Worldwide gun control disscussion

[K. A. Pital]

The problem is when you start trying to draw conclusions like "therefore, the US should enact more gun control at the federal level" or "therefore, no one should go to any place in the US."

The high murder rate in the US isn't actionable, useful information until it is disaggregated, analyzed, and treated as a bundle of separate facts. To understand how the US's murder rate affects you, you must understand where the murders are located, what triggers them, and so on.

This is equally true of crime in other countries, or for that matter any other aggregate trend that tries to take the average of a huge number of very dissimilar places and people.

No, it is useful information, at least, as far as I am concerned. First of all, it indicates a higher level of violence which is a starting point where a person who cares about his personal safety would then be able to investigate further. That violence could well be concentrated in urban areas, that is not under debate - and if we compare the homicide rate for big cities in the US and Europe, I wonder what the result would be. I have not claimed the US needs more gun control on the federal level. I claimed it needs cultural transformation to help with the violent crime rate, but that transformation is years away, if it ever happens. Gun control is a patch on top of a bleeding wound - the wound is still bleeding. As nor American attitudes to gun proliferation neither their acceptance of crime and violence are going to rapidly change, I proposed for those seriously concerned to just get out, or at least move internally.

The US has worse race relations than industrialized Asian nations, and arguably worse than Western European nations. The US has worse poverty problems than most European nations due to an inferior welfare system. The US has drug problems that contribute to the crime problems. The thing I'm trying to get at is that while in some rhetorical sense, "the US is dangerous" may be a claim consistent with the facts... As soon as you try to draw meaningful conclusions from that claim, you run into problems because it is a misleading statement even if it's true. It is a rhetorically strong statement, but a weak one for purposes of using reason and facts to learn the truth and seek solutions.

The first meaningful conclusion is that the problems in the US are of an overarching cultural-political nature and not connected to firearms proliferation only. The second is that fixing these problems will take a very long time.

The catch is that it is not obvious that restricting gun availability will lower a high crime rate, and that is the policy measure that's being debated in the US. Controlling the guns more effectively may simply result in gangs murdering each other with knives and crowbars, secure in the knowledge that no one is likely to pull a gun on them.

I would presume that restricting gun availability will reduce the rate of murders done with a firearm. As they are easier to execute than that with a knife, perhaps it will reduce the homicide rate a bit, overall. Maybe not by much, though, as the underlying problems are not solved. Hence, my comment that the situation cannot be salvaged by gun control. Or, if we consider the recent political develoments, at all. The country seems to be getting more crazy, more like the caricature of it painted in "Idiocracy".

[LaCroix]

It's not so much about banning guns as about making regulations sane...

In my closer family (3 brothers with spouses and my mum), 5 out of 7 own guns. My brothers are licensed to carry open at work (tobacco shop). Both brothers do have hunter's licences. Their spouses are target plinkers for fun, my wife uses mine if she wants to go shooting, and my mum doesn't own one, right now, but was once licensed to carry concealed (which is a very rare thing in Austria). My brothers and their spouses ar all licenced to own any gun they want , I can only own rifles, since I didn't bother with a permit.

We saw that report about how insanely bad the working conditions for the ATF are, having to deal with "scribblings on rotten paper" files in order to do background checks and what not. Looking at this, my brothers both turned at each other and stated - "If we want to create a situation where every criminal can easily obtain a gun, that's how we would do it."

In Austria, for example, everyone above 18 is allowed to purchase non-automatic rifles and shotguns. You simply have to show a valid id at the desk, filla form with name and address, the clerk will enter that into the computer system and register you and that gun's serial number in the national gun database. (If you want to buy pistols or semi-automatic rifles, you need a permit - a simple trip to the police, an appointment with a shrink to make sure you are not a homicidal maniac, and you're done.)

Every two years or so, the police will call to schedule an appointment for the next day to come and check your gun's are still there and stored properly in a "gun locker/safe) (a 200$ investment) bolted to a wall. Usually, you end up comparing guns and chatting when they show up, and sometimes even make up plans to meet at the range to try out each other's collection.

