Gun Laws

[imsys0042]

While tragic and unexpected, mass shootings account for, on average, less than 100 deaths in American each year. About that many people die each day in automobile accidents. More than 30% of those are drunk-driving related. Therefore, roughly 30 people die each day as a result of alcohol related traffic accidents. I don't hear anyone arguing for tighter alcohol laws, or even a ban on alcohol, do I? 

There's a difference between alcohol, or anything else that can directly or in-directly cause harm to people.   They have other uses aside from harming people.   Knives hurt people but they have a varied number of uses and applications.   Guns only have a purpose for shooting bullets, and by license and approved people (notably the police and military) for a tool to keep order.

However, I wanted to respond because specifically alcohol is something that I think highlights the case for more gun restriction.   I used to live in NJ, I live in PA now.   Between my exposure to both states, NJ is stricter on serving alcohol, and PA is more liberal.   People drive drunk in both places, but to my experience people had a real fear in NJ about getting caught, where as PA doesn't have the enforcement and penalties.

I did some googling around and my experience seems to be grounded somewhat in fact per several sources.   I would argue that if you are a responsible drinker you should want stricter laws since they are in the public good.   I wouldn't ban alcohol, but there should be strict DD laws.   And there should be laws on the amount you can serve to someone as well.

[Lihu]

Not sure how to answer this question, and I'm not convinced stricter gun laws will prevent this sort of thing from happening.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/05/us/oregon-umpqua-shooting-survivor/

[newtogolf]

Let's see we tried to stop drugs and drug related crimes, we failed.  Despite stricter DWI / DUI laws people are getting behind the wheel intoxicated more than ever.  We made stricter laws against texting while driving, they don't work either.  We cannot stop people from driving cars without licenses and insurance but we're ready to tackle guns?  Let's not even discuss how bad government has failed at removing illegal aliens.

Chicago and DC have some of the strictest gun laws in the country, yet shootings and murder by guns continue to go up.

IMO the government can curtail gun crimes by enforcing a mandatory death penalty for anyone committing a crime with a gun, anything short of that is a waste of time.

As for gun control laws there are no set guidelines.  Are you going to prevent anyone who's been to a psychologist or psychiatrist from owning a gun or just those on anti-depressants.  Are you going to go back and check yearly if someone who was issued a gun permit has been treated for depression and revoke their license and confiscate their guns?

Who decides what mental illnesses qualify as justification to deny a gun purchase or permit?  Once in place what prevents the government from raising the qualifications?

I don't want crazies driving cars or owning guns.  The problem is I don't trust the government in place today (on both sides) to act in my best interest, so there fore I'm going to fight any gun control law that they attempt to put in place.

Edited October 5, 2015 by newtogolf

[Pretzel]

Guns only have a purpose for shooting bullets, and by license and approved people (notably the police and military) for a tool to keep order.

That is not strictly true. The majority of gun use in the U.S. is likely for hunting or target shooting. The bolded part is a fact, but the rest of it is your opinion that you bundled with a fact in order to attempt to add additional credibility to the statement.

I grew up around firearms my entire life. I hunted small game/pests (prairie dogs) quite literally from my back porch in a rural area. This is a safe and acceptable use of firearms, in my opinion, as care was taken to ensure that no buildings or people/animals (other than the prairie dogs) were in the line of fire and that the line of fine pointed downwards at a great enough angle to prevent wild ricochets. I have since joined 4-H shooting sports and am an active participant in youth target shoots in my local area (I have a state qualifier postal shoot next weekend for handguns). As a responsible gun handler all firearms are kept locked in a safe when not being used or transported to and from hunting and/or target shooting activities. 

I have no problem with people stating that there should be tighter gun control and more safety education, because I agree with them. I will say that I have no need, nor does anyone else, for an automatic weapon or one that holds more than 10 bullets (as the law currently prohibits) in a magazine (you should only need one with training, regardless of the situation, and 10 is plenty for target shooting convenience and/or redundancy). I personally think that people should be taught how to properly handle and address the issue of firearms safety, even if they don't plan on owning one themselves. I also would agree that psychological background checks are necessary, and perhaps full evaluations as well, before purchasing a gun. I will say though that gun violence will not be completely or so drastically eliminated as people say even if guns are outlawed completely. It's a culture issue as much as anything else it seems to me.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Pretzel

[cbrister]

Sweden is a pretty good model. I don't agree with everything they say though. I think people should be allowed to carry, preferably concealed. 

