America's Gun Culture - What can we do?

[Littlefingers In The Air]

It would be the Make, Model, and Serial number. However, pretty much any gun (mostly semi-auto handguns) that are sold on the "black market" have filed serial numbers on them anyway (which is completely illegal to do by the way). The only people who are burdened with registering firearms are law-abiding citizens. So if one of my handguns are stolen from my house, the numbers on the slide will more than likely disappear within a day, and the handgun will never make it's way back to me anyway.

is there a way to embed the Serial Number so that it couldn't be filed out?

[fuseprime]

Why would you need a firearm for self-defence? And you just said "normal" crimes were insignifant and crimes of passion were the issue.

What person? The one who stole it? Yes. The one who has the gun now? (probably, if he bought it)

If the gun is registered (and any sale is presumably kept in the record, so you can check previous owners, etc.) it gets much easier to track.

It'd have the gun registered, then linked to a particular owner. If the gun is sold that transfer gets tracked and the new owner registered. If the gun is stolen it gets registered as stolen or lost. (failure to report a stolen firearm leads to some degree of penalty, probably a fine, as well as revocation of any current gun licences, although you should probably be able to get your licence back after a "cool off" period of a couple of years) Any weapon that is not registered is considered contraband and can be confiscated.

The point is to make possession of an unregistered firearm itself a criminal offence, in such a way that it is easy to check up by clearly marking off proper ones as legal.

I certainly own a firearm for self-defense. In my mind, it's foolish not to. To me, it's better to have it and never used it, than to need it and not have it. I also never that, I believe that was Kalbear.

How would I be a felon if someone stole a gun from me?

I still don't see how a stolen gun could ever get back to me if the gun's serial numbers are filed. If I reported it stolen (which your damned right I would), the serial number would mean NOTHING. Even if LEOs, found my firearm, there's no way I'd be getting it back because I can't prove it's mine. Stolen firearms have their serial numbers removed. If not always, then almost always.

Registration leads to confiscation of a law-abiding citizen's firearms. Always. Nothing else.

[fuseprime]

is there a way to embed the Serial Number so that it couldn't be filed out?

No. Parts can be replaced and numbers removed. A gun is nothing but polymer and steel. All you need is a harder substance than the one your gun is.

[fuseprime]

Ok. What if you want to sell it back to a gun shop or a pawn shop? Do they need a license of some sort to be able to buy guns?

Yeah, it's an FFL.

[Galactus]

How would I be a felon if someone stole a gun from me?

Ah I'm thinking a three (or possibly more) person chain: The orignal owner, the person who stole then gun, whoever he sold the gun to, etc. etc. "The person who has the gun" is #3, not #1.

I still don't see how a stolen gun could ever get back to me if the gun's serial numbers are filed.

It can't. But if it's got no serial numbers and ends up in police custody or any other official capacity it'll just get destroyed and taken out of circulation.

[Galactus]

Registration leads to confiscation of a law-abiding citizen's firearms. Always. Nothing else.

Weird, because I've never heard of a law-abiding citizen's firearms being confiscated. (if they are, it's because someone broke the law) and I know lots of people who have guns. (I live in an area where moose hunting is a religion)

[sologdin]

pop GPS chip in firearm at time of manufacture with identifying signal. signal is tied to a particular person at point of retail transaction. if that signal terminates (because chip was removed) then owner is a felon.

[Athias]

Your definition of facilitate makes no sense. You talk about intrinsic realities, but that's a logical fallacy. Guns are built, and meant, 100% to hurt and kill things. Whether it is in the name of protection or not does not matter. Just like bow and arrows are meant to hurt and kill things, in sport or not, does not matter. Your argument is basically, nothing can facilitate anything.

If you strip everything down to bare bones, all you have left is matter. A gun is just a bunch of atoms. Yes, that facilitates nothing. But you can say that about anything and everything that is physical. but, here is a definition;

fa·cil·i·tate

fəˈsiliˌtāt/

verb

1. make (an action or process) easy or easier.

   "schools were located on the same campus to facilitate the sharing of resources"

   synonyms:

   make easy/easier, ease, make possible, make smooth/smoother, smooth the way for; More

now tell me that guns don't facilitate violence. You are distinguishing and breaking things down to a point where it does not matter anymore. Until all you are left with is nondescript matter.