[Borgholio]

In Austria, for example, everyone above 18 is allowed to purchase non-automatic rifles and shotguns. You simply have to show a valid id at the desk, filla form with name and address, the clerk will enter that into the computer system and register you and that gun's serial number in the national gun database. (If you want to buy pistols or semi-automatic rifles, you need a permit - a simple trip to the police, an appointment with a shrink to make sure you are not a homicidal maniac, and you're done.)

Every two years or so, the police will call to schedule an appointment for the next day to come and check your gun's are still there and stored properly in a "gun locker/safe) (a 200$ investment) bolted to a wall. Usually, you end up comparing guns and chatting when they show up, and sometimes even make up plans to meet at the range to try out each other's collection.

That sounds far too reasonable. It will never happen here.

[AMX]

In Austria, for example, everyone above 18 is allowed to purchase non-automatic rifles and shotguns.

Unless you are a known violent criminal, in which case you get banned from possessing any weapons at all (not just firearms).
For example, that Nazi who shot up the motorcycle festival last month had a Waffenverbot.

[K. A. Pital]

Comparison at the sub-national level for Europe:

For the US by state:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... state.html

No matter which way one looks, there's no equivalence.

[MKSheppard]

GUNPOCALYPSE in California.

Here are the measures that Gov. Jerry Brown announced Friday that he has signed:

Senate Bill 1446, authored by Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, bans possession of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

SB 1235, authored by Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, regulates the sale of ammunition by requiring background checks.

SB 880, authored by Sen. Isadore Hall, D-South Bay, and AB1135, authored by Assemblyman Marc Levine, D-San Rafael, ban "bullet buttons" that make it easy to detach magazines.

Assembly Bill 1511, authored by Miguel Santiago, D-Los Angeles, limits the lending of guns to family members who have not completed background checks.

AB 1695, authored by Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland, blocks people who have knowingly made false reports on the loss or theft of a gun from possessing firearms for 10 years.

Here are the measures that Brown announced Friday that he has vetoed:

AB 1674, authored by Assemblyman Miguel Santiago, D-Los Angeles, limits the number of long guns Californians can purchase to one a month -- a limit that now applies to handguns.

AB 2607, authored by Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, expands the group of people who may request a gun violence restraining order to include mental health workers, employers, co-workers and school employees.

SB 894, authored by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, requires the reporting of a lost or stolen gun within a few days.

AB 1673, authored by Assemblyman Mike Gipson, D-Carson, aimed to eliminate the proliferation of so-called "ghost guns," which are manufactured at home and currently don't carry serial numbers.

AB 1176, authored by Cooper, places a measure on the November ballot to amend Proposition 47 by classifying the theft of a firearm as a felony even if the value of the gun is less than $950. (A similar measure will be on the statewide November ballot.)

[Purple]

O_o They seriously banned button release on magazines? Does that not like disqualify most of the existing firearms market?

[Joun_Lord]

It probably does disqualify many firearms but thats probably the point. Things like the 7 round limits and no tactical features that get pushed into law disqualify most firearms too but again, they don't care about public safety or stopping mass shootings or anything, its a defacto gun ban done piece meal.

Which is my main problem with gun control. I'm for gun safety. I think gun should be out of the hands of the dangerously mentally ill (though not a lifetime ban) and out of the hands of domestic abusers.

But most of the time gun laws aren't about any of those things. Gun laws are often solely about banning guns and then using shit like that to try to retroactively justify their bans.

[Simon_Jester]

It would seem to me that literally every one of the measures Governor Brown vetoed is likely to be as effective or more effective at limiting gun crime than the measures he passed...

[Joun_Lord]

Pretty much Simon. While I agree with rejecting the "let anybody play get a restraining order just because" bill the two bills the I actually think were good ideas, making firearm theft a felony even if some shitty 100 dollar Hi-Point and making it a crime to not report a lost or stolen firearm is a reasonable time frame, he rejected.

Those might have stopped some gun crime. Somebody might be less likely to pocket a piece if they know they are getting pound me in the ass prison time for it and might make people report lost or stolen gun faster.

All the bullet button bans and magazine limits are going to do little to limit crime. Loaning a hunting rifle to little Timmy or Uncle Bob who haven't went through a background is not going stop much crime. Having background checks on ammo is just going to inconvenience legal gun owners and no doubt further burden the background check system.

This whole deal is fucking stupid.

