Gun Control & Gun Rights Catch-All Thread

[Icky Mettle]

You don't say...

You keep giving people grief about wanting gun control because their white suburbs feel more dangerous than they actually are, because of the out of proportion impact school shootings have on their sense of safety. You try to paint them as racists, saying they don't give an ish about the poor black kids dying every day in gang shootings, but are demanding gun control because of the 1/100,000 (or whatever it is) chance that their kid's school might be next.

You ignore the fact that the gang controlled neighborhoods would be the ones with the most to gain from stricter gun control. It may be the unrealistic fears of suburban white schools getting shot up that drives them to want gun control, but there will be a a significantly disproportionate benefit to the poor black (and hispanic) neighborhoods where shootings are currently an every day occurrence.

If you make it VERY difficult to get or keep an illegal gun... it will have a huge benefit on gang controlled neighborhoods... and have a slight impact on the level of safety of your average suburb. It's an interesting point to make... but it seems one you are more interested in throwing in people's faces to score points (you liberals claim to champion the poor, but don't care about the young black kids dying every day)... rather than use it as a point convergence which should bring both sides together.

School shootings are an extremely small part of why I want gun control. They provide a reason, but very small one. A much bigger part of it is what I see on a daily basis in my line of work: senseless gun violence in communities with higher percentages of people of color and people of lower incomes. It makes me sick how many incidents of senseless gun violence I see. Young people shooting at other young people for idiotic reasons. Someone I know was shot at the other day in broad daylight in a busy area while doing roadwork after he talked back to a group of young people who had been harassing him over the course of a few days. They turned their car around and fired shots at him in this busy area. Thankfully no one got hurt, but it doesn’t always end that way. I have represented so many people who have senselessly shot/shot at people and in some cases senselessly killed people. And sometimes the people shot or killed weren’t the intended victims. We could reduce these incidents substantially if we just limit the abundance and accessibility of firearms in this country.

 

[2ManyBlueCups]

You're right, I forgot we shouldn't try to save kids because saving kids is hard work. My bad.

"A doctor cured my cousin's skin cancer, so why can't he cure my brain cancer?"

No one is saying not to try. Just saying that a different approach might be needed because the circumstances are significantly different.

 

[Icky Mettle]

Those guns are being bought illegally by straw buyers, smuggled in illegally via gangs, or are being stolen. All three actions are already illegal. Without debating a single new law, gun crime could be immensely reduced simply by focusing on enforcing the laws that are already on the books. Passing laws to limit the possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens would only serve to keep the criminals armed while disarming their victims.

You’re pretty much arguing against your own position here.

 

[Ddseddse]

"A doctor cured my cousin's skin cancer, so why can't he cure my brain cancer?"

No one is saying not to try. Just saying that a different approach might be needed because the circumstances are significantly different.

Be honest. I think you owe us that much. You're saying we shouldn't try.

I'm saying that I've had enough and I'm ready to try an assault rifle ban with an accompanying buy back. And you are saying "No, let's not try that." Stop playing "hide the ball" and be honest with us.

 

[NYCBlueBlood]

Those guns are being bought illegally by straw buyers, smuggled in illegally via gangs, or are being stolen. All three actions are already illegal. Without debating a single new law, gun crime could be immensely reduced simply by focusing on enforcing the laws that are already on the books. Passing laws to limit the possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens would only serve to keep the criminals armed while disarming their victims.

OK, I got it. Our "convo" started with me listing out common sense gun control measures which could have a meaningful impact, and you saying that you agreed with all of them. Since then it's become clear that you don't care about fixing anything... you just get your rocks off at constantly shifting the goal posts on those who give you the benefit of the doubt that you're actually trying to have a genuine conversation. Poking fun at what you perceive to be the hypocrisies of people who have a strong belief in something for some twisted reason makes you feel better about yourself. Enjoy.

You think you've grown up and changed... you haven't.

 

[superrific]

They bought back the equivalent of a third of one percent of the guns that are in circulation in the United States. They are also an island with no land borders with which to smuggle guns through.