 

http://www.sweden.org.za/gun-laws-in-sweden.html

 

 

[imsys0042]

That is not strictly true. The majority of gun use in the U.S. is likely for hunting or target shooting. The bolded part is a fact, but the rest of it is your opinion that you bundled with a fact in order to attempt to add additional credibility to the statement.

I grew up around firearms my entire life. I hunted small game/pests (prairie dogs) quite literally from my back porch in a rural area. This is a safe and acceptable use of firearms, in my opinion, as care was taken to ensure that no buildings or people/animals (other than the prairie dogs) were in the line of fire and that the line of fine pointed downwards at a great enough angle to prevent wild ricochets. I have since joined 4-H shooting sports and am an active participant in youth target shoots in my local area (I have a state qualifier postal shoot next weekend for handguns). As a responsible gun handler all firearms are kept locked in a safe when not being used or transported to and from hunting and/or target shooting activities. 

I have no problem with people stating that there should be tighter gun control and more safety education, because I agree with them. I will say that I have no need, nor does anyone else, for an automatic weapon or one that holds more than 10 bullets (as the law currently prohibits) in a magazine (you should only need one with training, regardless of the situation, and 10 is plenty for target shooting convenience and/or redundancy). I personally think that people should be taught how to properly handle and address the issue of firearms safety, even if they don't plan on owning one themselves. I also would agree that psychological background checks are necessary, and perhaps full evaluations as well, before purchasing a gun. I will say though that gun violence will not be completely or so drastically eliminated as people say even if guns are outlawed completely. It's a culture issue as much as anything else it seems to me.

I wouldn't say that's an opinion.   It simply says that guns have a specific purpose, that's to shoot bullets.   Unlike a knife which can both stab someone and can cut twine in your backyard.   Beyond that, it says there are specific people who for whom guns are a necessary tool to do their jobs.   We don't like in a violence-free world, so the police and military need them.   Hunters as well since guns are sporting equipment to them, and in fact the specific tool needed for the sport to existt.   The main point is that they are licensed and authorized to use the gun for the specific purpose that was intended.   

There are other cases as well.   What do you do if you have to repair something in the middle of bear infested woods?   I'd like someone trained for weapons to be on my team, or with me!   But the problem that I see with the current state of things is that any fool can get a gun and not know how to use it, and there are arguments for why so many people should have them.

Maybe this is better?   Guns only have a specific purpose, shooting bullets.   There are a limited number of people who should be wielding them for purposes like policing, fighting wars, hunting...

Edited October 5, 2015 by imsys0042
horrible spelling

[Braivo]

There's a difference between alcohol, or anything else that can directly or in-directly cause harm to people.   They have other uses aside from harming people.  

How does alcohol have uses beyond harming people? 

I drink alcohol legally, and I don't drive drunk.

I shoot guns legally and don't use them to kill people. 

What is the difference?

BTW, this is the only site I have seen with honest, constructive dialogue on this topic, we may disagree but I am enjoying this banter. 

[saevel25]

I think one of the most difficult things is that people can go from being completely sane to having a psychotic episode.  There are so many psychopaths that can hold it together when they need too.  Serial killers are psychotic, they are also usually educated, and integrate into society well, ala Ted Bundy.  One other issue is that if you look at the imaging of the active brain areas of a normal person, a psychopath, and a teenager, guess what the teenagers brain imaging more closely resembles?  Teenagers and adolescents going through hormonal changes don't make the most rational decisions.  Throw in some Xanax, Aderal, and Prozac, mix with parents who are not parenting at levels they should be because they are too busy as one example and then maybe even the removal of the drugs and who knows how anyone is going to respond.  

Pretty much. Psychopaths are very manipulative and can be very convincing. You typically can not tell who a psychopath is. 

Most high school shooters are not psychopaths though. They are kids who are typically outcasts who have a lot of anger towards their peers. Some might even be victims of bullying and see no way out than to lash out at those who are causing their pain. In the end more needs to be done to make sure kids have a healthy outlet for their emotions so they don't turn towards violence. Schools and families do not do a good enough job to interact with troubles teenagers. 
 

While tragic and unexpected, mass shootings account for, on average, less than 100 deaths in American each year. About that many people die each day in automobile accidents. More than 30% of those are drunk-driving related. Therefore, roughly 30 people die each day as a result of alcohol related traffic accidents. I don't hear anyone arguing for tighter alcohol laws, or even a ban on alcohol, do I? 

