Gun Control

[TrueBlue711]

One thing I'm tired of seeing is comparing our gun laws to another country's gun laws and say their gun deaths are so much lower due to their strict gun laws. Usually it's Australia or Britain that I see in these arguments. While we may speak the same language, we are completely different countries with different cultures and different histories. No other country was literally founded with the right to bear arms in mind. It is part of our culture, where it is not in other countries'. Here's a case-study country I havn't seen any comparison to in the news: Switzerland. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe about 50% of the populace own firearms (to include military style rifles, not just bolt/pump actions) and also has a incredibly low crime rate. Granted, they have mandatory military service which allows those who served to own their issued gun to stay a militia. But I still find it interesting they're never brought up in these country comparisons. But again, I don't want to compare our gun laws to another country's. I get it. People do these comparisons because case studies are easy to do. But Tom Servo was right, lets look at ourselves instead of other countries for case studies. Look at the crime rates at cities and states with strict gun laws. Chicago is first to come to mind...

You can issue laws banning semi-automatics all you want, but nobody will turn them in. I think the govt will notice a disparity between ARs sold vs turned in. The only way I can see complete eradication of guns, even just semi-automatics, in America is literally a civil war and/or swat teams going door to door. If that was to happen, many would maybe give them up. But there will be those who won't want to give them up. You said you were a cop. What would be your reaction if you got orders to go to 50 houses a day until every house in your jurisdiction was visited, to take away their guns. That's 50 chances a day you will get fired upon from those not willing to give them up and will either get shot, or be forced to shoot somebody who just wants to be left alone. Imagine what the death toll would be then. Obviously, this is a very extreme case, but it ties in with the "just ban all semi-automatics" scenario without thinking about the logistics and consequences behind it.

P.S. Justin, this is in all due respect. The comparing country gun laws and ban semi-automatics argument is seen a lot. I hope this thread, if anything, made you think about it some more. Thanks for being brave and posting this on a firearms forum instead of anti-gun forums and preaching to the choir.

 

[Justin.T]

You are welcome and thank you.

 

[FITASC]

However I feel like at this point one never knows if and when they will fall victim to the next mass shooting where 20, 30, 50+ people are gunned down with relative ease because the tool they are using makes it that easy.

What about mass killings via homemade bombs, vehicles, or other means? No one can foresee or predict every possibility that someone bent on killing people can dream up.

Banning an object does nothing to stop the root cause. That is putting a bandaid on a severed artery - it never has good results.

 

[tony pasley]

Justin have you ever looked at the laws governing the Swiss people concerning firearms?

 

[Justin.T]

Tony, aren't the Swiss the second highest owners of guns but are they the country where everyone serves and gets a military rifle but has to keep it on base?

 

[Justin.T]

Oh wow it looks like they are stored at home, I'll read more.

 

[Theohazard]

Justin: First, I'd like to say I appreciate how civil you're being during this discussion. I wish all the TFL members in this thread could have been as civil as you, but that's what we have moderators for.

I'll also say that I don't think your position makes any sense. You say your goal is to enact gun bans in order to reduce the number of mass shootings, yet then you said you don't advocating banning the number-one weapon used in mass shootings: handguns. I certainly don't mean this as an insult, but I think your position is based solely on ignorance and emotion.

And that's OK. Emotions subside and ignorance can be corrected. After that, I hope you'll begin to see that "assault weapons" like the AR-15 are rarely used in crimes -- even mass shootings -- compared to handguns, and at the same time are some of the most practical and useful firearms out there in terms of sporting and defensive use.

On a side note, "assault rifle" is a correct term for an intermediate-powered rifle that is capable of full-auto fire. But the term is almost always misused to refer to semi-auto rifles.

 

[Dufus]

Also, again, I'm just talking about mass shootings

I beg forgiveness if I misunderstand, but wasn't your post about banning semi-auto firearms??

 

[SonOfScubaDiver]

Y'all say that the AR15 style rifles aren't used as much in mass shootings as handguns. That may be true, but when AR15 style rifles do get used, the number of casualties is much higher. Vegas, Orlando, Colorado, San Bernardino, Newtown, and others, are shootings where those types of rifles were used. Any way you slice and dice it, those types of rifles are patterned after military automatics. They look like military autos, have higher count magazines available for them, and with the right accessories can fire almost as fast as full autos can.

