More Guns in the United States

[Guest Raidne]

This is why I support the idea of a registry. I know it's a non-starter for a lot of gun owners, and I really want to respect that. But I don't know how we get past the "I sold it to some guy" excuse otherwise.

Is prosecution really the problem? Tormund phrased it as "compliance," but that was too generous, IMO. The issue a registry addresses is proving non-compliance. This is the only issue that is solved by knocking out the "I sold it to some guy; no idea who" excuse. If you require all sales to be registered, people who want to sell to people who can't legally own weapons will just become the victim of a theft, or will only traffic in weapons that are black market to begin with.

To put it another way, you're taking all the strategies of the "Drug War" and applying them to the problem of illegal firearms and gun violence.

But here is the thing - if the market for firearms intended for unlawful ownership relies on weapons sold by your average gun owner who believes the sale is lawful, reducing the amount of legally-owned firearms transferred into criminal hands via mandatory background checks, without any registry, will shrink the black market for firearms.

Think about marijuana sales and use in California. That is like what we have now. Mandatory universal background checks are analogous to criminalizing medical marijuana. But what you are arguing for is like a state-wide registry of all legal medical marijuana sales, on the theory that this will stop people from letting their friends smoke off their prescription.

Lastly, there's a big difference for making that person legally responsible for keeping a record of the sale for, say, seven years (as with tax documentation), and putting all that information in a government "registry," i.e. central database. The former idea would be what I would call a "reasonable compromise," no?

[Jon Sprunk]

But compliance itself isn't the point. The point is to reduce gun violence. Already we can see where the authoritarian stuff that makes me ick comes in. This is why I don't trust your side on this.

But you said: " If it works, you've gotten what you want."

What do you mean by if it works? I'm trying to devise a better system that, hopefully, reduces the overall gun violence rates. It sounds like you're trying to offer something that we'll never know if or how much it helps, perhaps in the hopes that people will just forget about the problem?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

This is why I don't trust your side on this.

Actually, I think Jon already explained why protestations from politicians that they have no intention of violating core gun rights are worthless:

Oh, and just to return to my point per Biden. His role atm is not to educate, but to keep public pressure on congress. I agree that it's horrible, but that's what American politics has become (for both sides). It doesn't matter if you're telling the truth; it only matters if you can fire up the people enough to score a victory.

So there's Jon admitting that Biden is lying. We already know Obama is lying because he's telling potential donors that it was a fully automatic weapon used at Newtown. In other words, they're perfectly willing to lie to the public as necessary to get their bills passed. We'd be fools to believe them when they say they have no intention of depriving law abiding citizens of guns, because admitting to such a intention would kill any significant bill.

Someone needs to cue Joe Wilson anytime the gun control advocates on Capitol Hill or the White House open their yappers. Being ignorant of the facts is excusable, because you can always learn more. But when it gets to the point where they knowingly misrepresent them, there's no longer any point in discussions.

[Jon Sprunk]

If you require all sales to be registered, people who want to sell to people who can't legally own weapons will just become the victim of a theft, or will only traffic in weapons that are black market to begin with.

How many times can a person be robbed of their guns before it prompts an investigation? And stopping the black market is an entirely different issue, imo. It will never be 100%, but using a registry combined with universal mandatory checks is bound to (again, imo) stop more unlawful sales than something like a voluntary, non-tracked check system. It comes down to the criminal element. As the black market constricts, prices go up, and (hopefully) some criminals will be unable to find easy access to firearms over time. I grant you it isn't a perfect system.

To put it another way, you're taking all the strategies of the "Drug War" and applying them to the problem of illegal firearms and gun violence.

Not entirely. The Drug War has 2 big problems. First, too many addicts will chose their drugs over family, freedom, and even life. While some people really like guns, I don't see it as the same compulsion. Second, drug usage (not selling, of course) is a crime that primarily affects the self (and thru self, those closest to the addict). Gun violence sometimes affects self (accidents and suicides), but also very often harms others. It's much easier to make a case for a self-damaging behavior (like smoking) than one which harms others to such a large degree.

