America's Gun Culture - What can we do?

[The Notorious]

While there's probably demand for smart guns, the law ensures that it can't be serviced without severely undercutting deamand for existing guns. That means that anybody trying to offer an 'early adopter' model stands to dramatically destabilize the market, and will likely incur the kind of boycotts that bankrupted S&W in the '90s. Which means that any company with significant investment in convential firearms doesn't want to risk doing much R&D on Smart Guns.

So that people could follow along, lupis is talking about this state law, passed in NJ:

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/05/gun_control_groups_file_lawsuit_to_force_nj_attorney_general_to_report_on_smart_guns.html

Two comments on your argument above. First, you have no evidence that the law ensures it can't be serviced without severely undercutting demand for existing guns. It's like cluelessly arguing that new legislation requiring all cars in 2015 to come with mandatory back-up camera will severely undercut demand for existing cars.

Second, you contradict yourself in several points: 1) by simultaneously claiming that early adopter would stand to dramatically destabilize the market, but then they would face bankruptcy (because they would sell so well and hence dramatically destablize the market?)

2) companies who have significant investment in conventional firearms don't want to risk doing R&D on smart guns because ............... early adopter stood to gain dramatically from having a head start? Again, that makes about as much sense as arguing that no other car companies would ever invest in researching and making electric/hybrid car because Toyota already had a huge head start with the Prius.

[Suttree]

By all means cite them.

California, the state with the strictest gun laws in the country, has seen a 56% drop in its gun death rate in the past 20 years, according to a study that the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence released last week.

The study points out that 5,500 Californians were killed by gunfire in 1993, but that number dropped to 2,935 by 2010. The number of people per 100,000 who were killed by guns also dropped dramatically from 1990 to 2010 (see chart at right, and note that the numbers on the Y axis seem to be spaced unevenly)...

This theory is bolstered by other studies done elsewhere — a Center for American Progress study found that states with the weakest gun laws have the highest rates of gun violence, and a study released by Boston Children's Hospital in March found that states with more gun laws have fewer gun-related deaths.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-californias-gun-laws-have-worked-2013-8

[Suttree]

One other thing that hasn't been touched on is how disparity in voting power can really shape policy, even for something most people support like broader background checks

If it seems perplexing why an idea that has broad support nationally could fail to pass the U.S. Senate, here's an important reminder: The Senate is not a democratic institution.

It never has been, and it was never designed to be. Rather, it was structured to give small or sparsely populated states the ability to stop the majority's will. And on Wednesday, that's how it worked out, as the Senate failed to reach a 60-vote threshold to support new background checks on gun purchases.

The 20 least populous states, which among them account for just one-tenth of the nation's population, provided 23 "no" votes, just over half of all the no votes cast. In contrast, the 20 most populous states, accounting for 76 percent of the nation's population, provided 27 yes votes.

So yes, the idea of expanding criminal and mental health background checks to more would-be gun buyers has the support of 90 percent of the U.S. population. But it could only muster 55 supporters (Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., voted no, but only to keep the ability to bring it back later) out of 100 in the Senate.

Senators from Alaska, North Dakota and Wyoming provided six no votes on the Manchin-Toomey background check compromise. Total population for those states: 2,007,489, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Senators from California, New York and Illinois provided six yes votes. Total population for those states: 70,486,946.

Just like the Electoral College, the Senate skews toward the lightly populated states. The fewer people who live there, the more relative influence each resident has. And in the case of an issue with a clear, urban-rural divide like gun control, the numbers are stacked against the wishes of city and suburb dwellers, even before factoring in Senate rules that allow a single member to gum up the works.

Of the 45 real no votes Wednesday, 35 came from states that benefit from their over-representation in the Senate.

S.V. Dáte is the congressional editor on NPR's Washington Desk.

[BloodRider]

notorious--

i'm not against registration, but the sue-fuck-outta-them rationale won't attract many plaintiff lawyers if the defendants in tort are judgment-proof lumpenproles sans insurance. maybe require proof of firearm insurance to get registered, to help with that?

I have often argued for this. Insurance companies are very strict about who can buy their product. But guess what, the NRA lobbies pretty heavily to get this stopped. And they have been pretty successful.

[Er Rn]

That gives you 200 bucks on average. The keyword here is "average." For example, if someone owns a 10000 dollar gun, then the government can pay that much, but the average could still be 200.

Ok, I'm going to try to put this another way. If I have to buy something from you, but I get to determine the object's worth and price and you have to accept whatever offer I make, what are the odds I'm going to give you a fair price for the object?

I don't see why a keepsake (its primary function is decoration, or for the sake of family memories) is ruined if its secondary function (to kill people and animals) is taken away from it. You can still use it as a decoration; at least this way, your kid won't play around with it and kill someone.