I don't pretend to know how to solve all these mass shootings, but I do know that these types of rifles certainly are more a part of the problem than too many of us in the gun community are willing to admit. There's nothing anyone can say to convince me that the 2A is a blind endorsement of anything and everything gun related. We have to find a balance between our right to keep and bear arms and public safety because, if we don't, the day will come when we will no longer have that right.

 

[turkeestalker]

We have to find a balance between our right to keep and bear arms and public safety because, if we don't, the day will come when we will no longer have that right.

... and still be faced with the issue of public safety, or lack there of.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Australia banned certain types of guns after a mass shooting and one hasn't happened since. I think they count a mass shooting as more than 5 people not known by the shooter.

In Australia, at least five people were shot in a single incident in 2002 (Monash), 2011 (Hectorville), and 2014 (Hunt family). So that statistic isn't correct. More importantly, how many mass shootings were there before 1996? If it was a relatively rare event to begin with, then recent scarcity doesn't tell us much.

But let's put that aside and assume you are correct that banning semi-autos would be effective at reducing mass shootings. Australia confiscated around 600,000 guns overall. More AR15s have been sold in a single year than that in the United States. You are talking an exponentially more difficult task that will require a police state to implement. How do you see that going down?

 

[Targa]

I have read this thread and tried to stay out of it but I guess I can't. The problem with violence is nothing new and it will continue well after we are gone. The biggest difference today is that we are in such a progressively choked nation that has absolutely turned its back on God....well, there are consequences. It has nothing to do with a firearm and every thing to do with flat out evil.
Let bans come, NOTHING will change.

 

[hbhobby]

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms and this number is not disputed. The US population is 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016, do the math that is 0.000000925% of the population die from gun related accidents each year. statistically speaking this is insignificant. what is never told however the breakout of those 30,000 deaths to put them in to perspective as compared to other causes of death.
65% of those debts are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
15% of my law enforcement in the line of duty and are justified
17% or through criminal activity gang and drug related or mentally or persons
3% or accidental discharge death
so gun violence is not 30,000 annually but 5100. still too many!
lets see how these deaths span across our nation
480 homicides 9.4% were in Chicago
344 homicide 6.7% were in Baltimore
333 homicides 6.5% were in Detroit
119 homicides 2.3% were in Washington DC
so basically 25% of all gun crime happens and just for cities all four of those cities have strict gun laws so it is not the lack of laws that is the root cause!
that basically leaves 3825 for the entire rest of the nation or about 75 deaths per state that is an average because some states have much higher rates than others for example California had 1169 in Alabama had 1 now who has the strictest gun laws by far California! of course but understand it’s not the guns causing this it’s a criminal. It must be something other than the tool causing a gun deaths.

 

[44 AMP]

are they the country where everyone serves and gets a military rifle but has to keep it on base?

I'm not sure what the Swiss are doing today, but in the 70s, they kept their military rifles AT HOME (along with at least 100 rnds of ammo), not on base.

And for the past half century or so, that military rifle has been some variant of a SIG, capable of select fire. (meaning it has full auto fire capability).

Rifles that under US law is ARE machine guns. Rifles that US citizens are not allowed to own under current already existing law, found in the majority of Swiss homes!! Yet, one doesn't hear about much violence in Switzerland.

This should strongly suggest it isn't military rifles that create the problem here, its the people.

Like wise, the example of prison. NO guns, no weapons of any kind for the inmates, but how safe do you think you would be if you lived there? Again, not the weapons (presence or absence) its the PEOPLE!!!

Here's something to consider, among many species of mammal, it has long been recognized that, for no reason we can determine, certain individuals (almost always male) run "amok". They literally go on a killing rampage, doing violence to all they run across. When this happens with elephants, its a rather serious matter...

Perhaps mankind shares this trait. Perhaps not, but it would explain certain kinds of behavior.

Another thing to consider, also something known (and proven) about mammals, when dirt, noise, and overcrowding reach a certain level, general mass insanity often results. (and, of course, the tolerance of individuals is..individual) Again, PERHAPS human beings have a similar behavior, and what varies is the tolerance.

Put too many rats in a cage, they eat their young. There MIGHT be a link there....

here's another point to consider, every one of the mass shootings, EVERY SINGLE ONE, happens at a location where people are not armed and capable of shooting back. They never happen at a shooting range, or a police station in a building full of armed people able to shoot back.

