What will it take to make America want reasonable gun laws?

[Canarr]

Just addint this article here.

The researchers initially assumed that, at least in cases of mutual violence, the women were defending themselves or retaliating. But when subsequent surveys asked who struck first, it turned out that women were as likely as men to initiate violence—a finding confirmed by more than 200 studies of intimate violence. In a 2010 review essay in the journal Partner Abuse, Straus concludes that women’s motives for domestic violence are often similar to men’s, ranging from anger to coercive control.

Links are in the article.

[Greenday]

So many school shootings already this year. More than one per week. And absolutely nothing has changed. Sick of the hopes and prayers crap. Sick of the "it's too soon" crap. When will enough be enough? When will the feds step in and slap down these ridiculous states that have too relaxed gun laws?

[Tanasi]

So many school shootings already this year. More than one per week. And absolutely nothing has changed. Sick of the hopes and prayers crap. Sick of the "it's too soon" crap. When will enough be enough? When will the feds step in and slap down these ridiculous states that have too relaxed gun laws?

So you're saying federal government should "slap down" states for following federal law and not burdening their citizens with more rules and regulations???

[Greenday]

I think federal laws should be stricter forcing states with lax laws to make their laws stricter.

[Tanasi]

Most states have no role in deciding if a person is eligible to purchase a firearm, they rely on the federal government specifically the FBI's NICS check. Why would the feds make the states tighten state laws when federal law is "so loose"? Wouldn't that violate the 10th Amendment? Maybe the citizens of the "ridiculous states" like their states as the are?

[Greenday]

Most states have no role in deciding if a person is eligible to purchase a firearm, they rely on the federal government specifically the FBI's NICS check. Why would the feds make the states tighten state laws when federal law is "so loose"? Wouldn't that violate the 10th Amendment? Maybe the citizens of the "ridiculous states" like their states as the are?

Their are states that still want discrimination laws on the books. I don't care if the people there want it that way, it's wrong. It's morally horrifying. It's a disgrace to humanity.

[Tanasi]

Their are states that still want discrimination laws on the books. I don't care if the people there want it that way, it's wrong. It's morally horrifying. It's a disgrace to humanity.

To boil down your argument, I don't care, fuck you, I want something done to make me feel better. Let's punish everyone that owns firearms even though they had nothing to do with the crime as long as I feel better.
What states want discrimination laws on the books?

[Greenday]

To boil down your argument, I don't care, fuck you, I want something done to make me feel better. Let's punish everyone that owns firearms even though they had nothing to do with the crime as long as I feel better.
What states want discrimination laws on the books?

There are states that still fight for laws allowing people to get fired because of sexual orientation. That's just one example.

And no one is suggesting we punish everyone that owns firearms. Just that the process to get one isn't easy and to end loopholes.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

The weird thing about assault weapons bans is we have data on them, but the interesting thing is the trend of this type of mass shooting is relatively new and occurred after those laws expired.

I think as I said previously in the thread, you don't have to outlaw guns to remove their prevalance. Hell, there are more guns than people in the US with most of those being predominantly owned by maybe 5% of the population. I can source that if you'd like.

For me, I'd rather just see a national gun registry, some common sense waiting periods, and some accountability on gun owners and dealers when their equipment gets "misappropriated" and I'd be ok with that. I don't see why my porn habits should be more commercially accessible than gun records.

As I've said previously, you could talk to me into some heavier duty stuff that's worth debating its efficacy, but I think honestly we should be more interested in what works than what "looks" good.

As a person that deals with mental illness, (mental illness occurs for about 4% of violent offenses which is actually less than its prevelence in the general population) I'm tired of both the GC and NRA side of this. The fact they're working to stigmatize mental illness further works against their aims. It encourages people to NOT get checked out which is the opposite of what we should be trying to do. We should be identifying short term danger which frankly friends and family along with criminal records and tips are better able to do.

The truth is this will always come up during these events because the "the tree of liberty being refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants" wasn't supposed to mean children. The people dying for the 2nd aren't even of age. That doesn't mean GC advocates are wrong, it just means with that side only being really visible during a major event and the other side refusing to really fess up that guns can even be "an issue" makes it really hard to have a legit discussion. The vast majority of gun violence is perpetrated by those with hand guns.