But here is the thing - if the market for firearms intended for unlawful ownership relies on weapons sold by your average gun owner who believes the sale is lawful, reducing the amount of legally-owned firearms transferred into criminal hands via mandatory background checks, without any registry, will shrink the black market for firearms.

I agree, which is why I've repeatedly said that the universal checks should be tried first (along with changes to our MH system). I prefer to take gradual steps. I'd even take Tormund up on his voluntary checks system if it had a built-in mechanism to switch to a mandatory system if it wasn't proving to be very effective in curbing gun violence.

Mandatory universal background checks are analogous to criminalizing medical marijuana.

I see it as analogous to criminalizing illegal marijuana sales/usage. We're targeting people who wouldn't normally ask for a background check.

But what you are arguing for is like a state-wide registry of all legal medical marijuana sales, on the theory that this will stop people from letting their friends smoke off their prescription.

Only if it came to that, which I admit is a more draconian measure.

Lastly, there's a big difference for making that person legally responsible for keeping a record of the sale for, say, seven years (as with tax documentation), and putting all that information in a government "registry," i.e. central database. The former idea would be what I would call a "reasonable compromise," no?

For the time being, yes. But if a universal check system wasn't getting the job done (and we'd need benchmarks to know that), then our society might be forced into more stringent methods. I like the compromise. (and I want it to work.)

[Jon Sprunk]

Actually, I think Jon already explained why protestations from politicians that they have no intention of violating core gun rights are worthless:

So there's Jon admitting that Biden is lying. We already know Obama is lying because he's telling potential donors that it was a fully automatic weapon used at Newtown. In other words, they're perfectly willing to lie to the public as necessary to get their bills passed. We'd be fools to believe them when they say they have no intention of depriving law abiding citizens of guns, because admitting to such a intention would kill any significant bill.

Someone needs to cue Joe Wilson anytime the gun control advocates on Capitol Hill or the White House open their yappers. Being ignorant of the facts is excusable, because you can always learn more. But when it gets to the point where they knowingly misrepresent them, there's no longer any point in discussions.

Well, tbh, I don't know that Biden or Obama is lying. But I suspect that they may be playing the same game that republicans play with healthcare, family planning, civil rights, economics, foreign wars, etc... They are playing to win the issue. It's always easier to say you're sorry or you misspoke after you win the vote and achieve the goal. It fucking sucks, I know, but we can't act like those two invented the game.

And I don't know about your last point. Over time, stances do change. If the polls continue to move in the direction of new gun control measures, we could see some changes in congress. Look at gay marriage, and that has a much lower approval rate than universal checks.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Well, tbh, I don't know that Biden or Obama is lying. But I suspect that they may be playing the same game that republicans play with healthcare, family planning, civil rights, economics, foreign wars, etc... They are playing to win the issue. It's always easier to say you're sorry or you misspoke after you win the vote and achieve the goal. It fucking sucks, I know, but we can't act like those two invented the game.

But it really doesn't matter if they invented it or not, does it. On this issue, they're conduct lets us know that they absolutely cannot be trusted. That's enough for me.

And I don't know about your last point. Over time, stances do change. If the polls continue to move in the direction of new gun control measures, we could see some changes in congress. Look at gay marriage, and that has a much lower approval rate than universal checks.

I was referring to negotiations, and attempts to address the issue honestly. If the Veep, Pres., and others just need to get educated a bit better on the facts, that's fine. But I think it's past the point where we can assume these are just "misstatements". They're deliberate misrepresentations.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

But you said: " If it works, you've gotten what you want."

What do you mean by if it works? I'm trying to devise a better system that, hopefully, reduces the overall gun violence rates. It sounds like you're trying to offer something that we'll never know if or how much it helps, perhaps in the hopes that people will just forget about the problem?

