NRA Youth Day: Totally Not Helping

[Andara Bledin]

I've seen an awful lot of gun legislation that was either poorly written or maliciously so. Without reading the specific legislation in question, I won't comment on whether it was good or bad that it was defeated.

[Gravekeeper]

I've seen an awful lot of gun legislation that was either poorly written or maliciously so. Without reading the specific legislation in question, I won't comment on whether it was good or bad that it was defeated.

The bill was to extend background checks to online sales and sales at gun shows. It was a bi-partisan bill authored by a Democrat and a Republican. Public support for it ranged from 70-91% depending on the poll in question.

The text of the bill also required mental health records to be added to the NICS so lunatics would show up on said background checks. It also permits gun store owners to use the NICS to screen new employees. The bill even extends protections to ensure less hassle transporting firearms and ammo over state lines.

The other gun control bills regarding assault rifle bans, ammo clip sizes, etc, are all separate bills. I assume to specifically prevent the GOP from having anything to whine about in this bill in particular. This bill was specifically just about extending background checks. The only reason anyone has come up with to oppose it so far is "It wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook so why bother?"

A few GOP senators that voted against it are going down in flames in their home ridings now.

[s_stabeler]

WTF? so it probably WOULD have helped, in other words? ( by what Tanasi said, BGCs would be far more effective if the mentally ill showed up on background checks)

I have absoutely zero sympathy for senators going down due to blocking this bill, and would actually suggest that ALL senators who blocked it need replacing. ( the bill was popular with at least 70% of the american public, so it is highly likely that those senators ignored their constituents. plus since there was nothing about the actual cobtroversial changes... )

[Greenday]

WTF? so it probably WOULD have helped, in other words? ( by what Tanasi said, BGCs would be far more effective if the mentally ill showed up on background checks)

Helped with what? The Sandy Hook shootings? Not sure how it would have since it wasn't his gun that he used.

[s_stabeler]

with the problem with background checks. What Tanasi said was the the problem with background checks si that thye don't work, due to mental illness not showing up.

Sandy Hook would unfortunaetly have happened anyway. ( the only thing I can think of is that the guns may not have been proerly secured, but if the shooter was an adult, he would likely have been able to get the guns even if thye were locked in a gun safe.)

[Gravekeeper]

with the problem with background checks. What Tanasi said was the the problem with background checks si that thye don't work, due to mental illness not showing up.

Except that the bill called for adding mental health records to the NICS specifically so they showed up in background checks. Thus undermining Tanasi's entire thesis. Even if the bill did not include that provision, I fail to see how requiring a criminal background check on gun show and internet sales would be a bad thing.

There were no sneaky evil things in the bill. All of the recent gun control bills have been self contained ( I believe there are 9 total ) to prevent any of them being rejected based on sneaky amendments. Hence some of the GOP hanged themselves by voting this one down.

[Panacea]

Helped with what? The Sandy Hook shootings? Not sure how it would have since it wasn't his gun that he used.

What people opposed to BGC's (like the NRA) miss is that it isn't about preventing another Sandy Hook. It's about preventing other tragedies caused by guns falling into the hands of those who should not have them.

For example, one of the things I keep hearing complaints about is why aren't we doing anything about the criminals who have guns?

Background checks would do something about criminals with guns, by preventing them from buying them illegally. By cracking down on straw buyers who buy them to give to criminals. By keeping them out of the hands of the mentally ill, the domestic abusers.

It won't stop all crime, but it will make a dent. It does nothing to stop a lawful citizen from owning guns.

There's no real reason to oppose background checks.

[Greenday]

It won't stop all crime, but it will make a dent. It does nothing to stop a lawful citizen from owning guns.

http://www.hoboes.com/library/graphi...ide%20Rate.jpg

Your post reminded me of that graph. Anyone have any opinions on that?

[Hyena Dandy]

Two comments that I feel the graph misses.