It doesn't matter how many guns total they bought back. What matters is the % of guns in Australia. True, a buyback in the US (which would have zero constitutional problems with it, btw, if not mandatory) would cost more and require more guns to be bought back. On the other hand, we have more money at our disposal.

It is so tiring to argue with people who struggle with basic arithmetic.

 

[2ManyBlueCups]

Be honest. I think you owe us that much. You're saying we shouldn't try.

I'm saying that I've had enough and I'm ready to try an assault rifle ban with an accompanying buy back. And you are saying "No, let's not try that." Stop playing "hide the ball" and be honest with us.

I'm saying I don't think it would work. I have nothing against an assault rifle ban. Not a thing.

 

[2ManyBlueCups]

OK, I got it. Our "convo" started with me listing out common sense gun control measures which could have a meaningful impact, and you saying that you agreed with all of them. Since then it's become clear that you don't care about fixing anything... you just get your rocks off at constantly shifting the goal posts on those who give you the benefit of the doubt that you're actually trying to have a genuine conversation. Poking fun at what you perceive to be the hypocrisies of people who have a strong belief in something for some twisted reason makes you feel better about yourself. Enjoy.

You think you've grown up and changed... you haven't.

Where did this come from? Did you actually read the post you quoted? You seem to be the one who hasn't changed. The second your beliefs are challenged you seek the sweet refuge of deflection through personal attack. I expected better from you. It is clear that in this discussion you are privileged, mistaken, and ignorant of both of those facts.

In case you simply misread me, I'll repost what I posted above. Perhaps you can try a rational response this time and not a personal attack?

Those guns are being bought illegally by straw buyers, smuggled in illegally via gangs, or are being stolen. All three actions are already illegal. Without debating a single new law, gun crime could be immensely reduced simply by focusing on enforcing the laws that are already on the books. Passing laws to limit the possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens would only serve to keep the criminals armed while disarming their victims.

 

[Heelsandeers]

Better than simply screaming at kids that they are going to die all the time.

Narrative of fear is the entire rationale of the pro-gun crowd

 

[2ManyBlueCups]

It doesn't matter how many guns total they bought back. What matters is the % of guns in Australia. True, a buyback in the US (which would have zero constitutional problems with it, btw, if not mandatory) would cost more and require more guns to be bought back. On the other hand, we have more money at our disposal.

It is so tiring to argue with people who struggle with basic arithmetic.

Have you seen the guns that are routinely purchased at buybacks in the US? Lever action antiques and revolvers that haven't been used since the 1970s. Voluntary buybacks are already a thing here and haven't done much.

 

[superrific]

Those guns are being bought illegally by straw buyers, smuggled in illegally via gangs, or are being stolen. All three actions are already illegal. Without debating a single new law, gun crime could be immensely reduced simply by focusing on enforcing the laws that are already on the books. Passing laws to limit the possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens would only serve to keep the criminals armed while disarming their victims.

Those laws are already being enforced. They don't offer much deterrence. Smugglers run drugs, where the criminal penalties are MUCH higher and that doesn't stop them. Part of the problem is that the laws are incredibly difficult to "enforce" because the smugglers do not set up gun stands on main street where they hawk their wares, nor do they announce their presence when they show up in the state. Law enforcement has to find them, and that isn't easy.

So, the whole idea of "enforce existing laws" is risible. Again, there is no shortage of enforcement against illegal drug running -- we've spent tens or hundreds of billions of dollars over the year without making any dent in supply. Guns are slightly easier to catch because they are slightly harder to smuggle. Big deal.

Next up: this is an incredibly expensive way to deal with gun violence. Let's say you catch a gun runner. Tremendous. Now you have to spend thousands of dollars prosecuting him (even if the case eventually pleads out, there will still have been a lot of attorney time). Oh, and then there's the cost of incarceration. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars to take one gun runner off the street, who will then be replaced by someone new.