Yes lets use logic and numbers to dumb down the fact that kids and teenagers are killed. First, people assume risk when they get behind the wheel of a car, no matter if you are sober or drunk. You are driving a 3500-4000 lb vehicle at upwards of 70 MPH in some cases. Do we want to just accept that kids and teenagers assume the risk of being killed when they go to school? 

Inherently driving a car is a very complex action people take for granted. This is why there are crashes and fatalities. This line of think should not be used to dumb down the argument on gun control with regards to mass shootings. In the end mass shootings should NEVER happen. Honestly it's insulting to any parent who has to bury their child to hear people like you speak that BS. "Oh, sorry but the death of your child falls in such a small percentage of fire arms deaths we just don't care enough to worry about it". That is basically what you are saying. 

Let's see we tried to stop drugs and drug related crimes, we failed.  Despite stricter DWI / DUI laws people are getting behind the wheel intoxicated more than ever.  We made stricter laws against texting while driving, they don't work either.  We cannot stop people from driving cars without licenses and insurance but we're ready to tackle guns?  Let's not even discuss how bad government has failed at removing illegal aliens..

If you want to stop drunk driving then just put liability on the place that sells the drinks. If a person comes from their bar and gets caught drink driving then they get fined or can be sued by the victim. All it takes is a phone call for a taxi or a friend and for the bar to take the keys of a driver. 

Chicago and DC have some of the strictest gun laws in the country, yet shootings and murder by guns continue to go up.

Actually Washington DC's violent crimes by firearms has been declining since the 1990's. Given it's still above the national average. It's WAY lower than it has been in the past. 

IMO the government can curtail gun crimes by enforcing a mandatory death penalty for anyone committing a crime with a gun, anything short of that is a waste of time.

Nope, that's just plain stupid. 

As for gun control laws there are no set guidelines.  Are you going to prevent anyone who's been to a psychologist or psychiatrist from owning a gun or just those on anti-depressants.  Are you going to go back and check yearly if someone who was issued a gun permit has been treated for depression and revoke their license and confiscate their guns?

 Sounds good to me.

Who decides what mental illnesses qualify as justification to deny a gun purchase or permit?  Once in place what prevents the government from raising the qualifications?

I don't know a qualified psychiatrist? They might know that a person is a danger to themselves or to other people. It doesn't. 

 

[Golfingdad]

 Despite stricter DWI / DUI laws people are getting behind the wheel intoxicated more than ever. 

Do you have a source for this?  Because after a little bit of googling, I found the exact opposite to be true.  http://report.nih.gov/nihfactsheets/ViewFactSheet.aspx?csid=24  One excerpt:

• The number of alcohol-related traffic deaths among 16 to 20 year-olds in the U.S. decreased from 5,244 in 1982 to 1,987 in 2008 in large measure because of the legal drinking age of 21 and Zero Tolerance Laws.

Sure, drunk driving still occurs, but after regulations have been put in place, including a minimum drinking age, more education, stricter BAC limits, zero tolerance for underage drivers, checkpoints, etc, etc, drunk driving ha gone down pretty significantly.

What's to have us believe that it would be any different with guns?  We should at least try something.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Golfingdad

[Jeremie Boop]

 

  39 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

As for gun control laws there are no set guidelines.  Are you going to prevent anyone who's been to a psychologist or psychiatrist from owning a gun or just those on anti-depressants.  Are you going to go back and check yearly if someone who was issued a gun permit has been treated for depression and revoke their license and confiscate their guns?

 

 Sounds good to me.

 

 

Wait... so because a very very small percentage of gun owners who may have had some trouble with depression have committed gun violence you punish every other person who has gone through the same thing and not done anything wrong? Sorry, I can't agree with that at all.

[Golfingdad]

Wait... so because a very very small percentage of gun owners who may have had some trouble with depression have committed gun violence you punish every other person who has gone through the same thing and not done anything wrong? Sorry, I can't agree with that at all.

But that's EXACTLY how it works with everything.  A fraction of a percent of people in society who can't adhere to social norms because they're idiots go and ruin it for everybody else.  Take the aforementioned minimum drinking age as an example; it was enacted in the 80's with its main goal being an attempt to curb drunk driving.  And it's worked.  And I don't think we are worse off as a society because of it either.

[Gator Hazard]

 

Most high school shooters are not psychopaths though. They are kids who are typically outcasts who have a lot of anger towards their peers. Some might even be victims of bullying and see no way out than to lash out at those who are causing their pain. In the end more needs to be done to make sure kids have a healthy outlet for their emotions so they don't turn towards violence. Schools and families do not do a good enough job to interact with troubles teenagers. 
 