I mean if it helps reduce gun violence. Its pretty easy to see if it helps by seeing if violence goes down beyond the existing trends. Here's the problem, you're more interested in getting "compliance" than actual results.

[The Anti-Targ]

Is prosecution really the problem? Tormund phrased it as "compliance," but that was too generous, IMO. The issue a registry addresses is proving non-compliance. This is the only issue that is solved by knocking out the "I sold it to some guy; no idea who" excuse. If you require all sales to be registered, people who want to sell to people who can't legally own weapons will just become the victim of a theft, or will only traffic in weapons that are black market to begin with.

To put it another way, you're taking all the strategies of the "Drug War" and applying them to the problem of illegal firearms and gun violence.

But here is the thing - if the market for firearms intended for unlawful ownership relies on weapons sold by your average gun owner who believes the sale is lawful, reducing the amount of legally-owned firearms transferred into criminal hands via mandatory background checks, without any registry, will shrink the black market for firearms.

Think about marijuana sales and use in California. That is like what we have now. Mandatory universal background checks are analogous to criminalizing medical marijuana. But what you are arguing for is like a state-wide registry of all legal medical marijuana sales, on the theory that this will stop people from letting their friends smoke off their prescription.

Lastly, there's a big difference for making that person legally responsible for keeping a record of the sale for, say, seven years (as with tax documentation), and putting all that information in a government "registry," i.e. central database. The former idea would be what I would call a "reasonable compromise," no?

Well there is, in many countries including the USA I believe, a mandatory register of all legal morphine (and other narcotic) sales for therapeutic use. So actually your parallel with drugs is an argument in favour of a gun registry, not an argument against. And yes, if recreational marijuana use is illegal, but therapeutic use is legal then there should be a sales registry for medical marijuana. Mandatory background checks are like having to obtain a prescription for medical Marijuana, it's not analogous to criminalising it.

Unless you think the US govt is more likely to turn into an authoritarian, tyrannical regime than other similar democratic countries (NZ, UK, Aussie, most of Western Europe), then the examples of gun control laws in these other countries not even remotely turning into (or ever likely to turn into) a total ban and confiscation of guns pretty much nullifies any argument against a licencing/registration system in the USA on the basis that it might, one day, if Obama becomes president for life lead to total gun confiscation.

I've also been thinking about the having a gun prevents crime thing. All it really does is divert the crime to someone without a gun. But what does that actually mean? it means, like with all predatory situations, the predatory goes for the weakest target. The weakest traget normally being the one without the gun. But what if everyone has (or is assumed to have) a gun? It's not going to stop the criminal from committing a crime, it just means the criminal's view of the weakest target no longer factors gun possession into their decision-making. If gun possession is assumed then the criminal merely takes mitigating steps to lessen the chances of being stopped by a gun from caryring out their intended crime.

It's like lots of treatments for diseases. If the root cause of the disease isn't addresed then the disease becomes resistant to the treatment being applied. Violence in society is the problem, gun ownership is not the solution.

[Guest Raidne]

Not entirely. The Drug War has 2 big problems. First, too many addicts will chose their drugs over family, freedom, and even life. While some people really like guns, I don't see it as the same compulsion. Second, drug usage (not selling, of course) is a crime that primarily affects the self (and thru self, those closest to the addict).

Who pays the price for drug abuse is not an issue relevant to the ease of enforcing laws criminalizing drugs. That is a moral concern, not a practical one.

And the fact that people like drugs is not exactly a unique concern. People really like stealing electronic files, jaywalking, beating up their wives, driving drunk, and pretty much anything else that's illegal. That's why we have to bother to make it illegal. Fortunately, people don't really seem to enjoy, say, spontaneously taking a dump on other people in public, so you won't likely find many criminal statutes on the books particularly addressing this hypothetical offense. Criminals who can't legally own guns but intend to commit violent acts are probably huge, con-attending fans of the illegal ownership of firearms. Let's put (1) a crackhead across the street from a nice big rock next to (2) an unarmed crack dealer across the street from a nice .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol and see who is really more motivated.