Or we could shut down gun factories. This isn't even a close call.

 

[finesse]

You might add to that the failure of Congress to fully fund or staff ATF. I haven't bothered to check but do they have a permanent director these days. Seems like most times it's been an interim guy, always a great way to establish policies and build morale.

 

[superrific]

Have you seen the guns that are routinely purchased at buybacks in the US? Lever action antiques and revolvers that haven't been used since the 1970s. Voluntary buybacks are already a thing here and haven't done much.

1. They are a tiny thing here. They are run by cities or counties. One paper estimated that there have been 550 local buyback programs in 37 states since 1988. This is not, shall we say, much of a concerted effort.

2. Your point here has nothing to do with the illogic I criticized. Whatever the success of an American guy buyback is, it won't be because the Aussie program bought back few guns relative to the U.S. gun market. Australia's population is like 7% of the U.S. population. So duh the absolute numbers are smaller.

 

[2ManyBlueCups]

Those laws are already being enforced. They don't offer much deterrence. Smugglers run drugs, where the criminal penalties are MUCH higher and that doesn't stop them. Part of the problem is that the laws are incredibly difficult to "enforce" because the smugglers do not set up gun stands on main street where they hawk their wares, nor do they announce their presence when they show up in the state. Law enforcement has to find them, and that isn't easy.

So, the whole idea of "enforce existing laws" is risible. Again, there is no shortage of enforcement against illegal drug running -- we've spent tens or hundreds of billions of dollars over the year without making any dent in supply. Guns are slightly easier to catch because they are slightly harder to smuggle. Big deal.

Next up: this is an incredibly expensive way to deal with gun violence. Let's say you catch a gun runner. Tremendous. Now you have to spend thousands of dollars prosecuting him (even if the case eventually pleads out, there will still have been a lot of attorney time). Oh, and then there's the cost of incarceration. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars to take one gun runner off the street, who will then be replaced by someone new.

Or we could shut down gun factories. This isn't even a close call.

These laws are by and large not being enforced. It is common, in fact it is the norm for a felon in possession of an illegal firearm to be arrested and bonded out within 24 hours. I posted in the previous thread about a convicted felon awaiting trial for another shooting who was caught after a police chase with a stolen gun. He was released back on bond the next morning. There are essentially no consequences for carrying a gun illegally or even using it to commit a crime in many cases.

The gun factories are not going to shut down, nor should they. The problem by and large isn't with people who obey the law. 400 million guns in the United States, 40% of households own a gun and there are maybe 10,000 gun homicides annually. Start actually punishing the people committing crimes with guns or carrying guns illegally and you'll see that number drop. No new legislation needed.

 

[finesse]

You're not all wrong. Not funding the enforcement of those laws is the same as not having them, though.

 

[superrific]

These laws are by and large not being enforced. It is common, in fact it is the norm for a felon in possession of an illegal firearm to be arrested and bonded out within 24 hours. I posted in the previous thread about a convicted felon awaiting trial for another shooting who was caught after a police chase with a stolen gun. He was released back on bond the next morning. There are essentially no consequences for carrying a gun illegally or even using it to commit a crime in many cases.

The gun factories are not going to shut down, nor should they. The problem by and large isn't with people who obey the law. 400 million guns in the United States, 40% of households own a gun and there are maybe 10,000 gun homicides annually. Start actually punishing the people committing crimes with guns or carrying guns illegally and you'll see that number drop. No new legislation needed.

Being bonded out is not the same as not enforced. Do you not understand the basics of our criminal justice system?

Ask Plaxico Burress if there are consequences from illegally carrying a gun. I mean, there are thousands of people in jail right now for that very crime. That gun laws aren't enforced in GOP states (which is what you are talking about mostly) isn't something that you can just fix by saying so. It's just a fucking excuse.

Oh, and the reason why gun possession crimes aren't always prosecuted is precisely the point I made above: it's extremely costly, and it will do nothing to solve the gun availability problem.