But that is my point!  Most teenagers are going through so much hormonal and emotional change that in effect they are mostly mini psychopaths!  They do not yet have the coping and emotional tools to deal with situations that a normal rational adult would, much less the hormones to magnify those emotions and push them over the edge into doing something completely irrational.  You're right, you get that outsider who doesn't know an appropriate response.  They may be seeing a counselor, they may be seeing a psychologist, they may be on drugs for it or not, they may be self medicating with drugs, so many things that can throw a person like this over the edge. The opposite response is still no less rational or psychotic, the taking of ones life.  It is just a whole lot less messy and doesn't involve other people as victims of violence.  

 

It takes a village to raise a child they used too say, then I think our society got arrogant, and they didn't want anyone telling THEIR kid they were doing something wrong.  We need to go back to that, we cannot check out on our children and expect them to be okay.  We cannot let them go through life at those stages without knowing something about them and talking with them.  This means more than just parents too, but really needs to start at home.  As busy as I am and can get in my field I make it a point to be involved in my children's lives.  If that means I come home and have dinner with them as opposed to working late at the office, and then turn on the computer at 930 at night and work until 1 am so be it.  My kids are going to have a dad that loves and cares for them.  A father that will be tough on them when they need it but will also be compassionate and share guidance with them and let them know they are not nor will they ever be the only ones to go through the things they are going through and that everything gets better with time.

 

 

 

Edited October 5, 2015 by Gator Hazard

[Elmer]

Once again, why are we the only modern country who has this issue?
And refuses to take any action?

---

http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-prevent-says-only-nation-where-regularly-ha-51444

[Jeremie Boop]

But that's EXACTLY how it works with everything.  A fraction of a percent of people in society who can't adhere to social norms because they're idiots go and ruin it for everybody else.  Take the aforementioned minimum drinking age as an example; it was enacted in the 80's with its main goal being an attempt to curb drunk driving.  And it's worked.  And I don't think we are worse off as a society because of it either.

All that will do is encourage people to NOT get treated in order to avoid being punished by losing their license and having their guns confiscated. I'm not exactly in favor of preemptively punishing people for something they most likely will never do. Think about it, who's going to be one of the largest groups affected by this? I'd say military veterans. They are probably the last group who deserves to have their rights taken away, in my opinion. As for underage drinking and drunk driving, there was most likely a lot larger correlation between people who drink and people who drink and drive than there is people who are on anti-depressants and those who commit violent crimes with legally purchased weapons. I know this is pretty anecdotal, but I don't know of many people who drink that haven't driven afterwords at one point or another. I'd hope someone could come up with something that's more fair and balanced than such an extreme measure.

[Braivo]

Yes lets use logic and numbers to dumb down the fact that kids and teenagers are killed. First, people assume risk when they get behind the wheel of a car, no matter if you are sober or drunk. You are driving a 3500-4000 lb vehicle at upwards of 70 MPH in some cases. Do we want to just accept that kids and teenagers assume the risk of being killed when they go to school? 

Inherently driving a car is a very complex action people take for granted. This is why there are crashes and fatalities. This line of think should not be used to dumb down the argument on gun control with regards to mass shootings. In the end mass shootings should NEVER happen. Honestly it's insulting to any parent who has to bury their child to hear people like you speak that BS. "Oh, sorry but the death of your child falls in such a small percentage of fire arms deaths we just don't care enough to worry about it". That is basically what you are saying. 

First of all, many, many kids and teenagers are killed in auto accidents. It is the #1 cause of death for kids and teenagers, by far! No one thinks of driving to school as the biggest risk a child takes in a given day, but it is, by far! 

Read carefully the reports from parents after these shootings. Some of them come out in favor of gun control, but many do not. I remember watching a Sandy Hook father on live TV talk about how gun control was not the answer in the wake of his son's death. The media only shows the ones that favor their own agenda. They don't show the 11 or so families after Sandy Hook that removed their names from gun control fundraisers. That doesn't fit the narrative.

[imsys0042]

How does alcohol have uses beyond harming people? 

I drink alcohol legally, and I don't drive drunk.

I shoot guns legally and don't use them to kill people. 

What is the difference?

BTW, this is the only site I have seen with honest, constructive dialogue on this topic, we may disagree but I am enjoying this banter. 

Funny answer:  lots of people would never get laid....