Even a military base has been the target, people would think there are lots of guns, but there aren't, really. All the soldiers guns are locked up in arms rooms, except for the ones carried by MPs on duty. And, when I was in (and I don't think its changed) all loaded arms carried on duty outside of active combat zones, had to be carried chamber empty.

The attacker ALWAYS has the advantage of initiative. They choose where, and when. There is NO WAY to accurately predict who might do this, outside of science fiction.

NO TEST, no screening, no background check can see inside the human heart (or mind if you prefer). And that includes those "trusted" armed folks who wear uniforms, and carry badges of some kind.

 

[JohnKSa]

...AR15 style rifles...those types of rifles are patterned after military automatics. They look like military autos, have higher count magazines available for them, and with the right accessories can fire almost as fast as full autos can.

Actually, the M16 (the military version of the AR15) came after the AR15. Not the other way around.

That may be true, but when AR15 style rifles do get used, the number of casualties is much higher.

Higher than when other guns are used? Are we concerned about GUNS, or are we concerned about the actual casualties. If it's the latter, then why focus on guns. Clearly truck attacks can be just as deadly as gun attacks, in fact probably moreso.

If we get rid of all semi-autos and people turn to truck attacks as an alternative it would be reasonable to expect worse casualty numbers, since the alternative method is more effective. Moreover trucks are easier and cheaper to acquire since people can rent them for less than a rifle costs and without having to undergo a background check. Furthermore, nearly everyone can drive but not everyone knows how to shoot a rifle. In other words, the problem of mass casualty attacks could actually be made worse by the "solution".

You don't solve a problem by deciding up front what the solution will be without knowing the facts, without considering possible unintended consequences and without trying to do some basic analysis to determine if the solution will have the intended goal.

In fact, it's important to carefully define a goal in the first place. If the goal is to feel safe, that's a non-starter. Even in a hypothetical world with no semi-autos** there are still numerous ways to cause mass casualties. If the goal is to reduce mass murders or reduce the number of casualties, then one should consider alternative approaches that would-be mass murderers could employ to see if the solution makes sense. If mass murder techniques are a bathtub full of ping pong balls that must all be kept submerged at once with only two hands, then permanently sinking one ball doesn't really solve anything.

BUT, if the goal is to eliminate semi-autos (and that's what it sounds like the goal really is) then let's be honest about it. Let's not pretend that it's about feeling safe or reducing casualties because it's clear that eliminating semi-autos not only can't do that, eliminating semi-autos isn't even possible.**

The right way to solve a problem.
1. Carefully define the problem.
2. Research the problem.
3. Research solutions.
4. If an effective solution is found then implement it.
5. If no effective solution is found then move on to another problem.

The wrong way to solve a problem.
1. Decide we "have to do something that makes us feel better".
2. Implement a response based on feelings without knowing if it will help or hurt and without actually having defined the problem we're trying to solve in the first place.


**I say hypothetical because this is never going to happen. I don't know how a country of people who has seen how ridiculously ineffective the war on drugs has been at reducing drug use and drug sales can pretend that a ban on semi-auto firearms would actually eliminate them. It can't eliminate them.

If people want them they will be smuggled in, they will be made illegally or they will be modified from existing firearms. If you want an eye opener, here's a guy who modified his single action revolver to fire 14 rounds without reloading. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/03/03/maurice-frankenruger-magazine-fed-revolver/

And that's a very basic mod. It's not that difficult to make an entire firearm with easily available equipment these days. If the demand is there, you can bet that there will be a supply to feed it.

So what's the point of banning them? To make them hard to get and use? Like illegal drugs are hard to get and use? Right, that obviously works really well.

Maybe it's to reduce the casualties? In France, the Bataclan shooting casualties were not eliminated or even reduced by the fact that the weapons used were illegal to own. It doesn't take much thought to realize that the fact that a particular weapon is illegal won't make it less effective in a mass attack.

The point of the ban is to take semi-auto firearms from law-abiding persons. It's not going to take them away from criminals because criminals don't follow the laws (by definition). It obviously is not going to make them less effective in the hands of those who illegally acquire and use them, it just means that law-abiding persons will have to use less desirable firearms for self-defense and recreation.