And one of the problems of enforcement is, the Military and Law enforcement tend to be conservative so... what are the odds that anything you pass is actually going to be enforced? Recent events suggest not much.

[mjr]

The weird thing about assault weapons bans is we have data on them, but the interesting thing is the trend of this type of mass shooting is relatively new and occurred after those laws expired.

It's also partially a cultural issue. Go back 30 years or so. The culture was different, and I would presume the number of "mass shootings" was way down. Something changed.

Even though the laws expired, an AR-15 still isn't an "assault weapon". It basically fires a more powerful .22 round.

Hell, there are more guns than people in the US with most of those being predominantly owned by maybe 5% of the population. I can source that if you'd like.

Meaning 95% of people don't own firearms. And of that 5%, how many are law-abiding? How many are NRA members? I have no dog in the NRA fight. I'm not a member. But I have to wonder if people (including those in the media) really know what the NRA does.

But to your point about the number of firearms: If semi-automatic weapons are the problem...I guess we'd better do "something" about a LARGE number of pistols. Because I would presume that most pistols that people carry are semi-automatic.

For me, I'd rather just see a national gun registry, some common sense waiting periods, and some accountability on gun owners and dealers when their equipment gets "misappropriated" and I'd be ok with that.

I get your point about the gun registry and waiting period, but would you want to be held accountable if someone steals your car, and commits a crime with it? Same sort of deal.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

If it was known that car dealers, parents, and watchdogs were intentionally selling or letting people drive their vehicles to intentionally circumvent laws, yes. I know the NRA has been quick to pin things on enforcement, but the problem is those people performing the enforcement are by and large more likely to be NRA members. That's just what stats tell us about law enforcement and military members. "No system will work because we'll break it" shouldn't be a valid version of argumentation.

The gun show culture has been doing its thing for too long. I'd like to see individual responsibility at all levels of it. Not "us vs. the Gubnment" but when I sell to the wrong person "I didn't pull the trigger." I know lots of gun owners and dealers that take it seriously. But we've got to be able to purge and punish the bad actors and the gun community can not and should not be rallying around them. Fuck them.


BTW - up thread I wasn't saying 5% of people own all the guns. I'm saying of the guns that are owned, 5 % own the majority. I *think* but I could be mistaken that gun ownership is around... 30-40%? I'd have to look that up again. I just thought it was interesting in an article I was reading that much like a lot of 80-20 rules, gun ownership itself has its own version of heavy users which really inflates both Conservative and Liberals perceptions of how prevelent guns actually are.

[Tanasi]

There are states that still fight for laws allowing people to get fired because of sexual orientation. That's just one example.

And no one is suggesting we punish everyone that owns firearms. Just that the process to get one isn't easy and to end loopholes.

Which states want discrimination laws on their books, be specific and give actual examples and not generalizations.

I know what the "loopholes" are in the "process," what do you think the loopholes are?

[mjr]

I know the NRA has been quick to pin things on enforcement, but the problem is those people performing the enforcement are by and large more likely to be NRA members. That's just what stats tell us about law enforcement and military members. "No system will work because we'll break it" shouldn't be a valid version of argumentation.

I'll reiterate that I'm not an NRA member, and have no desire to join them. But no one can reasonably point to the failures that led to this shooting and say they're the fault of the NRA.

But again: What's the purpose of the NRA? Is the NRA actively telling people to break the law? The NRA actually came out against bump stocks. How many NRA users are criminals? How many are law-abiding citizens?

It's patently unfair (and I'm sure you know this) to pin things like this on people who own guns, and people who support the NRA. In other words, it's patently unfair to say, "If you're against gun control, you have blood on your hands, and you're basically a murderer".

The NRA appears to be a boogeyman for a lot of Liberals. I suppose it's kinda like Planned Parenthood is for Conservatives.

BTW - up thread I wasn't saying 5% of people own all the guns. I'm saying of the guns that are owned, 5 % own the majority.

I am corrected.

But again, if "semi-automatic" weapons are the problem, I would assume that most pistols that people carry are semi-automatic. So what then?