The problem that happened there is that you conflated illegal drug user with "drug addict," and then analogized "drug addict" to "gun addict," when the proper analogy was between illegal drug users and illegal gun owners. The point in either case is that if the DEA could have doctors run schedule III prescriptions against a background check before handing out narcotics to people with a history of dealing or abuse, we wouldn't be sitting here haggling over the idea of creating a national database of all persons having prescriptions for schedule III narcotics, even though that would be less of a constitutional violation that a national gun registry database. We'd just authorize the background checks already, and not hold the whole thing up over some histrionic hand-wringing about the proposal's inability to stop corrupt doctors intentionally running pharms to the black market (and without any actual empirical evidence of the existence of these corrupt doctors, for that matter).

[Sturn]

Not entirely. The Drug War has 2 big problems. First, too many addicts will chose their drugs over family, freedom, and even life. While some people really like guns, I don't see it as the same compulsion. Second, drug usage (not selling, of course) is a crime that primarily affects the self (and thru self, those closest to the addict). Gun violence sometimes affects self (accidents and suicides), but also very often harms others. It's much easier to make a case for a self-damaging behavior (like smoking) than one which harms others to such a large degree.

Drug usage, "primarily affects the self"? Ask some children if they would rather have daddy be a gun owner or a drug user. Would your rather live in a neighborhood full of gun owners or full of drug users?

[lupis42]

Jon,

Splitting my reply into two parts

Well, your school (and mine) offered those courses because it was assumed that some of the students would find employment using those tools. The course was largely vocational, and although safety was always taught, that was not the emphasis.

So, when a person who doesn't own or want to own guns hears your proposal, they aren't thinking, "yeah, it's just like metalshop." They are more likely to think, "why is this person trying to brainwash my children into liking guns."

See, one of our main problems (as seen by some) is that our youth culture is TOO comfortable with guns. Sticking their heads in the sand and pretending guns don't exist isn't going help either, but they surely do not want to see guns become even more ubiquitous in our society.

This, though is why I specifically compared it to sex-ed. Immoral may have been the wrong word, but this is about a desire to make guns taboo.

Incidentally, I think this actually feeds into the empowerment fantasy issue to some degree. They're in movies, TV, and video games, and there are toy variants of all sorts, but for most people in suburban or urban areas, there's very little or no exposure to actual firearms (at least, within the law), which makes them something to fixate on.

There are many possible solutions, each with its own set of problems. We could, for instance, mandate that every citizen serve 4 years in the US armed forces (18-22). This would include courses on gun usage and safety. I assume that a population with near-universal armed forces service would be more knowledgable about firearms and their safe usage/storage. There's also the downside that some people would see this as a massive infringement on their personal liberty.

Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of conscription, which seems a particularly costly fix given the actual scope of the problem, and the obvious concerns about the consequences of shifting away from an all-volunteer force.

Are parents who don't want their kids to see drugs, touch drugs, or hear anything about drugs (except how they're dangerous, evil things) also acting irrationally?

Yes.

And before you say that drugs and guns are miles apart, consider that there is such a thing as responsible, beneficial drug use, just like there is responsible, beneficial gun usage.

I agree with you completely.

But you're talking about people's kids here, and that changes the conversation.

Now, if you'd said that the government should offer free adult-education gun safety courses, well then, that's a horse of a different color....

To the best of my knowledge, every state offers a hunter's safety course of some variety, free of charge, which includes a (small and far from ideal) section on firearm safety. What I'm trying to address, however, is not the people who deliberately encounter firearms on their own terms (i.e. the people likely to seek training) but the people who are likely to first encounter a firearm unexpectedly.

[to be continued]

[lupis42]

But here is the thing - if the market for firearms intended for unlawful ownership relies on weapons sold by your average gun owner who believes the sale is lawful, reducing the amount of legally-owned firearms transferred into criminal hands via mandatory background checks, without any registry, will shrink the black market for firearms.

