Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Deleted]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21309245

Gun murders in developed countries included.

[Chrysia]

Ok, so, CDC information from 2010:

Death by automobile accident: 35,332
Death by self-inflicted gun-shot: 19,392
Death by gun (non-suicide): 11,078
Total gun Deaths then: 30,480

Guns account for almost as many deaths as cars, despite much lower use.

There are also 31,672 fire-arm related non-lethal injuries that year, across all age groups (including infants) and all causes (accident or non-accident.)

Yes, that means the vast majority of guns are used safely. Yes, that means that the vast majority of guns are never used to inflict harm on another human.

However, requiring training, and requiring people who have emotionally unstable people in their home (which includes most pubescent and earlier children and young adults) to properly secure their fire-arms can greatly reduce those numbers.

Greater training and tougher tests could do the same for cars, which is why some states are tightening up the practical portion of the driver licensing test.

Source (Table 10.)

[Laize]

Free speech is a current right we have that has an obligation or qualifier. You can be held legally accountable for inciting to violence, or for intentionally causing a panic.

I recognize that rights can come with restrictions and have never attempted to deny that. You don't see me saying citizens should be permitted to own yellowcake Uranium or attack drones. However, restrictions on our rights must meet a VERY strict set of guidelines before they're accepted by anyone who values our civil liberties.

- The restriction must have a valid purpose to protect public safety. (ie. Yelling "fire!" on a plane incites panic.)
- The restriction must be a reasonable response to the problem (ie. Making it illegal to even talk on a plane is not "reasonable".)
- The restriction mustn't otherwise prohibit the free exercise of that right (ie. Merely talking/joking about putting a bomb on a plane when not actually on a plane/in an airport is not a criminal act.)

This proposed gun ban fails every one of those tests. It doesn't make the public any safer. It's nowhere near reasonable as it bans almost every gun out there (including the most popular model) and for that same reason (banning almost every current model of non-pistol firearm) heavily prohibits free exercise of our right to bear arms.

I agree with all of Rich's proposals, but can cede the insurance qualification. Licensing and renewal, however, are perfectly legitimate and sensible requirements, as are mandatory training and health screenings. I don't see how denying someone with clinical depression a gun is a violation of rights.

I've said before how it puts an extremely bad taste in my mouth to say this; but I don't see any valid reason for preventing the mentally ill (Provided they are not declared "mentally incompetent") from owning firearms.

First off, psychological diagnoses are not exact sciences... there are no blood tests or health screenings for diseases such as schizophrenia or depression. Because of this, psychologists misdiagnose people quite frequently and it can be months or even years before the right medication/therapy is found for a particular patient.

Second, where do you draw the line on the spectrum of psychological disorders? Bipolar disorder? Depression? PTSD? ADHD? ... Exploding Head Syndrome?

The fact is that the vast majority of those who suffer from psychological disorders are no additional threat to themselves or others (Yes, this includes people who are depressed, schizophrenic or even psychopathic). And those who ARE a threat to others (Paranoid schizophrenics or psychopaths with violent predilections, for example) should be declared mentally incompetent and, thus, barred from firearm ownership.

Lastly, and most importantly, I cannot, in good conscience, say that a certain class of competent and otherwise productive members of society should have their civil liberties restricted due to circumstances beyond their control...

You don't get to pick and choose who gets what civil rights. Nor do you get to develop different rules for different classes of people regarding the exercise of those rights based on circumstances beyond their control. Do you want to prevent women from owning high-caliber handguns just because they're less likely to be able to control the recoil? No, that would be ridiculously discriminatory and completely unfair to women who had no problems controlling the weapon.

It's no different for those with mental disorders. The majority of people with mental disorders are perfectly functional members of society and telling them they're not allowed to own a gun because they're statistically more likely to be a danger to themselves or others is completely insulting to those who are not dangerous at all.

Moreover, you give people who suspect they might have a mental disorder a disincentive to seek treatment.... lest the government take their guns away.

So unless someone could be declared mentally incompetent by a federal judge (Not state and CERTAINLY not district) there should be no restrictions to their 2nd amendment rights provided they did not have a violent history.