It's so tiring to hear about the people who obey the law. Everyone obeys the law until they don't. The dad of the kid who just shot up the Georgia school -- did he have a criminal record before now? The kid certainly didn't.

Closing gun factories is a type of policy called a prophylactic measure. We have these prophylactics in all areas of our lives. Almost all of them were adopted because the ad hoc approach didn't work. Watering stocks was against the law and people could be (and were) prosecuted for it in the 1920s -- but enforcement could never keep up. So we put in securities laws as prophylactics: they are the regulations that keep so many lawyers busy. We used to prosecute snake oil salesmen when they sold dangerous and ineffective products, but again this was expensive and not effective so now we have an FDA approval process. Consumer product safety is promoted by prophylactic strict liability laws.

Everywhere you look, there are prophylactic laws and regs that protect us from harm. Except for guns, by and large. And hmm, what part of life gives us more trouble? Guns used in homicides, or electric blankets that catch fire?

 

[2ManyBlueCups]

Being bonded out is not the same as not enforced. Do you not understand the basics of our criminal justice system?

Ask Plaxico Burress if there are consequences from illegally carrying a gun. I mean, there are thousands of people in jail right now for that very crime. That gun laws aren't enforced in GOP states (which is what you are talking about mostly) isn't something that you can just fix by saying so. It's just a fucking excuse.

Oh, and the reason why gun possession crimes aren't always prosecuted is precisely the point I made above: it's extremely costly, and it will do nothing to solve the gun availability problem.

It's so tiring to hear about the people who obey the law. Everyone obeys the law until they don't. The dad of the kid who just shot up the Georgia school -- did he have a criminal record before now? The kid certainly didn't.

Closing gun factories is a type of policy called a prophylactic measure. We have these prophylactics in all areas of our lives. Almost all of them were adopted because the ad hoc approach didn't work. Watering stocks was against the law and people could be (and were) prosecuted for it in the 1920s -- but enforcement could never keep up. So we put in securities laws as prophylactics: they are the regulations that keep so many lawyers busy. We used to prosecute snake oil salesmen when they sold dangerous and ineffective products, but again this was expensive and not effective so now we have an FDA approval process. Consumer product safety is promoted by prophylactic strict liability laws.

Everywhere you look, there are prophylactic laws and regs that protect us from harm. Except for guns, by and large. And hmm, what part of life gives us more trouble? Guns used in homicides, or electric blankets that catch fire?

You are right that everyone obeys the law until they don't. And when people don't obey the law and face zero consequences as a result, they will continue to break the law. What is the point of having a law at all if it is not enforced? Telling someone that it is too expensive to get a violent and armed felon off of the street while at the same time telling them that they are no longer going to be able to defend themselves from that violent felon that is being allowed to do whatever he wants is not sensible policy, but it seems to be exactly what you are proposing.

Here's what I'm proposing: if you are a felon and caught with a weapon illegally, your bond is $5 million. If you use a gun to commit a crime, your bond is $5 million. If you buy a gun legally and then sell or give that gun to someone that you know is not allowed to own that gun, your bond is $5 million. Saying it is too expensive to actually prosecute dangerous criminals is a feeble excuse.

 

[Heelsandeers]

Perfectly normal and nothing we can do

 

[farce©]

Where would Bo propose we keep all these criminals who can't post $5 million bond? These guys tend to remain in city or county lockup pending trial, right? Should we raise property taxes to build more jails? County jails are understaffed now. Is that a better use of our tax dollars than paying teachers and cops?

 

[2ManyBlueCups]

Where would Bo propose we keep all these criminals who can't post $5 million bond? These guys tend to remain in city or county lockup pending trial, right? Should we raise property taxes to build more jails? County jails are understaffed now. Is that a better use of our tax dollars than paying teachers and cops?

Stop incarcerating people for nonviolent drug crime, for starters. But we'd certainly have to invest in more corrections and detention officers. You are correct that they are horribly understaffed. There is no point arresting someone if you have no place to incarcerate them.