How many times can a person be robbed of their guns before it prompts an investigation? And stopping the black market is an entirely different issue, imo. It will never be 100%, but using a registry combined with universal mandatory checks is bound to (again, imo) stop more unlawful sales than something like a voluntary, non-tracked check system. It comes down to the criminal element. As the black market constricts, prices go up, and (hopefully) some criminals will be unable to find easy access to firearms over time. I grant you it isn't a perfect system.

Here's the thing I don't get about this argument: insofar as your goal is to reduce the black market and thereby reduce criminal access to firearms. We keep offering a step in that direction, and you object, because it's not a big enough step.

I really don't get it, it's like you're turning down an offer of 500 dollars because it isn't 1000 dollars.

[lupis42]

I agree, which is why I've repeatedly said that the universal checks should be tried first (along with changes to our MH system). I prefer to take gradual steps. I'd even take Tormund up on his voluntary checks system if it had a built-in mechanism to switch to a mandatory system if it wasn't proving to be very effective in curbing gun violence.

Ok - if gun violence (measured as, say, murders committed with a firearm owned by someone who could not legally own it) is more than 10% higher after 5 years than it is this year, it switches to mandatory. If it's more than 10% lower, we remove the requirement for NFA registration from Suppressors, Short Barrel Rifles & Short Barrel Shotguns. Fair compromise?

[lupis42]

if we can get anecdotal, I am not the least bit afraid of a gun, except when it's being pointed at me. I do, however, understand the devastation that guns have caused in my little neck of the woods, and I can extrapolate to what must be going on in larger, more dangerous cities. I don't see that as irrational.

If you attribute the devastation to the gun, that is irrational.

Some of them are, no doubt, irrational. But many are based on evidence. Now, you can debate the merits of everyone's personal evidence, but calling it irrational isn't going to win you any converts.

See, when I referred to the gun-right's fear of a CDC study, I did so because most of the points against such a study were based on conjecture, just spun out of thin air. What if the study is done wrong? What if the wrong questions are asked? What if the results are biased? What if the govt can afford billions of dollars of corporate welfare each year but cannot spare a few million to study ways to keep people safe?

But when it comes to youth and gun violence, we don't need to make up objections. We can look at the numbers. You can come with me on a walk through some of the neighborhoods of my city. We'll talk to the kids, ask them to pull up their shirts and see the guns tucked in their waistbands. Hell, they'll be happy to show you their "war wounds" (bullet scars) or tell you about all their friends and relatives who have been killed with guns.

What evidence? Is there any evidence at all, anywhere, that knowing how to handle firearms safely increases in any way the risk of suffering gun violence? Can you even construct a plausible hypothetical explaining how such a thing might happen?

I'm actually having trouble responding to this, because as far as I can tell, you haven't even raised an objection, you're just asking me to empathize with people's fears. I do empathize, but letting fear dicatate policy is a bad idea.

I really do applaud you for trying to design a solution to gun accidents. But my response wasn't flippant or pie-in-the-sky. You want to tell a mother who's already lost one son to gun violence that you're going to teach her other, younger son about how to use firearms "safely?" Yeah, you might want to put on a cup and a facemask first.

I'm not saying your response was flippant, but this really seems akin to a mother who lost a child to drowning refusing to let the little sibling learn to swim. It's totally understandable, but that doesn't make it rational.

We'd just authorize the background checks already, and not hold the whole thing up over some histrionic hand-wringing about the proposal's inability to stop corrupt doctors intentionally running pharms to the black market (and without any actual empirical evidence of the existence of these corrupt doctors, for that matter).

QFT

[Jon Sprunk]

Here's the problem, you're more interested in getting "compliance" than actual results.

Not at all. In fact, the exact opposite. But you're "offer" sounds like an attempt to derail the process. Unless, of course, it includes an automatic kick-up to mandatory checks if the voluntary checks don't have the intended results.