How would you disassemble this without ruining the aesthetic? And please tell me specifically what you would remove or change, and don't say you don't know or aren't a gun expert because then how would you know how whether it could be changed or not without ruining it? As to the second part, I don't have children, but my family is full of them and we've been raised to respect what guns are and the proper way to use and store them. Why would we let kids play around with them? What gives you the impression that we handle them with anything but the utmost care?

I don't think gun owners are stupid enough to take on the strongest army in the world.

Oh dear. I feel you're not very familiar with US gun culture. Check out any 2nd amendment rights website and it shouldn't be hard to figure out why.

I'm not a governmental worker, so I'm unsure of how the details would work. I was merely presenting a possible answer. All I know is that such programs were successful in other areas such as Australia; we could model our own program on theirs.

The answer is, it's impossible. There is no way to hunt down and collect every gun in the US. It will not work here. At all. Ever.

Do you need guns to kill and eat things? Even tranquilizers would suffice. I don't see why not.

:lol: How are you going to hit an animal with a tranquilizer? Oh, yeah, by using a tranquilizer gun. Unless we should be using darts or something? Plus you have to look at the chemicals produced by the tranquilizing agent and whether that will effect the integrity of the meat and if it's something you can (or want to) consume.

However the stimulus bill was covered; for example, taxing the rich. I think it's worth the needless deaths of thousands of people.

More taxes. Awesome.

I'm not trying to pick on you but making a statement like "Ban all guns" without understanding the situation and the culture really doesn't work. It's just not realistic.

[TerraPrime]

Concerning the law in NJ about the smart gun, I recall watching a Rachel Maddow segment on it and the legislator who proposed that law has agreed to help get rid of it in exchange of some incentives to make it easier for gun dealers to sell smart guns.

Link: http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/nra-wont-engage-on-smart-gun-compromise-250674755771

[lupis42]

So that people could follow along, lupis is talking about this state law, passed in NJ:

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/05/gun_control_groups_file_lawsuit_to_force_nj_attorney_general_to_report_on_smart_guns.html

Two comments on your argument above. First, you have no evidence that the law ensures it can't be serviced without severely undercutting demand for existing guns. It's like cluelessly arguing that new legislation requiring all cars in 2015 to come with mandatory back-up camera will severely undercut demand for existing cars.

Smart gun technology is not, at least in any current or conceived implementation, a simple add-on. It's more akin to a law requiring all cars in 2015 to be plug-in hybrids.

Second, you contradict yourself in several points: 1) by simultaneously claiming that early adopter would stand to dramatically destabilize the market, but then they would face bankruptcy (because they would sell so well and hence dramatically destablize the market?)

They wouldn't destabilize the market because they'd sell so well, they'd destabilize the market because it would suddenly be illegal to buy anything else.

2) companies who have significant investment in conventional firearms don't want to risk doing R&D on smart guns because ............... early adopter stood to gain dramatically from having a head start? Again, that makes about as much sense as arguing that no other car companies would ever invest in researching and making electric/hybrid car because Toyota already had a huge head start with the Prius.

Again - no.

If the law required that, within one year of an all-electric car being offered for sale, all cars had to be all electric, the existing automakers would have enourmous incentive to prevent any all electric car being offered for sale, because it would immediately render most of their existing infrastructure worthless. That is, they would have an incentive to use patent trolling, frivolous lawsuits, lobbying, and (if need be) underhanded or illegal moves to prevent any competitor from getting to market.

[TerraPrime]

Lupis:

True or False: The NRA's opposition to Smart Gun goes beyond the peculiar NJ law that forbids the selling of regular handguns.

[fuseprime]

Isn't it a bit backwards to assess negatively the usefulness of a piece of legislation based on the inevitable existence of criminals who would violate them?

"What, you want restraining orders? Why bother? Only the law-abiding ones will follow those and the bad guys will just violate the restraining ordersanyway and do what they want."

Convincing?

As far as restraining orders go, yeah, they're necessary. Some people just don't know when to stop following or stalker other people, and need something like that to get the picture. Unfortunately, they don't always work.

I see what you're saying, but I don't see how a registry is the same thing though.

What I meant was that you see protection of your person and property as something to be dealt with by the individual, rather than expecting the state to deal with it.

Yes. If I call 911, the average time for police to arrive is 10 minutes. I could be dead, by the time they arrive.

[The Notorious]

Lupis,

It seems to me that you're trying to make a slippery slope argument because you're basically claiming that this NJ law would prevent the sales of all conventional guns nationwide. Again, no proof for this.

Smart gun technology is not, at least in any current or conceived implementation, a simple add-on.

Incorrect, it's the same cheap add-on technology already available on your smart phone.

[lupis42]

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-californias-gun-laws-have-worked-2013-8

This is a debate that's been had in this forum before, but studies that focuses on "gun deaths" are using a metric chosen to make gun control appear successful.

That metric that would show 'improvement' if everyone in the country was given a phaser tomorrow and immediately used it to commit three murders.

[lupis42]

Lupis:

True or False: The NRA's opposition to Smart Gun goes beyond the peculiar NJ law that forbids the selling of regular handguns.