1) What percentage of homocides are using guns? Because otherwise it's irrelevant

2) In the 'Wild' West, there were a lot of much stricter gun laws than there are now. In Tombstone, where the gunfight at the OK Corral occured, there was a law forbidding any guns being carried at all. You can say "Oh, that proves that gun control doesn't work." But that's not my point. My point is that using "The Wild West" where the lowest number of deaths is, as an 'ideal' point would require much more stringent gun laws than we have now.

[Kheldarson]

I'd query if they count all homicides in that graph or just gun-related ones. I'd also question the rate of growth in the nation as a whole on top of it (increasing number of people generally can be correlated to an increase in crime so are the percentages the same?).

[Gravekeeper]

Yeah, that graph is pretty worthless. Its a pure example of causation / correlation. Crime rates as a whole have been on the decline for about 20 years in the US. Not just the ones committed with guns.

The telling stat is what percentage of crimes in the US use a firearm vs the countries with better gun control laws. For example, in Canada, 26% of all households have at least one firearm. In the US, its 41%. However, the rate of accident firearm death per 100,000 is 0.11 in Canada and 0.58 in the US. The rate of firearm homicide in Canada is 0.6. The rate in the US is 6.24. ( Per the UN's last study on International Firearm Regulation )

The rate of firearm related death is grossly disproportional to the rate of ownership between the two countries. So something else is wrong.

[Panacea]

http://www.hoboes.com/library/graphi...ide%20Rate.jpg

Your post reminded me of that graph. Anyone have any opinions on that?

The graph is totally misleading. First of all, no one is all of a sudden just now saying that guns are a problem. People have been saying that for decades.

Unions didn't lead efforts to control guns. Unions were often associated with anarchists who WERE violent, but unions themselves were more likely to be the victims of violence than to perpetrate it. Unions in 1901 were virtually non-existent; unions formed in the late 19th century had largely collapsed, and the modern rise of labor unions didn't really gain steam until the 1930's during the Great Depression.

Most of the rest of the graph doesn't really address specific legislation, and none of it actually names the legislation in question. But I do see some trends.

Prohibition led to the rise of modern organized crime, which was very violent, so it really shouldn't surprise anyone that there was a rise in gun violence. Some efforts at gun control, such as the ban on fully automatic weapons (aka machine guns) were in response to that violence, and a good thing, too.

Right after Prohibition ended, we entered World War II. Young men of drafting age went into the military, and the entire country was on a military footing. Even mobsters had a certain level of self serving patriotism, but the increase of men in uniform all over society, and more men overseas contributed more to a decrease in violence than the presence or lack of gun control laws.

The "War on Drugs" came during the crack cocaine epidemic. it has been a dismal failure; we can't keep the drugs out, and the drug gangs of the 80's were incredibly violent . . . and continue to be. I'm not sure what point is trying to be made here; is the author of the graph suggesting that if we had not had the "War on Drugs" we would not have had the uptick in drug violence? I'd like to see some supporting evidence for such a contention if so.

There is some evidence that states that promoted concealed carry permits have had a decrease in crime. But I'm not sure what that has to do with improving the background check system to keep straw buyers from buying, criminals from buying, or the mentally ill from buying. If the author is suggesting that concealed carry is the solution to the problem of gun violence, he is sadly mistaken and he needs to prove that contention.

As I noted, guns have been a problem for decades. The problem is multi-layered and complex.

As you should know, I don't advocate outright bans on guns. I don't think they are effective. I do support background checks. I support mandatory training (not so far fetched, since it was a requirement of all adult males aged 16-60 on a monthly basis when the United States was founded) and licensure.

I'm not concerned with "gun registries" that could lead to gun confiscations. There's enough case law on the books, enough court opinions that make it clear that the government cannot do this (and funny, the cases involve city and state governments, not federal).

[Andara Bledin]

The text of the bill also required mental health records to be added to the NICS so lunatics would show up on said background checks.