[Jon Sprunk]

Who pays the price for drug abuse is not an issue relevant to the ease of enforcing laws criminalizing drugs. That is a moral concern, not a practical one.

It addresses the moral component of laws, but this is a tangent concern. Sorry I brought it up. Sometimes I try to make a plethora of points and just end up chasing my own tail.

And the fact that people like drugs is not exactly a unique concern. People really like stealing electronic files, jaywalking, beating up their wives, driving drunk, and pretty much anything else that's illegal. That's why we have to bother to make it illegal.

Drug addiction is not like the desire to steal, jaywalk, beat your spouse, or most other crimes for the great majority of people. I hope you understand that. Addiction isn't a choice like should I download this illegal song or not. It can be a "I have to have this drug and I will let my baby die to get it" compulsion. That's why you can't (imo) use the drug war as a good analogy to gun control. People may very well love their guns, but I have not yet heard of a case where a mother sold her children into sex slavery to obtain a firearm.

But all this isn't getting us anywhere. I agreed with your basic premise, which was that requiring gun owners to keep their sales records for a suitable amount of time instead of a national registry. I think that's a good compromise because my goal isn't to know exactly who has a gun and who doesn't, but to make it harder for people to traffick weapons illegally. Of course, I realize that we have so many untracked guns in the U.S. already that is probably a hopeless cause. I don't see this country getting the kinds of laws we might require to solve our gun violence problem.

[Jon Sprunk]

Drug usage, "primarily affects the self"? Ask some children if they would rather have daddy be a gun owner or a drug user. Would your rather live in a neighborhood full of gun owners or full of drug users?

Did you miss the part where I said "and thru self, those closest to the addict?"

I was obviously talking about the moral position of the drug war, which seeks to punish behavior that in many cases cannot be controlled (by the user). (i.e., punishing the victim.)

[Guest Raidne]

Drug addiction is not like the desire to steal, jaywalk, beat your spouse, or most other crimes for the great majority of people. I hope you understand that.

Do they make different medical marijuana where you come from? Or are you talking about an addiction to first person shooter games and never leaving the basement? And what's with the insensitivity toward compulsive jaywalkers?

In all seriousness, how many ways are you going to try to switch up my analogy? It's about medical marijuana, and I explicitly said in my last post that the analogy is between users, and not addicts.

All you've really done here is tell me why a different analogy you made up doesn't work and then scolded me about drug addiction. Are you having a bad morning?

[Jon Sprunk]

This, though is why I specifically compared it to sex-ed. Immoral may have been the wrong word, but this is about a desire to make guns taboo.

Oh, I grant you that. There is a movement to make guns taboo in our culture, just like there is a movement to make guns as acceptible as cherry pie and the American flag.

Incidentally, I think this actually feeds into the empowerment fantasy issue to some degree. They're in movies, TV, and video games, and there are toy variants of all sorts, but for most people in suburban or urban areas, there's very little or no exposure to actual firearms (at least, within the law), which makes them something to fixate on.

Quite possibly true.

What I'm trying to address, however, is not the people who deliberately encounter firearms on their own terms (i.e. the people likely to seek training) but the people who are likely to first encounter a firearm unexpectedly.

I understand that, but what about people who actively don't want anything to do with guns? Do they not get the same freedom as someone who wants to own/use a gun for a lawful purpose? Or, in order to get the society you desire, must people be forced to learn about guns?

And I haven't even gotten into the funding of this gun-safety program. At a time when schools are being forced to cut music, sports, languages, art, and other important classes, do you think the majority of people will support inserting gun classes?

[Jon Sprunk]

Here's the thing I don't get about this argument: insofar as your goal is to reduce the black market and thereby reduce criminal access to firearms. We keep offering a step in that direction, and you object, because it's not a big enough step.

I really don't get it, it's like you're turning down an offer of 500 dollars because it isn't 1000 dollars.

I've already said many times that a registry can wait, if we can get universal background checks now. I've already accepted the offer, but that doesn't mean I won't defend the idea of a registry if asked about it.