful owner is.
For a lot of the ideas proposed by the article to work, registration is key:
Background checks - All new guns are sold through FFLs (Federally Licensed Firearms Dealers). The 22% cited by the article deals with private transfers (either legal or illegal). This may be the "gun show loophole" or the illegal "black market" sale. The point is that background checks are unenforceable unless you can PROVE who owned it to begin with and REQUIRE transfer documentation to the new owner (which could go through a FFL).
As for background checks:
Virginia Tech - Seung-Hui Cho: Underwent court-ordered psychiatric evaluation yet passed the background check and the required 30 days wait period in between gun purchases
Sandy Hook - Adam Lanza: Killed his mother and stole the guns she legally owned
San Bernardino - Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik: Guns were legally transferred from a friend who bought them legally. This is despite California's very strict gun laws.
Pulse Night Club - Omar Mateen: Had a G License which is required for armed security guards
Mandalay Bay Hotel Las Vegas - Stephen Paddock: Purchased his guns legally and cleared NICS background checks multiple times.
First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs - Devin Kelley: Should NOT have passed federal background checks, but the US Air Force failed to report his crimes to the NICS and he bought his weapons legally
I could go on, but I think you get the point here.
Protection Orders - There is a section in the NICS form that asks if anyone has a protective order against you. If the answer is yes, the dealer MAY NOT sell you a gun. https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics . That is already law.
Ban Under 21 (year old) - All of the shooters above, with the exception of Adam Lanza, were older than 21. People younger than 21 may only buy long arms (rifles and shotguns). I am for treating "assault rifles" (which have much more fire power) like handguns and raising the age to 21. I would also have no issues with requiring a "cooling period" on all guns (currently only required for handguns in most states). I don't believe it would have made a difference in any of the shootings listed above.
Safe Storage - Already a law, but pretty much unenforceable. Trigger locks are already required to be included with new gun purchases and some guns even have built in locks, but the use of safes and gun locks cannot be practically enforced. You can lock people up for failing to secure weapons from children AFTER the fact, but unless you are going from home to home (pretty much impossible without registration), it is not possible to enforce this law.
Straw Purchases - Already illegal. This is a question on the NICS form 4473, but it requires that the buyer/transferee answer honestly. Without registration, the original buyer can just claim they were buying it for themselves and then sell/transfer it to another person.
Ammunition Checks - Completely impractical and would not solve anything. Someone who is legally allowed to buy a gun would also legally be allowed to buy ammunition for that gun. If a criminal was able to obtain a gun illegally (through illegal transfer or theft), they could do the same for ammo. Ammo has no serial number and cannot be practically traced, even though law makers tried to create some kind of required tracking.
End Immunity (for Gun Manufacturers) - Completely unfair to gun makers since they cannot control how their products are used. How about suing car manufacturers for accidents since they can go over the speed limit? What about requiring breathalyzers in all cars? This has been suggested as a way to bankrupt gun manufacturers. What about the 350 million guns already here, many of which will last for many, many years if properly cared for?
Ban on Bump Stocks - Even the NRA is fine with this as it can make a semi-automatic firearm fire at nearly the same rate as automatic weapons. It is illegal to change a semi-automatic sear to a full-auto sear (making it fully automatic) so why allow bump stocks? Good luck finding them all and confiscating them though. Only the law abiding would turn them in.
Research Smart Guns - This doesn't resolve the problem of the 350 million guns already in the US, or the fact that the shooters above (with the exception of Adam Lanza) legally owned the guns and would have had the full ability to use them. Requiring a retrofit would cost billions of dollars and could not be done without affecting the reliability of the gun. Speaking of reliability, ask any officer if they would feel comfortable trusting their life on a device that required batteries and had to work ALL the time. Most quality guns are VERY reliable with good ammunition. Anything that would make them less reliable would face extreme resistance.