Can guns facilitate violence? Yes. Do Guns facilitate violence? I say yes. But the problem is that you draw a line that is not really there. Guns can facilitate violence, so they do, because that is what they are meant to do.

SO Here: Do guns make violence easier? Yes.

Thus, given the definition above, guns facilitate violence.

Now, Do guns necessitate violence? Do guns make violence necessary? No because if you have a gun it does not mean you have to use it.

EDit: "Do guns make violence easier," and "Can guns make violence easier," are the same question.

I'll also include a wiki link to the history of fire arms. And another on the history if fire arms. Because for some reason the history came up once or twice. Guns were invented for murder. The way they do it does not matter. That was the intent. That was the design.

I did not define facilitate, so how does my definition not make sense? And you can spare the definition of "facilitate" given that the exchanges I've had with Galactus had already made it known that facilitate is defined "to make easier." I'm not going to spend anymore time explaining that there's a difference between "can" and "do." If you don't know that already, take it upon yourself to look it up.

Firstly regarding your bolded response, please do not presume to put words in my mouth that I did not use - here is my quote - "Yes people who are determined to do harm will still get hold of a weapon but it sure as hell isn't easy nor should it be".

Secondly here is the missing line quoted directly from underneath one of your helpful links on Australian crime statistics (thank you for going to the trouble by the way)

"There has been a pronounced change in the type of weapons used in homicide since monitoring began. Firearm use has declined by more than half since 1989-90 as a proportion of homicide methods, and there has been an upward trend in the use of knives and sharp instruments, which in 2006-07 accounted for nearly half of all homicide victims."

Again if you look at the bolded part of this comment it does in fact point out a relevant detail that totally disagrees with your argument. - You pulled this link out, are you going to apologise? I highly doubt it.

I have edited the rest of your reply for space & content. That being said, I absolutely acknowledge that Australian culture is witnessing a growing increase in violent crime we just hold up our liquor stores & bottle shops with Machette's & syringes filled with blood, as I said PEOPLE will always find a way to do harm if that is their intent, but a semi automatic weapon greatly increases your chances of killing on a mass scale. However I do believe that's another topic of discussion.

Incidentally I never mentioned Australia as being a paragon of virtue for all other nations to look to as some shining example....please I'm not a child. It is however quite interesting that in my own estimate approximately 75% of our TV, movies, gaming & other social media come from guess where?. Even though we are a British Commonwealth independent country like Canada. America influences our lives on a daily basis. Not that I'm blaming the US for our own problems & likewise we are equally as immoral at glorifying our notorious criminals in show's like "Underbelly" or "Sons of Anarchy"

I would also like to say to the other poster's especially the American's I truly empathise with those of you who seek to find an answer to this terrible problem, good on you for speaking up, & I encourage you to speak loud & long till your voices are heard & it overwhelms the voices of those who see gun ownership as some God Given right.

.

Why did you respond in the first place? I'm curious as to what in my comments led you to cite Australia's gun ban? The premise I argued--which you quoted--was:

As far as gun ownership is concerned, I don't think anything should be done. The accessibility to a firearm, like with all goods, should be determined by a free and willful exchange. Those who put forward that fewer guns--or at the very least, a diminished access to them--leads to fewer acts of violence have not met their burden of proof. That is, stringent gun controls curb acts of violence. The mere possession, ownership, and use of a firearm does not constitute a violent trend, and therefore, any speculative causal links are just that--speculative.

With which part of the premise did you disagree? That firearms should be determined by a free and willful exchange or that those who put forward that fewer guns leads to fewer acts of violence have not met their burden of proof?

As for not mentioning the decline in firearms, I thought it irrelevant. I was not making the argument that the ban did not reduce firearm use. Given the fact that I provided the links, it wasn't information that i would put the effort in to hiding. And again, any premise made that requires an establishment of causation will require proof. So when you say:

but a semi automatic weapon greatly increases your chances of killing on a mass scale

prove it.

It's very unclear what you mean by "moral and ethical analysis"--does that mean you think morality is invented and not discovered? I have no clue what you mean by "individual effort and cooperation." Why does this give us rights and not something else? What is special about that? You seem to be taking for granted a lot of controversial ethical views and assuming that they're true, when there's not much reason to accept them. This makes your argument a lot weaker.