[Kasierith]

First off, psychological diagnoses are not exact sciences... there are no blood tests or health screenings for diseases such as schizophrenia or depression. Because of this, psychologists misdiagnose people quite frequently and it can be months or even years before the right medication/therapy is found for a particular patient.

There are illnesses where there are shades of grey, specifically in terms of environmentally-based problems, but a very good amount of psychological disorders are physiologically recognizable and verifiable. A clear cut example is Huntington's disease, which is the lack of presentation of the Huntington protein due to a gene malfunction leading to neural death. Another is ADHD, which despite the massive waves of misdiagnoses and misapplication by overzealous parents and school teachers, is a verifiable condition related to a lack of uptake of a certain neurotransmitter (probably 1/10 of those diagnosed with ADHD actually have it). The difficulty in diagnosis is primarily due to the fact that schizophrenia and depression are extremely broad overlapping terms that cover a wide variety of disease states; one reason why psychiatric are against personal diagnosis and even family practitioner diagnosis in some cases.

As for deciding who is mentally unfit... perhaps based on physician suggestion and reviewed by a board specifically designed for such verification? If a psychiatrist views an individual as unfit and there are controls set in place to control for fairness, would that be more acceptable?

[Laize]

There are illnesses where there are shades of grey, specifically in terms of environmentally-based problems, but a very good amount of psychological disorders are physiologically recognizable and verifiable. A clear cut example is Huntington's disease, which is the lack of presentation of the Huntington protein due to a gene malfunction leading to neural death. Another is ADHD, which despite the massive waves of misdiagnoses and misapplication by overzealous parents and school teachers, is a verifiable condition related to a lack of uptake of a certain neurotransmitter (probably 1/10 of those diagnosed with ADHD actually have it). The difficulty in diagnosis is primarily due to the fact that schizophrenia and depression are extremely broad overlapping terms that cover a wide variety of disease states; one reason why psychiatric are against personal diagnosis and even family practitioner diagnosis in some cases.

As for deciding who is mentally unfit... perhaps based on physician suggestion and reviewed by a board specifically designed for such verification? If a psychiatrist views an individual as unfit and there are controls set in place to control for fairness, would that be more acceptable?

As someone with ADHD (and who has researched reasons behind it) yes, the cause is dopamine-related. That doesn't mean there's a quantifiable way to test for it as there are about a dozen or more different genes related to or suspected to be related to ADHD. So while there might be a genetic test in the future (Though it would be quite expensive due to the number of genes screened) there is not enough clinical evidence now to determine with 100% accuracy whether or not someone has ADHD.

What's more, not all causes of ADHD are genetic. Damage to dopamine transporters via environmental conditions such as in-utero exposure to alcohol or tobacco can also produce ADHD (or symptoms close enough as to be determined to be, and treatable as, ADHD).

Huntington's, however, is clinically verifiable via blood test and is related to a single gene.

As for who was declared unfit? I feel such a declaration should come from an elected board of psychiatrists (preferably at the federal level... but as divisions who operate in similar manners to circuit courts of appeal, whereby a federal body only serves a group of states, rather than the entire country) who review case files on an individual bases. They would then pass their opinions to a federal judge who would hear the case of both the panel and the individual in question and make a final ruling.

Note: I think such a system would be a pretty good idea all around as it would place a dedicated service for qualified decisions regarding competency and, perhaps, even take criminal cases where "not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect" was a possible verdict out of the hands of unqualified jurors and district judges. It wouldn't have to just be for determining competency for guns.

[Wells]

You're saying ban guns because they're bad for us and evil and kill everybody, right?

Not really, no.

Except, you're taking them out of the hands of people who are obviously not going to kill their neighbor for x, y, or z reason.

Lanza's mother was not a risk.

So by making it impossible for the average joe to get a weapo....

I'm just going to stop you right there. I never said a think about banning all guns.

It does make sense, maybe your brain place doesn't function the way mine does? Doing that whole, thinking and considering arguments thing.