[Batman]

I could actually get on board with the magazine capacity limit. It's not going to make mass shootings go away (no amount of gun regulation will do that) but it'll make them harder. I don't see why people need 30 round (or more) magazines for target shooting (you have all the time in the world to reload-that target isn't going anywhere) or self defense (you didn't hit him with the first 10 rounds you're not likely to hit him with the next 20 either).
Besides, if you persist long enough to actually empty a 10 round magazine, chances are there's cover available so you can reload.

[Joun_Lord]

30 round capacity for "assault weapons" is pretty standard as is most pistols having over 10 rounds. Banning them would extremely negatively effect many law abiding citizens.

Large capacity magazines are rarely used for shootings much like how assault weapons are rarely used too. Banning them would have a negligible effect on the rates of gun violence, mostly only impact rare mass shootings much like again how gitting rid of assault weapons would.

Many high capacity magazines and drums are considered highly unreliable anyway. Many gun owners consider them gimmicky shit to play around with a range because of how prone to feed jams they are. The scary looking "infinity" double drum for AR-15s are considered notoriously unreliable, Holmes in the theater shooting actually used one and guess what, it failed and he had to switch to his sidearm. That doesn't even get into the fact they are bulky and unwieldy make the weapon harder to shoot, and aren't exactly concealable.

And personally I think the argument "you don't need it" is pretty weak, atleast in my not so humble opinion. People don't need sports cars, people don't need ridiculously huge big screen tvs, people don't need fake tits, people don't need penis pumps to make themselves feel larger, people don't need alot of what they have. But just because someone doesn't NEED something doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to have it. Until someone proves they cannot be trusted with something be it improperly using a firearm, drag racing or driving drunk, hacking into people Livejournals, or making threatening phone calls, they should be allowed to own a "assault weapon", some pimped out neon light whatever car, a computer, or a cell phone.

But thats just my opinion.

[Batman]

Define 'extremely negatively effect' please. From what I can tell at it does is 'make them switch magazines more often' which is a nonissue in range situations and usually in self-defense situations.
There's very little harm done by fake tits or bigass TVs. Sure, you can definitely kill a person with a bigass TV (and I can probably find a way to kill one with fake tits too) but the fact is unlike guns, they're not designed to kill people, and their regular use has a very low probability of getting people killed, so they're not really comparable.
Sports cars are no more dangerous than regular cars and guess what, you need a driver's license to operate those either way. Guns? 2ND AMENDMENT! YOU CAN'T WITHHOLD MY GUNS JUST BECAUSE I'M TOO STUPID TO TIE MY OWN SHOELACES!

[MKSheppard]

By the way, great job California, banning the possession of standard capacity magazines.

You've now proved that what you really want is confiscation, because standard capacity magazines were made illegal to transfer sixteen years ago:

"commencing January 1, 2000, any person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, buys, or receives any large-capacity magazine is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment"

The new bill goes:

commencing July 1, 2017, any person in this state who possesses any large-capacity magazine, regardless of the date the magazine was acquired, is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) upon the first offense, by a fine not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250) upon the second offense, and by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500) upon the third or subsequent offense.
(c) A person who, prior to July 1, 2017, legally possesses a large-capacity magazine shall dispose of that magazine by any of the following means:
(1) Remove the large-capacity magazine from the state.
(2) Prior to July 1, 2017, sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer.
(3) Destroy the large-capacity magazine.
(4) Surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction.

...

32406. Subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 32310 do not apply to the following:

(a) An individual who honorably retired from being a sworn peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, or an individual who honorably retired from being a sworn federal law enforcement officer, who was authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of that officer’s duties. For purposes of this section, “honorably retired” has the same meaning as provided in Section 16690.

So if you're a retired cop in CA, you can keep your standard capacity magazines.

[Agent Fisher]

Well, fuck. I had wanted to pick up an AR. But since it's black and scary and has a bullet button, cause I'll just have to get a Mini-14, which does the same damn thing, is a bit heavier and has a wooden stock. Or maybe I'll get a real "high powered" weapon and get an M1A that shoots a real bullet, not a suped up .22.


Seriously, fuck my state and fuck De Leon.

