Gun Control needs to be instituted

More gun control is needed in the US to reduce gun violence, including incidents of mass shootings and everyday gun crimes, and to increase public safety. The availability of firearms is a contributing factor to high levels of gun violence in the country. Stronger regulations, such as background checks and waiting periods, can help prevent firearms from getting into the wrong hands.

 

Background checks are done in every state; many also impose wait periods. I'm not sure how many mass shooters buy their gun the same day.

 

Currently, not all firearms sales in the US are subject to background checks, which creates loopholes that can be exploited by people who are not legally allowed to own firearms. Universal background checks would close these loopholes and help keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous individuals.

 

Yeah, I realize there are some person to person sales.

. I doubt it. Crooks selling to crooks aren't going to run NICS checks.

 

the Obama DOJ admitted that without every firearm currently in private hands being registered, private sales background checks cannot be enforced

 

1) not a loophole
2) felons are prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms
3) background checks cannot be enforced and are not constitutional at a federal level

 

an opinion that is not supported by facts. and crime control is rarely the motivating factor behind avid gun banners or gun controllers desires to harass lawful gun owners

 

I have some qualms about everyone in the country being able to query NICS for whatever reason. Seems like a violation of my privacy.

 

Gun control laws, including gun bans, and background checks only encourage criminals to buy firearms the same way people buy illegal drugs -- from street dealers.

Only an armed public carrying concealed handguns can keep the peace --virtually without firing a shot or making an arrest.

 

“White liberals attack and invalidate civil rights leaders”?….Uh, I don’t think that’s a trend, maybe it’s just me calling out Mr. X for what he was.

Blacks were not above falling for the lies of the orange con-man. He got a whopping 8%!

You choose a 22 year old hysterical head line over a graph that shows the actual crime trend over time put out by the British government? You do have a problem with reality just like the people that liked your comment.

 

Criminals violate the law. Where strict control prevents them from legally buying guns it will still be easier for them to buy an illegal gun than a pizza.

 

The unnecessary and ineffective restrictions you seek will have no effect on any of these things.

 

it is impossible to legally avoid the background checks specified by federal law; as such, there is no loophole in the law.

...are unenforceable, and will be ignored by criminals.

 

Think:

"The new Emerson poll puts Trump at 35 percent with black voters and 38 percent with Hispanics. “If you add in Asian voters at 28 percent approval,” notes Emerson’s director of polling Spencer Kimball, “our number is very close to the new Marist poll,” which finds Trump’s approval at 33 percent among non-white voters. A recent RasmussenReports poll has Trump support among black voters at 34 percent, and even the new CNN poll has Trump’s approval among non-white voters at 26 percent.

Why is losing black voters by a two-to-one margin something to shout about? Because if Donald Trump came anywhere close to those numbers on Election Day, he’d likely win a 50-state sweep. Minority voters — and black voters in particular — are an absolutely vital part of the Democratic base. And they don’t vote for Republicans, particularly for president."
NEWSDAY, New polls show black support for Trump surging, By Michael Graham, 12/3/19.
https://www.newsday.com/opinion/commentary/black-voters-donald-trump-support-1.39184208

In fact, authoritarian liberal racism has always been a toxic force in America, especially for black Americans.

“Working within a white liberal frame is not only frustrating for progressive African Americans who speak out honestly and forcefully about racism and other forms of social oppression: it often entails vilification that, in addition to being toxic to our mental and physical well-being, is actually hostile to our very existence.”

“Indeed, “white” liberals often chose to not see politics at all, but instead to imagine themselves as being somehow apolitical, kind, and caring people, in contrast to the unruly African Americans they discount as unkind, reckless, and dangerous. In brief, the black demonic opposite of their white sainthood. I recall getting angry at a department meeting when a colleague pompously bragged about being an especially “tolerant” person and I wondered, who is it that he thinks is so despicable that, at best, all they might expect from him is to be tolerated.”

“Epistemologically, my experiences with racially paternalistic “white” colleagues are emblematic of what I have dubbed the IPA Syndrome, that so often plagues members of socially dominant groups; the Ignorance of not knowing, the Privilege of not needing to know, and the Arrogance of not wanting to know.”
RACISM REVIEW, “Good White” Liberals and “Bad” Black Radicals: Conflicting Views, By Noel Cazenave, April 22, 2021.
https://www.racismreview.com/blog/2...als-and-bad-black-radicals-conflicting-views/

It is time to wake up.

 

the main issue is that private citizens may not engage in interstate commerce concerning selling of firearms and thus congress has no proper power to demand those who are limited to INTRAstate sales, conduct background checks

 

controlling criminals has nothing to do with the motivations of the anti rights movement

 

What about law abiding citizens inadvertently selling guns to criminals? By conducting background checks on all firearms transactions, including those between private individuals, the idea is to close loopholes in the system that allow prohibited individuals to acquire firearms. This helps to keep firearms out of the hands of those who may use them to cause harm, which increases public safety. While law-abiding citizens may not pose an immediate threat, the background check process helps to ensure that firearms are not transferred to individuals who may become a threat in the future.