Clearly doesn't do that whole "understand what your opponent's stance is and attack that" thing.

[Deleted]

Call me an ignorant Brit but...

The people using the 2nd amendment as defense to why they should have guns,

Amendment may refer to:
A change made to a basic law or constitution
A change made to a pending motion or bill by a motion to amend
made to a previously adopted law or motion
A change made to a contract


a·mend
[uh-mend]
verb (used with object)
1. To alter, modify, rephrase, or add to or subtract from (a motion, bill, constitution, etc.) by formal procedure: Congress may amend the proposed tax bill.
2. To change for the better; improve: to amend one's ways. Synonyms: ameliorate, better. Antonyms: worsen.
3. To remove or correct faults in; rectify.

So it's been changed/added already. Which means your constitution isn't written in stone it can be changed. So therefore it can be changed again and again and again...

If i'm wrong then by all means feel free to point out why.

[Kasierith]

As someone with ADHD (and who has researched reasons behind it) yes, the cause is dopamine-related. That doesn't mean there's a quantifiable way to test for it as there are about a dozen or more different genes related to or suspected to be related to ADHD. So while there might be a genetic test in the future (Though it would be quite expensive due to the number of genes screened) there is not enough clinical evidence now to determine with 100% accuracy whether or not someone has ADHD.

What's more, not all causes of ADHD are genetic. Damage to dopamine transporters via environmental conditions such as in-utero exposure to alcohol or tobacco can also produce ADHD (or symptoms close enough as to be determined to be, and treatable as, ADHD).

Huntington's, however, is clinically verifiable via blood test and is related to a single gene.

As for who was declared unfit? I feel such a declaration should come from an elected board of psychiatrists (preferably at the federal level... but as divisions who operate in similar manners to circuit courts of appeal, whereby a federal body only serves a group of states, rather than the entire country) who review case files on an individual bases. They would then pass their opinions to a federal judge who would hear the case of both the panel and the individual in question and make a final ruling.

I'm aware that there are multiple causes for it that greatly confound the topic even beyond the waves of misdiagnoses, which is why I put it after Huntington's in terms of clarity of the cause. I recognize that there is still a fairly large knowledge gap in psychiatry; I merely don't believe it as substantial as you were indicating in your previous post. In general, however, there is enough knowledge to allow a panel of psychiatrists to verify ADHD to a degree of accuracy. I think we're on the same page enough to not go into further detail, however.

That is in general what my thoughts were in terms of controlling for factors such as misdiagnosis and a particular psychiatrist having a greater propensity towards making such decisions than others based on personal views, but as it is with many other areas in medicine, the execution of such an individually-focused events would likely be very costly and time consuming.

---------- Post added 2013-02-02 at 11:29 PM ----------

If i'm wrong then by all means feel free to point out why.

Ultimately, this is the main problem with people who believe in nothing other than following the pure thoughts of the founders in determining law; it was written into law that the constitution should change to suit the needs and beliefs of the people. This flexibility was one of the greatest drives behind the making of the constitution in the first place.

That said, the ability to do something does not by any means predicate its occurrence. All it means is that the people and the states have this option, should there ever be a consensus on it.

[Laize]

Call me an ignorant Brit but...

The people using the 2nd amendment as defense to why they should have guns,

Amendment may refer to:
A change made to a basic law or constitution
A change made to a pending motion or bill by a motion to amend
made to a previously adopted law or motion
A change made to a contract


a·mend
[uh-mend]
verb (used with object)
1. To alter, modify, rephrase, or add to or subtract from (a motion, bill, constitution, etc.) by formal procedure: Congress may amend the proposed tax bill.
2. To change for the better; improve: to amend one's ways. Synonyms: ameliorate, better. Antonyms: worsen.
3. To remove or correct faults in; rectify.

So it's been changed/added already. Which means your constitution isn't written in stone it can be changed. So therefore it can be changed again and again and again..

Oh god... your ignorance... it huuuuuurts.

The Bill of Rights are Amendments, true. They, however, have been there since 3 years after the ratification of the US Constitution.