It is worse than pointless. If it had no negative effect, it would be pointless because it is an action which obviously can not achieve the desired goal. But it does have a negative effect. So it not only can't achieve the desired goal, it also takes a useful tool away from the law abiding population. Worse than pointless.

 

[armoredman]

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/report-australia-gun-control-fail/

Louder with Crowder link dealing with the Australian unilateral personal disarmament scheme and how badly it has actually failed, with graphs.

My personal feelings about the knee jerk reactions after a mass murder event.

And lastly, for the Swiss, I have been told their SIG rifles are converted to semi auto only when they are sent home with the former soldier. Not that that would make much difference to a trained soldier, of course - semi auto fire is going to be more accurate, no matter what.

 

[Spats McGee]

I've been watching this thread for a couple of days, and am just now finding time to wade in. Justin.T, we (here at TFL) see posts like yours after virtually every mass shooting. We've even had a few new members sign up, just so that they could post a call for gun control.

Anyway, I'll begin at the beginning.

. . . .I wrote this to a friend of a friend and wanted to see if there are others that think like me. I am a pretty liberal guy, not really the bleeding heart type if you want to try and stereotype, but liberal none the less. I own 3 firearms, believe in the ability to protect yourself on an individual level, believe in hunting for food and enjoy the sport of shooting a couple times a year. I am not scared of the government and believe in regulation to protect society.

With all due respect, this is THE quintessential opening move for antigun pieces. I can no longer count the number of antigun bits I've seen that start with someone saying, "I'm a hunter and I believe in the Second Amendment, but . . . . "

. . . .Here is the thing, there is a model at how to address mass shooting and its been completely successful but it would be a huge change in this country and would not go over smoothly. If I was in charge I would do it in a second.

Australia banned certain types of guns after a mass shooting and one hasn't happened since. I think they count a mass shooting as more than 5 people not known by the shooter. . . .

Ah, yes, the "Australian model." Other posters have already touched on this, but if you start with country that has very few mass shootings, then pass a law and count mass shootings afterwards, you may still have a country with few mass shootings, but you cannot honestly claim causation.

. . . .We would have to outlaw semi automatics, period. I am all for it, I'd gladly regulate my right so that everyone can go to events with out fear. We would have to not grandfather in anything, we would have to have a mandatory gun buy back AND anyone who did no comply must face federal prison time. Harsh penalties, years in prison if you're caught keeping your gun.

I used to say ban high capacity semi autos, but now I just say semi autos. It's what Australia did and its easier that way. It creates a black and white line. If people want to negotiate I'd say maybe I'd be willing to negotiate on handguns. For example, again, ban the semi autos, which, like a glock with high capacity magazines can do tremendous damage, but keep revolvers which are technically double action and not semi auto legal because they traditionally and physically have a lower capacity anyways. I'm also ok with highly regulated carrying options for people that need to protect themselves on and individual level. . . . .

Justin.T, you are free to give up your semiautos at any time. I'd even offer to send you the name and address of my FFL, if you want me to take them off your hands. It sounds like you'll sleep better at night if you just turn them in to the government, though. That's your right. With all due respect, I decline to join you in doing so.

. . . .Or another idea, and how Australia does it, is still allow for handguns but highly regulate them through strict permitting. I kinda like that idea and passing a federal concealed carry license. I do believe concealed carry helps with the day to day crime prevention.

Also we could regulate and limit ammo sales like we do pharmaceuticals and incorporate psych evals some how.

There's plenty more we could do with out losing our right to own guns for protection, hunting and recreation." . . .

Let me make sure I understand this: You propose (a) a complete ban on semiautos, (b) with no grandfathering; (c) strict permitting on handguns; (d) ammunition purchase limits and regulation; and yet . . . somehow . . . you conclude that "[t]here's plenty more we could do with out losing our right to own guns for protection, hunting and recreation." Did I understand that correctly? Justin.T, you've just hit virtually every point in the antigunner Wish List.

. . . .I think its really selfish to put your hobbies and enjoyment ahead of protecting society from mass shootings. . . . .

You are welcome to think that. You are welcome to think me selfish. Shooting is more than "a hobby," though. The RKBA is also an enumerated constitutional right, one that's been held to be both fundamental and individual.