Non-Funny answer:   like a lot of things, it's the degree.  Many drugs that are illegal are very harmful.   They are illegal for that reason.   You can be harmful to yourself and others if you take them a lot.   Down the scale there is a lot of debate about pot and whether that does enough harm to not be legal.  Although pot has it's side effects, I'd say that it's less than cocaine of heroin.  So that is why people have the conversation about legalized it, and not others (mostly).   Alcohol is probably next on the scale.   it can be harmful when over done, but is fine in moderation.   It's more heavily regulated than other drinks and there are laws specifically for it's use.

That does sound specifically like what people, like myself, want to see with guns.   If there is a need for your job, or you are a hunter or there is some other reasonable ask then there should be tight regulation with it and there should be limits.   Whether those are applied correctly for alcohol, or guns, is truly a matter for debate.   But I think it's the degree of potential harm.   Just like certain chemicals are needed by certain industries, but they are regulated enough where it's hard to procure them yourself.   Whereas Drano and Bleach could kill you just as well, but instead of restricting there are warnings and education about preventing harm with their use.

 

I don't like guns at all, but I respect the people who use them in a responsible way.   I'm more concerned with making it harder for people to misuse them, and I don't think that automatic or high impact guns have any place outside of the military.   Much in the same way that alcohol should be restricted from kids, bars should cut people off and drunk driving laws have real teeth.   Or even breathalyzers in cars, if someone has a problem,

[Gator Hazard]

All that will do is encourage people to NOT get treated in order to avoid being punished by losing their license and having their guns confiscated. I'm not exactly in favor of preemptively punishing people for something they most likely will never do. Think about it, who's going to be one of the largest groups affected by this? I'd say military veterans. They are probably the last group who deserves to have their rights taken away, in my opinion. As for underage drinking and drunk driving, there was most likely a lot larger correlation between people who drink and people who drink and drive than there is people who are on anti-depressants and those who commit violent crimes with legally purchased weapons. I know this is pretty anecdotal, but I don't know of many people who drink that haven't driven afterwords at one point or another. I'd hope someone could come up with something that's more fair and balanced than such an extreme measure.

I agree with this.  I think that counseling is a good thing, even for people who have no real issues.  The ex that I referenced earlier using Xanax and wine (also a U2 song) was going to a therapist.  Well, she wanted me to come along too (thought that the therapist would straighten me out), unfortunately it did not work out that way, and the therapist saw that the way we argue she could not stay calm and have the discussion.  It eventually was a good thing though because we got to go and discuss things that were causing us problems.  Therapy should be rewarded and not stigmatized, it is healthy and natural.  What I have an issue with is the over use of the prescription pad to solve all problems?  "Oh, you have a problem being in bigger groups, here's a prescription that will help you with social anxiety".  "That is all very interesting stuff going on there little Johnny, I am going to write you a prescription for prozac, take these and things will get better".  I think therapy needs to be more behavioral/cognitive based first and that prescriptions should be a last resort.  I am not trying to knock anyone's profession but I think that sometimes, just maybe a psychiatrist because they have a prescription pad, has a tendency to use the prescription pad more often.  I remember an article and they had a study in it where the psychiatrists over time declined into writing more prescriptions as the day dragged on and they fatiqued.  People are human, doctors included.  Just because someone wears a white coat doesn't mean as soon as they say anti depressant or anti anxiety that it should be taken as gospel.  Get to the root problem first, drugs should only be one tool and preferrably the last one.

 

Communication above all from adults to younger people.  Talk with kids and youngsters, bring them into the fold so they don't feel like an outcast.  Get to know them and help them along instead of just dismissing them because we don't want to take the time to try and understand the kid that dresses in all black.  WHY IS HE DRESSING IN ALL BLACK??

[Silent]

Once again, why are we the only modern country who has this issue?
And refuses to take any action?

---

http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-prevent-says-only-nation-where-regularly-ha-51444

I asked the same, and very curious about the answer. USA is the only modern country things like that happen. And not sometimes, but on a regular basis. Also the amount of guns per inhabitant is enormous compared to those same countries, and the gun laws are much lighter. Yet, when something likes this happen, a lot of people as fast as the speed of light declare it gas nothing To do with guns, 'guns don't kill, people kill' etc. It would drive me completely crazy, since in my world 1+1=2. This kind of things are quite unique in the western world, but not in USA. Would those things happen less, or happen more when it's harder to obtain guns? Asking the question is pretty much answering it I would say...