 

that happens very rarely. Not enough to create such an intrusive law. and it cannot be enforced. Gun banners want private background checks to fail (which they will) so gun banners can demand the holy grail of the gun ban movement-registration of all currently owned firearms. . Anyone who has any passing familiarity with felons and how they operate laugh at those who claim this will impede felons getting guns.

 

We are a society that nourishes itself with media headlines, talking head soundbytes, social media tribalism, and algorithms that ensure only certain information is easily accessible. It’s no surprise few are interested in long form examination of actual evidence.

It’s easy to see such flaws in those we disagree with—much harder to see (admit) the same flaws exist amongst those we agree with.

I reciprocate your appreciation of our debate. I’m glad you have an interest in statistics and evidence.

Ok. The post you had responded to with your post I cited only expressed interest in self defense. Thanks for clarifying although I still believe the laws I cited support self defense in the workplace just as in the home. In my state there is no duty to retreat in the home or at work—only in public. So a teacher acting in defense of themselves or students is definitely not vigilantism. Any time a person bears arms it’s legal to do so for the purpose of preventing grave bodily harm to self or others in proximity. Just because it’s a teacher and those in proximity are students doesn’t change the law. Our legal system is to be blind in such instances—equality under the law and all that jazz.

I’m open to discussion of whether arming teachers is the best plan or not. But it’s certainly not vigilantism. I think teachers should be allowed to carry if they wish to and are qualified. I would want to see better training for them than most LE officers get. Many LE officers have woefully inadequate training in firearms usage.

Thanks for clarifying the part about not wishing to compare the US to countries with worse firearm violence. For some reason there is a tendency by some to only look at firearm violence in developed countries in relation to the US. It’s an odd tactic because it’s a tacit admission socio-economic factors play a huge role in propensity to violence. Larger than access to firearms. If access to firearms was REALLY the main factor there would be no reason to limit comparisons to cherry picked countries based on economic standing of those countries.

On Mexico specifically, your sources have apparently misled you. Mexico has MUCH more draconian restrictions on firearms than the US. Remember my post detailing all firearms there must be registered, there are only two gun stores in the entire country, caliber restrictions are in force, and firearms can’t be used for defense outside the home? Also, the cartel usage of firearms is analogous to our drug syndicate and dealer usage of firearms. A huge portion of our firearms violence is linked to illicit drug trade as well. Actually Mexico is a better comparison culturally than China.

Are you aware of the discrepancies between firearm violence rates by race? Asians in their home countries are less prone to violence and they are far less prone to violence in the US as well. Did you know firearm violence in Japanese movies is typically portrayed in a negative light, whereas Hollywood typically glorifies firearm violence?

My point here is there is FAR more to country comparisons than just firearm law. Asian culture has such a profound effect on violence that culture dominates even in the US where firearms are more prevalent than in Asian countries. If access to firearms was causal in effect, Asian Americans would exhibit similar rates of firearm violence to blacks and whites.

I would also remind you that the US leads all your European and Asian first world countries on several metrics that are linked by controlled studies to violence. These metrics include, but are not limited to, sugar consumption, fewest meals eaten together as a family, obesity, and single parenthood (especially absent fathers). It should be noted that Asians, with their lowest rates of firearm violence compared to whites and Blacks and Latinos, sport the lowest rates of single parenthood as well.

If your sources cared about saving lives they would not focus their attention on only one aspect of mitigation. They would advocate for addressing all known links to violent behavior.

Because it was a direct claim from one of your sources in the OP of this thread. A source you chose as an example of why gun control is needed. When a journalistic piece that is supposed to be researched supplies easily verifiably false information to drive home a point, that source must be scrutinized. We can’t blindly accept a premise that is based on disinformation. That is why I bring it up.

You wouldn’t advise investing in a company that falsified earnings reports, would you?

Errors in statistics are a serious problem. But a far more serious problem is making false claims about what statistics “prove”. There are researchers at Harvard University that publish many papers on firearms and firearm law in the context of violence. They are staunch anti gun activists as well as academics. Even they will not claim causation in the papers they publish on their research. Yet blokes on the Internet every day tell me the causal link is “proven”.

I’m sorry I don’t know enough about what the Republicans you know or read about think about firearm violence to comment on them. I have little interest in party politics as it’s just bread and circuses and I have my own bread and don’t need the circus. I know I live in one of the reddest states in the country by voting records and all the Republicans I know are abhorred by the level of violence we see in many places around the country. They just don’t believe placing restrictions on law abiding citizens is the answer.

As far as Dem and Rep politicians, neither group wants to solve the problem. Both fundraise on the issue and both garner votes on the issue. Just like with immigration, neither party wants solutions because solutions would decrease their funding and control.

Government is sold to us with the idea it’s here to solve problems. But because of Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy, government has no interest in solving problems. If it solved society’s problems, society wouldn’t “need” it anymore and politician’s power and funding would suffer. Look at any issue and you will see the pattern. Both complain about the debt ceiling and spending but neither do anything about it when they have the chance. Republicans claimed to not approve of the ACA (Obama Care), but when they had the power to repeal it they never even held another vote.