That sounds good on its face.

I suspect, however, that before it would be much use to legislate that, it would be helpful to actually fix our mental health care system. The last four shootings I've seen reported were all carried out by people with notable mental issues, and this law would not have helped in any of those cases. One used a straw buyer, one was too young to even own a gun legally, one stole the guns used, and the last was actively denied the help he sought.

I'm not saying that the legislation wouldn't be good (without actually reading the text, I can't know), just that we're focusing on the wrong things.

The telling stat is what percentage of crimes in the US use a firearm vs the countries with better gun control laws. For example, in Canada, 26% of all households have at least one firearm. In the US, its 41%. However, the rate of accident firearm death per 100,000 is 0.11 in Canada and 0.58 in the US. The rate of firearm homicide in Canada is 0.6. The rate in the US is 6.24. ( Per the UN's last study on International Firearm Regulation )

Except that, as I pointed out in a debate on another site, you're looking at the wrong statistics.

First: More guns will mean more gun crimes. Period. That's a tautology at it's most base level. There's no point in arguing this because it's not a point in either side's favor.

Second: More guns will mean more deaths by violence. This is also another basic fact that isn't nearly as important as it would seem.

the problem is that both statistics conveniently ignore anyone who is a victim of violence who survives and also ignores that gun-related deaths include attackers as well as victims. Both of those are significant failures that render the statistics involved mostly worthless to the debate.

According to the statistics compiled by Nationmaster, you are less likely to be the victim of rape, assault, or just general crime in the US (0.4%, 1.2%, 21.4%) than you are in Canada (0.8%, 2.3%, 23.8%), the UK (0.9%, 2.8%, 26.4%), or Australia (1.2%, 2.4%, 30.1%) or New Zealand (1.3%, 2.4%, 29.4%).

In the case of rape or assault, you are only half as likely (or less) to be a victim in the US than in either of those other four countries. If you are a woman, a child, or elderly, this statistic is huge, and often either not reported or outright ignored.

[Gravekeeper]

First: More guns will mean more gun crimes. Period. That's a tautology at it's most base level. There's no point in arguing this because it's not a point in either side's favor.

Hence the point of using per capita rates rather than sum totals. No one was arguing sum totals.

Second: More guns will mean more deaths by violence. This is also another basic fact that isn't nearly as important as it would seem.

That was kind of the point. The rate of ownership vs firearm related homicides/deaths increases at an exponential rate in the US vs other first world countries. Meaning there is other factors such as gun control laws and mental health laws that are increasing the problem.

the problem is that both statistics conveniently ignore anyone who is a victim of violence who survives and also ignores that gun-related deaths include attackers as well as victims. Both of those are significant failures that render the statistics involved mostly worthless to the debate.

Firstly that statistic is easily found under assault with a deadly weapon / aggravated assault ( 20.9% of assaults in the US involved firearms, 2.4% in Canada. Per the FBI. ). Secondly, firearm related deaths would include attackers as well as victims.

According to the statistics compiled by Nationmaster, you are less likely to be the victim of rape, assault, or just general crime in the US (0.4%, 1.2%, 21.4%) than you are in Canada (0.8%, 2.3%, 23.8%), the UK (0.9%, 2.8%, 26.4%), or Australia (1.2%, 2.4%, 30.1%) or New Zealand (1.3%, 2.4%, 29.4%).

As I recall from previous debates, Nationmaster is a terrible source that relies on all sorts of questionable sources and rarely specifies between capita and sum totals. Canada has a lower crime rate than the US in pretty much every category with the exception of some property crimes. Most notably car thefts and B&E's.

As for rape, that one is rather difficult. Sexual assault is terribly unreported. Even more so in the US with its culture of victim shaming in that type of crime and piss poor track record of prosecuting it. The majority of rapists don't spend a day in jail in the US. Nationmaster only tracks rape statistics against adult females as well.