As for the increase in states that issue concealed weapons permits, statistics show that crime decreases. You may argue against those statistics, but concealed weapons holders must pass background checks and cannot pass if they have criminal backgrounds (assuming it is properly reported to the NICS. Criminals do not care about getting carry permits and unless the police have a right to illegally search or frisk anyone at random, guns will be carried illegally.
Let's circle back to gun registration. Without registration, most of the suggestions given by the author of the article are unenforceable. Gun registration would be met with extreme resistance since it could set up a gun grab. Even if law-abiding citizens did register guns, what about the criminals who are the ones committing the crimes? Would registration have stopped any of the shootings I listed?
Where does that leave us and how do we prevent more senseless tragedies without trashing the rights of law-abiding citizens. I am very open to discussion and debate, and honestly hope to never see another mass shooting. I know hoping won't do anything, so I am open to discussion.
There was actually a pretty fair article written in the New York Times that was posted by a friend of a friend. Here is a link to the article:
Here was my reply to the post:
Thanks for the article Paul. It was actually pretty fairly written. Let's look at some of the suggestions and discuss them further. I'm going to use multiple replies so it is easier to see the links I am referring to. I want my sources available so you can determine whether or not they are biased or verifiable. The idea is to debate this intelligently and to figure out how to come up with ideas the make sense and are effective in actually reducing gun violence.
1. There are almost as many gun in the US as there are people. Only 6 states require some sort of registration.
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/.../gun-owner.../registration/
The only guns that are required to be registered federally are those covered under the National Firearms Act of 1934, which includes fully automatic weapons (machine guns), short barreled shotguns and rifles, and silencers. Those weapons must be registered with the BATF. Eight states actually have laws preventing the registration of firearms (other than NFA weapons).
So with that said, how would the government enforce gun registration? Most gun owners I know are staunchly against gun registration as it may be used for the purposes of gun confiscation at a later time.
That is where the car analogy falls short. Guns are much smaller than cars and are easily concealed. If your registration sticker is expired, you can get pulled over for it.
With a concealed weapon, no one will know you are armed unless applying aggressive stop and frisk tactics (which totally violates the 4th and 14th Amendment).
Also, the article stated that guns kill about as many people as cars. It later went on to clarify that roughly 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides. There were approximately 3,500 deaths attributed to guns classified as other (just over 10%) that are probably attributed to accidental shootings. That makes me question what category the 996 fatal police shootings fall under (justifiable homicides)? It also showed that there were 589 deaths associated with self defense shootings (1.6%).
The article puts that figure right next to 456 deaths from mass shootings (1.2%), which makes the self defense look small. My issue with that is many self defense situations are deescalated without ever having to fire a shot. Also, how many self defense shootings do not result in death?
That is a lot to start on so I will work on the next part in a separate reply.
I had a busy weekend so he replied: Also the article never makes the argument that guns kill about as many people as guns do. I don't think you read the article above carefully. So there is nothing to debate here.
My reply was:
Sorry for the delayed response. The article compared guns to cars. Cars are registered and have license plates so that the owners can be held accountable. If you run a red light, blow through a toll, or speed, a traffic cam will take your picture and hold you accountable. If your car is stolen, it is registered so a run of the VIN number can easily show it was stolen and who the rightful owner is.
For a lot of the ideas proposed by the article to work, registration is key:
Background checks - All new guns are sold through FFLs (Federally Licensed Firearms Dealers). The 22% cited by the article deals with private transfers (either legal or illegal). This may be the "gun show loophole" or the illegal "black market" sale. The point is that background checks are unenforceable unless you can PROVE who owned it to begin with and REQUIRE transfer documentation to the new owner (which could go through a FFL).
As for background checks:
Virginia Tech - Seung-Hui Cho: Underwent court-ordered psychiatric evaluation yet passed the background check and the required 30 days wait period in between gun purchases
Sandy Hook - Adam Lanza: Killed his mother and stole the guns she legally owned
San Bernardino - Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik: Guns were legally transferred from a friend who bought them legally. This is despite California's very strict gun laws.