Many are tricked into believing Dem and Rep politicians want different things. They don’t. The both want money and influence. That’s it. And they will all perpetuate societal problems indefinitely to assure they don’t lose that status.

Exactly. Republicans fundraise and garner votes by engaging in lackluster defense of the 2A. But Democrats fundraise and garner votes by talking about and enacting laws that don’t address the cause of violence.

When was the last time you heard a politician from the Democratic Party advocate for reducing fatherless families? Or advocate for effective reductions in childhood obesity? No. Instead we get lectures on fat shaming and body positivity.

If you infringe on the right to own and carry firearms in common use and firearms similar to ones used by the military, you are violating a constitutional right.

Well, of course things are different now than in 1776. In 1776 there was no Constitution and no Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment didn’t exist until 1791. But nothing has changed since ratification of the Bill of Rights.

I seriously hope your true attitude towards rights is not as cavalier as the statements you made about violations being only temporary etc. and worth doing if it saved one life.

Ok.

Why is number of guns owned a problem? If there is no evidence owning 14 guns makes an individual more prone to violence than owning 1 or no guns, what’s the problem with owning 14?

Sure. But why not address the problem by first trying out the laws we already have? Why not try prosecution of say 50% of violators instead of 0.01% just to see what would happen? What is the point of adding laws when laws we have are not enforced. Firearm crime recidivism rates are much higher than for other crime. Repeat offenders are not only more common with firearm violence but they re-offend on average much sooner than other classes of criminals. Knowing this, we only make them serve 50% to 85% of their sentences before letting them out to commit firearms crimes again.

Add to that, 60%+ of mass shooters have a criminal record and a record of violence prior to their mass shooting.

It’s a very related problem. It is illogical to add laws when current laws are not being enforced. Have you ever asked yourself why current laws aren’t enforced? Do you think laws that aren’t enforced are effective at decreasing violence? Who benefits from passing laws that aren’t enforced?

It demonstrates that the problem is not what your sources want you to believe it is. It is not a detail, it’s the elephant in the room. It’s solid evidence there are factors much more important to firearms violence than access to firearms.

With this evidence, belief that access to firearms is the most important thing to address would be analogous to belief one should have invested in GameStop based on the company’s earning potential when share price was $79 and rising. Either belief is emotion driven, not evidence based.

 

@Lucky1knows, because of the character limit had to split up the post.

If one researches the topic the details are quite clear. If we only consume information from sources with agendas (political or otherwise) that are known purveyors of disinformation and misinformation there is no clarity,


I’m open to evidence Republicans don’t think there is a problem. I genuinely don’t keep up on the political games. Republican voters I know are appalled at the carnage and just happy they live where they do instead of places like California that have the highest (always in the top 3) rates of deaths per capita from mass shootings.


Again, I would ask the last time you heard a Democratic politician lament that something must be done about the single parenthood problem in the US.


When was the last time you heard one complain that the children of single parents who take a partner not the biological parent are 40 times more likely to be physically or sexually abused than children in a two biological parent home.? When single parents cohabitate with a partner unrelated to their children, those children are 50 times more likely to die of inflicted abuse injuries than children in two biological parent homes.


Childhood abuse has been known to be associated with violent crime for decades. Now medical science is teasing out the causal pathways, one of which is lowered plasma oxytocin levels in criminal adults abused as children.


When was the last time you heard a politician complain about sexual abuse being associated with a 4 fold increase in suicide planning in young people and advocate for stronger two parent families to prevent that sexual abuse?

We have had 20 inches of snow, sub-zero temps, and lots of new babies to care for so sleep has been minimal the last couple days as has been time to post. Apologies for taking so long. Yeh, the Fed has an interesting decision to make. I’m waiting with baited breathe to see which bad option they pick.

 

I know all the mantras and "justifications". Thing is the scenario you posit has not been found to contribute significantly to gun deaths. Most crooks get their guns from other crooks no the PennySaver. And the idea that our personal information is publicly available to anyone in the world is a little concerning.

 

Seems like hardening school facilities so they are more difficult to attack would be a more achievable plan.

 

all the "solutions" gun banners come up with might appear plausible to low information voters but they don't pass the smell test with anyone who understands the issue/ Felons get around the background checks with straw purchasers-usually girl friends with clean records. And thus background checks have not really done anything to stop felons from getting guns. And Unlike gun dealers and their records, it is almost impossible to prosecute a private seller who refuses to do a background check

 

I don't think this is selling. More and more people don't agree with you.

I think the hill you have to climb to get to this has never been steeper.

do people really believe this or is it just something you say?

So I own firearms so they're available to me why am I not killing people? Everyone I know owns guns they are available to them and they're not killing people either.

Guns are available to you why aren't you running around killing people?

So you're trying to get me to believe that you're on the verge of just going hog wild and blowing away a bunch of people except for we can stop you if we make it harder for a hunter to get a hunting rifle legally but make no effort to stop criminals from getting guns?

What has to go wrong in your life to believe nonsense like this?

 

a simple question the anti rights advocates never answer is this

IF THE CONSEQUENCES of committing MASS murder do not stop a mass murderer why would the consequences of using an illegal normal capacity magazine stop them?