I don't assume any philosophy to be true for anyone other than me. It's an examination of the human condition -- it's not a physical fact. There are chunks of Aristotle, Aurelius, Spinoza, Kant, and Nietzche among my beliefs, but I wouldn't force anyone to accept it.

This is only partially true. The mere presence of a gun, regardless of who owns it, will always be a source of risk. For example, even if one is very careful, it's possible that they'll accidentally shoot someone, or their kid will steal their guns (remember Adam Lanza?).

What bearing does any of this have on what I said? When did I state that there were no risks?

Very misleading how you take for granted that the knife will go for the heart while the bullet will go for the arm. You can't take this for granted.

It wasn't misleading at all. It was stated, "People are more likely to get out alive from a stabbing than a shooting." That was rather careless and over-generalized. My response was meant to point out that out.

It's actually quite simple. One could make the assumption that an action is harder if it burns more calories. For example, it is very hard to climb stairs but easy to walk a few meters. The reason for that is energy consumption. Now, it's obvious that stabbing someone is much tougher than just shooting someone dead from a range. Here's why:

1. You have to get close to that person. You don't have to chase a person with a gun.

2. You have to be careful with the knife so the person you're attacking doesn't take hold of it and hurt you back, and be careful of it yourself.

3. Stabbing someone in the heart, as you put it earlier, is not easy since you have to deal with the rib cage. It actually takes a decent amount of power to do that.

It's a lot harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun due to these reasons.

Again, what does any of this have to do with what I said?

And as thoughtful as your rationalization was, it's not proof--not to mention, it's very conjectural.

Yes, but that design is almost completely suited for one purpose, and that's violence, either towards people or towards animals. The design doesn't let you use much else with it: just about the only thing I can think of is target practice, to have a bit of fun. People can use knives for a lot of things though: cutting, cooking, making sushi, and so on. You can't cook with a gun.

Since when does an individual's utility characterize the purpose of a gun's function?

what is particularly indefinite or imprecise in force?

I wasn't sure how you were using the term.

this is picayune, as though the design was to have bullet races or something. the design has always been about placing the high speed projectile in something else to its prejudice. this kinda argument is what I meant by frivolous.

That very well maybe true, but I don't believe that's what you meant by frivolous given the context of violence. If one places a high speed projectile in to something as opposed to someone, then how is it picayune to acknowledge that distinction?

we don't need to define it. step out of the platonist sophistry.

It isn't platonist sophistry. If one is going to characterize the purpose of any item resolutely with a singular focus, then I don't see how the notion of use isn't subsumed by the characterization, as well. Hence, the definition.

can't imagine how this is the case. you have argued that firearms are not necessarily associated with violence. there are two ways to establish this thesis and its contrary: they are related either a priori or a posteriori, by design or by usage. in neither case will you produce an example of a firearm designed to be a pillow, and I very much doubt that you will procure an example of a firearm used a pillow. they are made for shooting stuff, usually other living things, and that has been the almost exclusive usage of firearms historically.

No. I have argued that the mere use, possession, and ownership of a firearm does not facilitate violence. I don't need to produce an example of a firearm being "designed to be a pillow," I'd only have to produce an example of a firearm being used and possessed outside of a violent context. It's quite obvious that they are made for "shooting stuff." Whether living targets are "usual" is your burden to demonstrate. Nevertheless, arguing that violence is in the nature of a gun is a tall order, and I await the a posteriori sources you can provide.

yeah, i know. that's my thesis. the existence of the right is absolutely a matter of public deliberation. we create rights by statute. we recognize their existence and scope in the judiciary. one can assert whatever self-created right one wants, but it is purely fictive.

I think the same about the substance of public deliberation. But I guess we're just going have to agree to disagree.

[fuseprime]

Weird, because I've never heard of a law-abiding citizen's firearms being confiscated. (if they are, it's because someone broke the law) and I know lots of people who have guns. (I live in an area where moose hunting is a religion)

Here's a video of post-Katrina Louisiana about police confiscating legal firearms. Yes, it's by the NRA, but it doesn't make it less true.

[Seli]

....

How would I be a felon if someone stole a gun from me?

....

