Gun policy analysis thread.

[Chuck Naill]

If you don’t comprehend my last post, I’ll try again. Not sure how more clear I could state my opinion.

[Lloyd]

dneal - Do you think that some legislation should be put in place to limit/restrict arms to the general populace? If so, in what way?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

dneal - Do you think that some legislation should be put in place to limit/restrict arms to the general populace? If so, in what way?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

I'm admittedly conflicted. I have a hard time coming up with a solution, mainly because there are so many gaps in the system. Pick your proposal and I'll list many ways it won't do what you want or is too impractical to implement. I'm also conflicted as a matter of principle. The 2nd Amendment says what it says, and I don't think you nibble around the Constitution when there is a clear (but admittedly difficult) way to change it if that's what "the people" really wanted.

I'm still of the opinion that it's a largely mental health problem (the mass shootings in general, excepting gang related drive by nonsense and outright terrorism). I think something that addresses that is reasonable, and generally in accordance with the law and the constitution. The flip side it that it's a big opening into an individual's privacy. It violates doctor-patient privilege, which is pretty "sacred". It could cause people who need help to not seek it.

Most of the solutions are double edged swords that need deliberate consideration and not knee-jerk decrees.

I think red-flag laws can be crafted to be useful and not be abused (but I also think that's already in the realm of a judge's authority).

We can pass red flag laws, waiting periods, ban assault weapons, or any other seemingly reasonable law. The sheer volume of "modern" guns, gathered for over 100 years with no record of them is a big hurdle to overcome. Then some person who has a family Winchester 1907, Browning Automatic Rifle (the famous BAR of WWII), whatever... which has no record of even existing... decides to shoot something up. What law would prevent that? Criminals only become criminals after the fact. A pump-shotgun in a close environment would be horrible - much worse than anything you would see from an AR15 - and the politicians are talking about pistol grips and barrel shrouds on black rifles.

[Lloyd]

Thank you for you response, dneal. In the same close environment, why would a pump be worse than a semi-auto?


Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

Thank you for you response, dneal. In the same close environment, why would a pump be worse than a semi-auto?


Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Just to be clear, a shotgun would be worse than a rifle in a close environment. 00 Buck has 8-9 pellets that are .33" in diameter (just a hair smaller than a 9mm bullet). #1 buck has 12-16 pellets that are .30" in diameter (caliber is diameter in decimal inches - so those are .30 caliber pellets). That's one shell. A shotgun usually holds 5 shells. One shell of #1 puts all those pellets in a pattern that is wider depending on distance. The equivalent of 12-16 shots in close proximity with one trigger squeeze. Everything starts to get gruesome after this, so I'll just leave it.

Most modern shotguns are loaded from the bottom. Just shove more shells in whenever you want, as you go. It's amazing how fast people can do this when they practice (like 3-gun competitions).

To address pump vs semiautomatic (sticking with shotguns, but the principle applies to rifles and handguns), the semiautomatic firearm will self-load the next round and shoot more rounds per minute (finger speed on the trigger is the limiting factor - it will cycle faster than your ability). But, there is recoil every time you pull the trigger. It becomes harder to get back on target.

[Chuck Naill]

Isn’t this is issue? Does anyone think the shooters are working to get back on target?

These men are not in the caliber of a military sniper or marksman.

All they bring is rage/anger and enough resources to run down a get a high human killing tool with copious amounts of bullets.

The solution is clear and it’s not to try to heal hurting people. It is not a better understanding of the definition of an assault firearm.

[Chip]

Rather than zeroing in (so to speak) on the individual, I'd urge that firearms manufacturers be subject to the same standards of liability as makers of baby seats or automobiles or medications or tobacco products.

If they choose to supply a product which is calculated to appeal to deranged males, suited only to use as a murder weapon, then they should be subject to the same legal hazard as any supplier of potentially dangerous goods.

[Chuck Naill]

That wouldn’t work. Baby seats are meant to protect babies and children under a certain weight. Liability would be if that product does not work due to a flaw. Guns are made to fire bullets. Obviously those assault rifles are working as designed.

[Chip]

That wouldn’t work. Baby seats are meant to protect babies and children under a certain weight. Liability would be if that product does not work due to a flaw. Guns are made to fire bullets. Obviously those assault rifles are working as designed.

You don't understand tort law. Something might work as designed and still cause an injury (in legal terms, a tort).

Such weapons are designed to kill enemy combatants quickly. Allowing them to be used to murder schoolchildren is clearly a misapplication. If the makers are held responsible (as they are in moral terms) perhaps they'll stop peddling military weapons to crazies.

[Lloyd]

Do lighter fluid and lighter companies pay taxes due to arsons?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

Do lighter fluid and lighter companies pay taxes due to arsons?

Nothing to do with taxes. Liability suits are civil proceedings that assign responsibility for harm or injury, and often assess financial penalties.