. . . . On top of my recommended gun control above another idea I once had was to do as I said I would like to see done above but then make another exception for recreational shooters. I've done a 3 gun match before (only once, placed second out of 20 some people, not to brag) I know people enjoy it and at the time I even did. . . .

Wait . . . You want to severely curtain an enumerated constitutional right, but make an exception for recreational shooters?!? You have missed the point of constitutional rights.

. . . .What if you allowed people to own ar15s and whatever military/police grade weapons still, with extensive background checks and whatever else for recreation BUT they had to be kept at a shooting facility in an armory and could only be checked in and out for events and for practice?" . . . .

No. Just no. I won't deny that shooting is a hobby of mine, but it's more than that. It's how I plan to defend myself and my family, despite hoping that I never have to. Here's a quick & true story: There is evil in the world. I'm a prosecutor. Last week, I had a guy show up on my jail docket. He is accused of taking two runaway, young-teenage girls, holding them in a warehouse for several weeks, and repeatedly raping them. I have a teenage daughter. She's smart, she's gorgeous, and she plays several musical instruments. If you think for one second that I'll give up tools that might be necessary to protect her, all in order to make you feel better, you are sadly mistaken.

Here's the thing about rights: I don't have to compromise on them. The Bill of Rights is a very undemocratic document. It protects the rights of the minority against mob rule. I might lose the vote, but I get to vote any way I please. I'm not going to join you or anyone else in a "compromise" of my RKBA. I don't have to. That's the nature of rights.

(I'm out of time this morning, but if I need to come back and address "protection from tyranny," I'll be glad to do so.)

 

[Justin.T]

I guess at the end of the day I just to see the point of citizens owning high capacity/high fire rate military grade weapons and I'm against it because of the damage they can do when a person unleashes their power. That's where I draw the line. Thanks for all the perspective and input, some of it I've heard before and it just simply doesn't cause me to agree but some of the perspectives were new and something for me to think about. I think an aspect to study on this is the psychology of the fantasy that inspires these shooters too and how to better recognize when people are experiencing that. I also just wanted to see how people on this forum would feel about what I said. I know there is a lot of disagreement but it seems like some of you at least see my perspective and recognize we are all looking at the same problem. Thanks again, I probably will stay out of the law discussions but I hope if I have any firearms related questions or topics of discussion I will be welcome here.

Another thing, just so you don't think I signed up just to do this, I used to have a previous account when I was a cop several years ago, a staff member could possibly look it up if they were interested, I believe I still remember my user name.

 

[zukiphile]

I don't like to pile on, but I found the following striking.

Theohazard,

I feel like it's the efficiency. I know assault rifle is kinda a bogus made up classification. I would say it all comes down to high capacity, rate of fire and somewhat range.

I'm not as afraid of handguns because I feel like I'm less susceptible to handgun violence because of my place in this world. Healthy relationship, avoid bad neighborhoods, etc. However I feel like at this point one never knows if and when they will fall victim to the next mass shooting where 20, 30, 50+ people are gunned down with relative ease because the tool they are using makes it that easy.

Emphasis added.

This reads like a frankly stated rationale for many firearm restrictions. It is at its core a denial of efficiency to the individual, while retaining that efficiency for the benefit of state. That is not a classically liberal value.

None of us knows if or when we will be the target of multiple murder, armed mugging, home invasion, etc. A firearm makes resistance relatively easy and more effective. Denying people that ease and efficacy in their defense is not a social good.

Moreover, making state action easier or more efficient is a dangerous goal. Spats is a hell of a fellow, but before a court convicts anyone, I want Spats put through the inefficiencies of due process and evidentiary standards. He and the judge hold great power, and I have little interest in great power being deployed more "efficiently".

I guess at the end of the day I just to see the point of citizens owning high capacity/high fire rate military grade weapons and I'm against it because of the damage they can do when a person unleashes their power.

Do you see any point in police departments having such weapons?

 

[Justin.T]

One can defend themselves and their family with something less than a high capacity/high fire rate rifle.

Yes, I can see the point of police departments having them but I would argue against the militarization of police departments. Whole other topic, I'm probably going to disagree with a lot of you, I disagree with a lot of what this country does.

I also know that the constitution can be amended to change with time.

Its been good, but I got to go, I'm back in school for a new career and have to study. Don't have time to continue to go around with this. Thanks again for everything, its good to get into civil discussions and think about things from time to time.