Why would you be a felon?* At best you ought to be fine, with the weapon stolen from a properly secured location such as a locker or gun-cabinet. At worst you'd risk losing your licenses because you are not a responsible gun owner. A perfectly fine mechanism, no?

*unless you facilitated the theft, but that isn't stealing anymore; or didn't report it perhaps.

[fuseprime]

Why would you be a felon?* At best you ought to be fine, with the weapon stolen from a properly secured location such as a locker or gun-cabinet. At worst you'd risk losing your licenses because you are not a responsible gun owner. A perfectly fine mechanism, no?

*unless you facilitated the theft, but that isn't stealing anymore; or didn't report it perhaps

How am I an irresponsible gun owner by having someone steal from me? You're really saying that I ought to be fined, even though I would have a gun in a safe?

[Seli]

How am I an irresponsible gun owner by having someone steal from me? You're really saying that I ought to be fined, even though I would have a gun in a safe?

No, I was specifically not saying that.

I think the issue is in my use of 'fine', which is supposed to be fine as in 'ok', 'not in any problems'. Not fined, emphatically not fined.

[TerraPrime]

Why would someone disassemble a firearm if it's needed for self-defense? When there's an intruder in your home, high on meth or whatever else, you better be damned sure my firearm is easily accessible to me.

So do you follow the standard gun safey of storing the gun and ammunitions separately with the gun in a locked place? Because, if you do, I am not seeing how it can be an effective tool of self defense in many of the scenarios where you become aware of an intruder.

[Lady Woodland]

And indeed, this is no different for South Australia, where violent offence rates are stable or dropping.

Umm thanks but a graph that ends in 2011 is not recent, Its recent history but is not current, I'm here now talking about what I see in my neighbourhood & read in the local news.

[Lady Woodland]

Until recently it was impossible to buy and sell guns in Chicago until the USSC ruled it unconstitutional. The city government responded by stating they'd now allow gun shops to open but all purchases would have to be videoed and an associated mountain of documents to be completed. That's not mentioning the draconian restrictions on who can and cannot own weapons within the jurisdictions of places like NY. I never hear, though I'd be happy to be proven wrong, any liberal supporter of gun rights calling for these unreasonable laws to be rescinded. It's why I think many gun owners look at someone like Bloomberg, who talks about 'reasonable restrictions' through tougher background checks etc and dismisses the notion that he has a hidden agenda to ban guns outright. Well OK if that's the case why isn't he calling for NY to allow responsible gun ownership for people who'd pass his tougher checks?

There is that annoying word again, how sad it sound's like they were ahead of their time politically speaking. It all seems to go back to the 2nd Amendment. The measures adopted to allow purchases are fair and reasonable & personally I think are a great idea.

[Lady Woodland]

(snipped)

Just can't be bothered, I'm out of here, I'm not posting again. Your country your problem, it's not really any of my business until you bring it to my door.

[The Marquis de Leech]

I certainly own a firearm for self-defense.

This is where US culture is so different. Unlike everyone else, it's not about gun ownership for hunting, or work purposes, or recreation - it's about self-defence. The idea that you need a weapon between yourself and the outside world, because you don't trust the State. It's a culture based on fear and mistrust.

(Incidentally, here even the police don't carry guns. Make of that what you will).

[Horza]

Umm thanks but a graph that ends in 2011 is not recent, Its recent history but is not current, I'm here now talking about what I see in my neighbourhood & read in the local news.

Ok, so this upward trend in antisocial violence across the Western world begins after 2011, and the SA Office of Crime Statistics and Research is lamentably slack in publishing crime data.

So why isn't it showing up in the most recent New South Wales crime data? NSW is certifiably part of Western civilisation and doesn't lack for areas of socioeconomic deprivation.

[lupis42]

There is that annoying word again, how sad it sound's like they were ahead of their time politically speaking. It all seems to go back to the 2nd Amendment. The measures adopted to allow purchases are fair and reasonable & personally I think are a great idea.

And it was working so well too - just look at the horrible spike in homicides after Chicago's "ahead of their time" laws were undone.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/01/chicago-homicide-rate-2014_n_5070438.html

[lupis42]

Weird, because I've never heard of a law-abiding citizen's firearms being confiscated. (if they are, it's because someone broke the law) and I know lots of people who have guns. (I live in an area where moose hunting is a religion)

I know a few. Travis Corcoran's fiance, for example.