Second, the Amendment process in our Constitution is not something our Federal government has control over. Indeed, the only Federal branch of government that even has the authority to author Amendment proposals is the legislature. Neither the Executive Office nor the Judiciary have the authority to change, bar, propose or even have their opinion heard regarding amendments.

The US Constitution is immutable by all except the States of the United States. Specifically, no matter where the amendment originates (Of which there are two ways, one of which is completely out of the hands of the Federal government) the only way it can pass is if 3/4 (38) of the states agree to such a change. Not 3/4 of the government... or even 3/4 of the people... but 3/4 of the states. This means that states like Arkansas have as equivalent a say in the Amendment process as states like California...

And I can think of well over 13 states that will reject a repeal or even change to the 2nd Amendment.

[Deleted]

There is no reason for anyone to need an assault rifle outside of the military.

[Grizzly Willy]

There is no reason for anyone to need an assault rifle outside of the military.

Going to repeat this ad nauseum: Legislation is not determined by need.

[Svifnymr]

Funny thing is, that's a semi-automatic shotgun.

Break action, not semi-auto.

---------- Post added 2013-02-02 at 05:43 PM ----------

Who knows?
The issue is that I don't know if the "average" coroner can tell the difference of what is left of a bullet when they remove it. I'm not in that side of the industry so who knows. It is my assumption that they catalog those and send them back to the police to be tested. However, in this case, I highly doubt that was done or needed. Unless they really wanted to spend the money, I assume it was just all assumed.

He doesn't even actually say the caliber. It's pretty easy to tell a 5.56 from a 9mm or 10mm though.

As you say though, they're not preparing a case against the shooter, so doing ballistics to match to a gun, wouldn't make sense.

That all being said, at those ranges, the .223 would blast through leaving entry and exit wounds. So unless Adam was using some really expensive self defense rounds, I don't buy this guys story.

55gr ball tumbles pretty well, but yeah, doubt they stayed in the bodies.

---------- Post added 2013-02-02 at 05:46 PM ----------

Again, this is a false statement. The vast majority of gun regulating laws have been circumvented in recent years. The ATF has literally zero control over monitoring weapons sales and coordinating background checks. I would suggest you actually read the current laws before you make such statements.

No they haven't. "Coordinating background checks" means what? NICS does the background checks and is run by the FBI. The information available to them is the same as every other federal agency, though patients rights advocates have made some of the mental health information difficult to obtain from what I recall.

"literally zero control" over monitoring weapon sales excepting the various reports they have, the inspections they do and so on?

[Laize]

It's a rather interesting fact that we (The people of the United States) could, without the Federal Government, dictate US policy...

We could tell the Supreme Court to go fuck itself and draft an amendment that bars lobbying groups or at least clarifies that the First Amendment only applies to individuals and not organizations thereof.

We could tell the President and the Executive Branch exactly how far up their asses they could shove the NDAA by making the 4th Amendment completely immutable.

And we could tell Congress that we won't accept their Mexican standoff style of policymaking or brinksmanship.

And we could do it all without going through a single federal official (With the exception of this guy...) or waiting for a single government body to fix itself.

A man can dream, can't he?

---------- Post added 2013-02-02 at 10:53 PM ----------

There is no reason for anyone to need an assault rifle outside of the military.

And that's why no one is allowed to own an assault rifle outside the military. Welcome to the discussion.

[Svifnymr]

I still fail see see how regulating firearms like cars is such a bad idea, people are always comparing them in this thread so why not act on it?

Whenever a pro-gun comparison to vehicles is made, they're called non-comparable...

Either way, there's no background checks for vehicles, there's no mandatory bans on particular models, so long as they've the minimum safety requirements. You don't need to register a car unless you're using it on public roads, in urban areas there's a lot of unlicensed drivers.

Requiring insurance has already been discussed, if there's no liability, there's nothing to insure against. An arbitrary tax/fee is a different thing.

As I mentioned previously in the thread, think of a two tiered system;
1) Get a gun license, demonstrating training, safe storage. Once you have it, you can buy a gun without wait or problem, including from an individual.
2) Don't have a license, you can still buy a gun from a dealer, with a background check and maybe you have to purchase a safe at the same time.