For instance, a degreasing compound might work very much as intended, but when the maker discharged it into groundwater and it got into a municipal water supply, poisoning thousands, causing cancer and birth defects, etc. that constituted a tort: an injury under the law. Those poisoned or otherwise harmed have a right to sue and recover damages.

Selling extremely lethal weapons with few restrictions is similar to discharging a carcinogenic solvent to public waters.

[Lloyd]

Lighter fluid can be dangerous. Misusing it, like misusing a gun, can cause death.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Lloyd]

Interesting thoughts from a psychiatrist and academic. The second article was written on response to reader comments on the first.
http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/62abdbf2a8502/Psych1.PDF
http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/62abdbfe3fc70/Psych2.PDF


Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

Lloyd, those two articles were very good. They clearly articulate the complexity of just one aspect of the issue, problems identifying and implementing solutions, and negative consequences that may equal or outweigh the positive results desired. The double edged sword of “solutions”.

[Chuck Naill]

Ban assault firearms, do a buy back, put owners in prison if they don't comply, make families and parents responsible, do red flag laws, and see how many mass shooting occur in the next five years.

While you may have knife stabbings and killings, it won't be 19 4th graders in a matter of seconds. Plus, the police may feel emboldened to do their job.

[dneal]

Back on topic, Politico (a left-leaning publication, for our international friends) published an update on the Senate's meetings and the larger political positions and implications.

House Dems fret Senate GOP will pull about-face on gun deal

Some points I thought interesting in bold:

Progressives still have significant questions about the agreement, like whether it would increase police presence in schools. But they'll likely take what they can get.

Getting to legislation will be extremely complicated: Senators in both parties have generally agreed to incentivize “red flag” laws that allow temporary confiscation of guns from people deemed a danger to themselves or others; to crack down on “straw purchases” of firearms; to fund school safety; and to create a new way to “review juvenile and mental health records” during background checks.

Progressives warn that hiccups in writing out any one of those policy changes could unravel the entire accord. And they worry the effort could fall apart completely if lawmakers don’t get it to Biden’s desk before leaving for the next lengthy break — the July Fourth recess, which starts at the end of next week.

“Once the text of this agreement is finalized, and I hope it will be as soon as possible, I will put this bill on the floor quickly so the Senate can move quickly to make gun safety reform a reality,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said.

House progressives are particularly concerned about school security funding: While many of the conversations have been about “hardening” schools with locks and gates, Democrats are worried that it could also mean paying for more cops in schools. That could be a nonstarter for the Congressional Black Caucus, as well as some progressives.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said she wanted to see the details of the agreement and had concerns about “criminalization,” including the language about reviewing juvenile records for gun buyers under 21.

“I want to explore the implications of that, and specifically how it’s designed and tailored,” she said. “You know, after Columbine we hired thousands of police officers into schools, and while it didn’t prevent many of the mass shootings that we’ve seen now, it has increased the criminalization of teens in communities like mine.”

Disputes over legislative language are precisely the kind of thorny details that have derailed Congress’ previous attempts at expanding gun-safety laws in the wake of horrific mass shootings. That includes senators’ last effort to expand background checks in 2019, which included some of the same players.

[Lloyd]

Have members here looked at the list of gunless school attacks in China to see what atrocities can be performed without a gun as well as to think what might have happened if guns were available?
Wikipedia-School attacks in China
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China
In most cases things would likely have been significantly worse than even these tragedies with guns. However, several "attackers" were more "creative" and created equally horrific massacres.
Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

The solution is easy.

[dneal]

Have members here looked at the list of gunless school attacks in China to see what atrocities can be performed without a gun as well as to think what might have happened if guns were available?
Wikipedia-School attacks in China
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China
In most cases things would likely have been significantly worse than even these tragedies with guns. However, several "attackers" were more "creative" and created equally horrific massacres.
Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Yes.

You make a fair point of the potentially worse outcomes if a gun was present. If anything, it provides more evidence that it's not the tool that's the issue and our efforts should be spent identifying the common or root cause(s).

[Lloyd]

Have members here looked at the list of gunless school attacks in China to see what atrocities can be performed without a gun as well as to think what might have happened if guns were available?
Wikipedia-School attacks in China
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China
In most cases things would likely have been significantly worse than even these tragedies with guns. However, several "attackers" were more "creative" and created equally horrific massacres.
Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Yes.

You make a fair point of the potentially worse outcomes if a gun was present. If anything, it provides more evidence that it's not the tool that's the issue and our efforts should be spent identifying the common or root cause(s).

The number of attacks in China is far higher than in the USA. However, there it's usually committed by a significantly older MALE than here. I disagree on the guns not being the issue as, with China, most of these incidences would likely have been far worse. In the USA, it seems like the biggest issue is the scale not the frequency. As for figuring out the cause, that psychologist article I posted shows that this is highly unlikely.
I think our society needs to promote reporting of potential individual threats. I think the entertainment industry needs to include this theme in more movies in such a way that it inspires without being saccharine. I think people need to know that, not just the reported on, but the reporters will receive support/protection/ advise.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™