Pulse Night Club - Omar Mateen: Had a G License which is required for armed security guards
Mandalay Bay Hotel Las Vegas - Stephen Paddock: Purchased his guns legally and cleared NICS background checks multiple times.
First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs - Devin Kelley: Should NOT have passed federal background checks, but the US Air Force failed to report his crimes to the NICS and he bought his weapons legally
I could go on, but I think you get the point here.
Protection Orders - There is a section in the NICS form that asks if anyone has a protective order against you. If the answer is yes, the dealer MAY NOT sell you a gun. https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics . That is already law.
Ban Under 21 (year old) - All of the shooters above, with the exception of Adam Lanza, were older than 21. People younger than 21 may only buy long arms (rifles and shotguns). I am for treating "assault rifles" (which have much more fire power) like handguns and raising the age to 21. I would also have no issues with requiring a "cooling period" on all guns (currently only required for handguns in most states). I don't believe it would have made a difference in any of the shootings listed above.
Safe Storage - Already a law, but pretty much unenforceable. Trigger locks are already required to be included with new gun purchases and some guns even have built in locks, but the use of safes and gun locks cannot be practically enforced. You can lock people up for failing to secure weapons from children AFTER the fact, but unless you are going from home to home (pretty much impossible without registration), it is not possible to enforce this law.
Straw Purchases - Already illegal. This is a question on the NICS form 4473, but it requires that the buyer/transferee answer honestly. Without registration, the original buyer can just claim they were buying it for themselves and then sell/transfer it to another person.
Ammunition Checks - Completely impractical and would not solve anything. Someone who is legally allowed to buy a gun would also legally be allowed to buy ammunition for that gun. If a criminal was able to obtain a gun illegally (through illegal transfer or theft), they could do the same for ammo. Ammo has no serial number and cannot be practically traced, even though law makers tried to create some kind of required tracking.
End Immunity (for Gun Manufacturers) - Completely unfair to gun makers since they cannot control how their products are used. How about suing car manufacturers for accidents since they can go over the speed limit? What about requiring breathalyzers in all cars? This has been suggested as a way to bankrupt gun manufacturers. What about the 350 million guns already here, many of which will last for many, many years if properly cared for?
Ban on Bump Stocks - Even the NRA is fine with this as it can make a semi-automatic firearm fire at nearly the same rate as automatic weapons. It is illegal to change a semi-automatic sear to a full-auto sear (making it fully automatic) so why allow bump stocks? Good luck finding them all and confiscating them though. Only the law abiding would turn them in.
Research Smart Guns - This doesn't resolve the problem of the 350 million guns already in the US, or the fact that the shooters above (with the exception of Adam Lanza) legally owned the guns and would have had the full ability to use them. Requiring a retrofit would cost billions of dollars and could not be done without affecting the reliability of the gun. Speaking of reliability, ask any officer if they would feel comfortable trusting their life on a device that required batteries and had to work ALL the time. Most quality guns are VERY reliable with good ammunition. Anything that would make them less reliable would face extreme resistance.
As for the increase in states that issue concealed weapons permits, statistics show that crime decreases. You may argue against those statistics, but concealed weapons holders must pass background checks and cannot pass if they have criminal backgrounds (assuming it is properly reported to the NICS. Criminals do not care about getting carry permits and unless the police have a right to illegally search or frisk anyone at random, guns will be carried illegally.
Let's circle back to gun registration. Without registration, most of the suggestions given by the author of the article are unenforceable. Gun registration would be met with extreme resistance since it could set up a gun grab. Even if law-abiding citizens did register guns, what about the criminals who are the ones committing the crimes? Would registration have stopped any of the shootings I listed?
Where does that leave us and how do we prevent more senseless tragedies without trashing the rights of law-abiding citizens. I am very open to discussion and debate, and honestly hope to never see another mass shooting. I know hoping won't do anything, so I am open to discussion.