---------- Post added 2013-02-02 at 06:09 PM ----------

Call me an ignorant Brit but...
So it's been changed/added already. Which means your constitution isn't written in stone it can be changed. So therefore it can be changed again and again and again...

If i'm wrong then by all means feel free to point out why.

You are correct in the total of it. If the people/states had the actual support of the majority, then the second amendment could be changed or deleted.

They don't have the support to do that, they won't in my lifetime I'd say, so instead the anti-gun crowd tries to do workarounds as much as they can. Passing laws, or trying to push anti-gun measures as consumer protection, or any number of other things.

States have constitutions also, and a lot of them include a right to bear arms.

[Wells]

Going to repeat this ad nauseum: Legislation is not determined by need.

No but its certainly something to take into account when something doesn't have much of a legal purpose.

[FusedMass]

Call me an ignorant Brit but...

The people using the 2nd amendment as defense to why they should have guns,

Amendment may refer to:
A change made to a basic law or constitution
A change made to a pending motion or bill by a motion to amend
made to a previously adopted law or motion
A change made to a contract


a·mend
[uh-mend]
verb (used with object)
1. To alter, modify, rephrase, or add to or subtract from (a motion, bill, constitution, etc.) by formal procedure: Congress may amend the proposed tax bill.
2. To change for the better; improve: to amend one's ways. Synonyms: ameliorate, better. Antonyms: worsen.
3. To remove or correct faults in; rectify.

So it's been changed/added already. Which means your constitution isn't written in stone it can be changed. So therefore it can be changed again and again and again...

If i'm wrong then by all means feel free to point out why.

Here is what we can do. In cases that the states and federal disagree. Make no mistake their is a clause that makes the Federal ruling supreme in almost all matters. As long as it doesn't affect our rights as drafted. The common argument is you cannot ban these weapons because we have a right to bear arms. That's correct. No matter what the court cannot ban hand guns.

However if they deem a weapon to be both dangerous and unusual. They can legally ban it and it would be upheld. It also would fall outside the scope of the right to bear arms. That means the assault weapons would be banned in all states. Just like that. And the best part no one could claim it would infringe on their rights. They had chances in past to take up this case and refused throwing it to lower courts.

They said in their ruling private citizens cannot own any type of firearm they choose that are dangerous and unusual. That's why it's illegal to own weapons like a sawed off shot gun. It would be VERY INTERESTING if they took up the case and no one in this thread could predict if they would ban it or not. It could honestly either way.

It's not that we cannot ban this weapon if Obama decided to. He could very well take the case there and kind in mind Obama is a former law professor

They are highest court in the land so their ruling is law.



This is a video. I am taking in the front page. It discuss the gun angle from all aspects of the law. Mental Health. Back Ground Checks. Pro Gun people make their case. A former NRA President talk about it. It's a combined argument. One I find very interesting and it's worth the watch.

[Deleted]

Flabbergasted that these polls keep coming up. The USA are a laughing stock, yet cry crocodile tears when a tragedy happens.

Enough.

User received infraction.

[zhero]

yet cry crocodile tears when a tragedy happens

that is why many Americans believe that sandy hook may have been faked.

[FusedMass]

Flabbergasted that these polls keep coming up. The USA are a laughing stock, yet cry crocodile tears when a tragedy happens.

Enough.

It's really not nice to nation based. I may disagree with some of their laws. That's why they changed be changed. America built on foundation of freedom and Liberty etc. We have a very diverse group of people here and the fact that our poltiical system is designed so that we can have these debates. (Russia for example) they jailed a rock band for years for signing songs that were against the President.

That rock band is sitting in jail in a sweat shop like conditions. Their President is also in his third term. We may seem different but we're no where near as bad as other places. The entire foundation of freedom of speech and our entire process is designed so we can have these debates. That's why each senator from all 50 states are sent to Washington and we have several branches of government.

[lockedout]

There is no reason for anyone to need an assault rifle outside of the military.

Define assault rifle.