True. I don't share or support all of their objections, however.

[Suttree]

This is a debate that's been had in this forum before, but studies that focuses on "gun deaths" are using a metric chosen to make gun control appear successful.

That metric that would show 'improvement' if everyone in the country was given a phaser tomorrow and immediately used it to commit three murders.

By all means link us to the old discussion because the above is not a very convincing rebuttal.

Deborah Azrael, a research scientist at Harvard’s School of Public Health who studies firearms and violence, called the latest state-by-state report “a useful collation of data,” and said it “reinforces what we know from other studies, which is that the rate of exposure to firearms is associated with overall mortality.”

That is rather telling.

[lupis42]

Lupis,

It seems to me that you're trying to make a slippery slope argument because you're basically claiming that this NJ law would prevent the sales of all conventional guns nationwide. Again, no proof for this.

Even NJ wide would be a substantial market hit, and given the legislative history of CA and NY, I'd expect them to pass similar laws within weeks. That's a huge market hit. It's not certain to happen (the NJ AG hasn't actually acknowledged that the existing smart gun was offered for sale there, even though theoretically required to do so by the law) but it is a big risk, and a reason for companies to avoid that. Especially in an industry which has already seen a bunch of legislation targeting a variety of arbitrary technical features.

Incorrect, it's the same cheap add-on technology already available on your smart phone.

Either you know very little about the mechanisms involved in the typical handgun, or we're talking about completely different technologies.

[fuseprime]

This response quite frankly debunks your earlier claim that you're an law-abiding and responsible gunowner. Let me ask you this fuseprime, have you already got rid off the serial number on your guns because the criminals are already doing that?

That makes absolutely no sense and is typically claim by paranoid gun nuts. Are you actually claiming that the law actively forbid future funding and research of smart-guns?

Really bro? I know you have your views, but you shouldn't go around trashing and twisting what other people say on a FORUM. You know, a place for discussion?

And yes, why would any company in the gun-industry, support research in smart-gun technology if it's making all of their other products obsolete because of the NJ law?

How are you going to get gun-rights legislators on board with this? Where would the federal funds come from?

[lupis42]

By all means link us to the old discussion because the above is not a very convincing rebuttal.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22gun+death%22+site%3Awesteros.org

Feel free to read as many as you have time for.

[Galactus]

Smart gun technology is not, at least in any current or conceived implementation, a simple add-on. It's more akin to a law requiring all cars in 2015 to be plug-in hybrids.

A better comparison would be requiring all cars to have safety belts, or alcohol-locks.

[The Notorious]

Even NJ wide would be a substantial market hit, and given the legislative history of CA and NY, I'd expect them to pass similar laws within weeks.

The law has been passed in NJ for years and neither has CA or NY passed similar laws. This objection sounds hollow and specious.

Either you know very little about the mechanisms involved in the typical handgun, or we're talking about completely different technologies.

There are several technologies for this purpose, but the one most akin to a cheap add-on to your smart phone would be an embedded RFID chip.

[The Notorious]

Really bro? I know you have your views, but you shouldn't go around trashing and twisting what other people say on a FORUM. You know, a place for discussion?

Listen fuseprime, I only followed your argument to its logical conclusion. You argue that responsible gun owners should object to smart guns because the criminals would just disable them any way, just like how they filed off serial numbers of current guns. So I ask you, as a responsible gun owner, have you filed off the serial numbers on your guns because the criminals are already doing that right now to their guns. If you haven't done that, then your objection to smart guns are gibberish bullshit.

And yes, why would any company in the gun-industry, support research in smart-gun technology if it's making all of their other products obsolete because of the NJ law?

The same way the car companies went on board when federal mandate forced them to put seatbelts on all their car to be sold in the US.

How are you going to get gun-rights legislators on board with this? Where would the federal funds come from?

By making it an voluntary option for the first 5 years? The federal funds could come from higher taxes on bullets. :laugh:

[fuseprime]

By all means link us to the old discussion because the above is not a very convincing rebuttal.

That is rather telling.

I think this is rather more telling.

The majority of gun-related deaths between 2000 and 2010 were due to suicide and not criminal violence:Between the years 2000-2010, firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61% of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.

Mass shootings such as the one in Newtown, Connecticut, have declined and “account for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths.” Accidental deaths due to firearms have continued to fall as well, with “the number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents account[ing] for less than 1% of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

Firearm-related homicides in Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington, DC, which have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, skew the national rate. Were the statistics from those four areas removed, the United States would be in line with any other country.

Background checks, restrictions on firearms and increased penalties for illegal gun use showed “mixed” results, while “turn-in” programs “are ineffective” in reducing crime. The study noted that most criminals obtained their guns in the underground economy – from friends, family members, or gang members – well outside any influence from gun controls on legitimate gun owners.

Again, this is from the Obama commissioned CDC report on gun violence in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy. Here's the link for the report in full