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Not really. The NRA is just an organization who a large chunk of their funding is arms manufacturers. A large proportion of gun owners are NRA members (though not all). They tend to support pro-gun ownership behavior including putting more guns in the street and supporting laws that are lenient of regulation f gun ownership. I'm just acknowledging what it is.

You may not like the connection, but I'm just going off of gun ownership stats on this. Law enforcement and military members tend to be more likely NRA members. That doesn't mean they have to be doing things intentionally, but it DOES mean those people in closest proximity to a bureaucracy are more prone to not agreeing with the goals of said bureaucracy.

But you know, I don't like the mental health bugbear. A handful of these mass shooters have had documented mental health issues. 100% of them have been sold firearms.

The NRA for better or worse has made itself a partisan target. It supports positions now it didn't 30 years ago. And even then, in the words of Lapierre:

Obama promised a fundamental transformation of our country. And you know what, it began with his own national party. A party that is now infested with saboteurs who don't believe in capitalism, don't believe in the Constitution, don't believe in our freedom, and don't believe in America as we know it. Obama may be gone, but their utopian dream, it marches on.

The rest of his speech reads like a "Forwards from Grandma" post. And as long as NRA or Conservatives fail to acknowledge the messages it sends and the fact people have memories, people aren't going to not going to stop looking at them. The fact we've militarized into checkpoints everywhere and now we're talking about guns in schools (where they've never been necessary before) is simply out of touch of the majority (again - 60% don't own guns). And its stupid anyway. Once we've thrown someone with a gun in every classroom, statistically what we're actually going to start hearing about are children shot by teachers. But by then the goal posts will have shifted and we won't be able to talk about the policy of "why do teachers have guns in the first place?" and we'll be criticized for trying to make students less safe.

Again, that's the problem. They can shout everyone down, but the more often this happens and the more that 60% are feeling less safe in a world where they don't want to own a gun and someone else's right is viewed as directly threatening their safety, public opinion will continue to shift. The NRA/Conservatives are treating these small measures as existential threats. People are always going to weigh THAT reaction against the human cost.

[mjr]

Not really. The NRA is just an organization who a large chunk of their funding is arms manufacturers. A large proportion of gun owners are NRA members (though not all). They tend to support pro-gun ownership behavior including putting more guns in the street and supporting laws that are lenient of regulation f gun ownership. I'm just acknowledging what it is.

You may not like the connection, but I'm just going off of gun ownership stats on this. Law enforcement and military members tend to be more likely NRA members. That doesn't mean they have to be doing things intentionally, but it DOES mean those people in closest proximity to a bureaucracy are more prone to not agreeing with the goals of said bureaucracy.

But you know, I don't like the mental health bugbear. A handful of these mass shooters have had documented mental health issues. 100% of them have been sold firearms.

The NRA for better or worse has made itself a partisan target. It supports positions now it didn't 30 years ago. And even then, in the words of Lapierre:


The rest of his speech reads like a "Forwards from Grandma" post. And as long as NRA or Conservatives fail to acknowledge the messages it sends and the fact people have memories, people aren't going to not going to stop looking at them. The fact we've militarized into checkpoints everywhere and now we're talking about guns in schools (where they've never been necessary before) is simply out of touch of the majority (again - 60% don't own guns). And its stupid anyway. Once we've thrown someone with a gun in every classroom, statistically what we're actually going to start hearing about are children shot by teachers. But by then the goal posts will have shifted and we won't be able to talk about the policy of "why do teachers have guns in the first place?" and we'll be criticized for trying to make students less safe.

Again, that's the problem. They can shout everyone down, but the more often this happens and the more that 60% are feeling less safe in a world where they don't want to own a gun and someone else's right is viewed as directly threatening their safety, public opinion will continue to shift. The NRA/Conservatives are treating these small measures as existential threats. People are always going to weigh THAT reaction against the human cost.

I get where you're coming from -- I really do.

But again...what changed? Is it the advent of the Internet? 24 hour news? 30 years ago I would posit (though I could be wrong) that there weren't nearly this many "mass shootings".

So what changed? It's not just the NRA that's "causing" this.