[Joun_Lord]

Define 'extremely negatively effect' please. From what I can tell at it does is 'make them switch magazines more often' which is a nonissue in range situations and usually in self-defense situations.

It also makes them possibly be criminal by possessing property, have to possibly turn in their property without compensation, and tells people they cannot be trusted with an object because of the actions of others. The problem is not the fact people need to reload more in self defense or range situations because thats pretty much a non-issue I'd think.

There's very little harm done by fake tits or bigass TVs. Sure, you can definitely kill a person with a bigass TV (and I can probably find a way to kill one with fake tits too) but the fact is unlike guns, they're not designed to kill people, and their regular use has a very low probability of getting people killed, so they're not really comparable.

Depends who you ask on whether or not bigass TVs and fake tits are harmful. TVs are said by some to warp peoples mind turning sweet little children into psychos and perverts, cause sedentary life styles, cause financial ruin by having to buy the biggest baddest tele they cannot afford, and probably cause eye strain and that doesn't even get into the environmental impacts that producing those television do. Fake breasts are said by some to negatively effect the sexuality of people by giving a unrealistic expectation of a woman's body. Most woman getting big fake tits are probably getting them to sell their bodies as strippers, porn stars, or even prostitutes. Not harmless.

And just because something is designed to kill doesn't mean it will automatically cause harm or is dangerous or even needs banned. Swords are designed to kill. They suck at cutting wood, probably can't play baseball with them, and I doubt a chef could find a use for them. But they are not banned, not even really regulated in most places. Crossbows are designed to kill. Everything a gun does it does and does it far quieter. The ammo can be reused. You can even find repeating "assault" crossbows. They were considered so dangerous a Pope wanted to completely ban their usage. Despite in some areas they being considered the same as firearms they is very little regulation of them in the US and elsewhere.

But the thing to remember is a sword, a crossbow, or even a gun is only dangerous when someone uses it in a dangerous way. Most law abiding gun owners are just that, law abiding. Never going to use their weapons to harm anything except maybe Bambi.

Sports cars are no more dangerous than regular cars and guess what, you need a driver's license to operate those either way. Guns? 2ND AMENDMENT! YOU CAN'T WITHHOLD MY GUNS JUST BECAUSE I'M TOO STUPID TO TIE MY OWN SHOELACES!

Sports cars are said to be more dangerous especially in wintry conditions. They are especially more dangerous in the hands of some misusing them thanks to their engine power and aerodynamic bodies that make them move like a bullet. But generally a sports car is no more dangerous then a regular.......except when used improperly. Just the same as an assault weapon vs a hunting rifle.

And atleast in the US you don't need a license to own and operate a car. You can't buy a car without one just fine though might have some trouble getting it off the lot unless you brought someone that does have a license. You can drive a car without a license on private property but need one to drive on public roads.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0012.htm
http://peopleof.oureverydaylife.com/can ... -3822.html

[MKSheppard]

Guns? 2ND AMENDMENT! YOU CAN'T WITHHOLD MY GUNS JUST BECAUSE I'M TOO STUPID TO TIE MY OWN SHOELACES!

The recent SCOTUS ruling on abortion clinic regulations is very pertinent.

LINK

Lots of talk in there of "undue burden" on "constitutional right"

There's even the whole "laws are only for the law abiding!" bit:

In the same breath, the dissent suggests that one benefit of H. B. 2’s requirements would be that they might “force unsafe facilities to shut down.” Post, at 26. To support that assertion, the dissent points to the Kermit Gosnell scandal. Gosnell, a physician in Pennsylvania, was convicted of first-degree murder and manslaughter.

He “staffed his facility with unlicensed and indifferent workers, and then let them practice medicine unsupervised” and had “[d]irty facilities; unsanitary instruments; an absence of functioning monitoring and resuscitation equipment; the use of cheap, but dangerous, drugs; illegal procedures; and inadequate emergency access for when things inevitably went wrong.” Report of Grand Jury in No. 0009901–2008 (1st Jud. Dist. Pa., Jan. 14, 2011), p. 24, online at http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/p ... edical.pdf (as last visited June 24, 2016).

Gosnell’s behavior was terribly wrong. But there is no reason to believe that an extra layer of regulation would have affected that behavior. Determined wrongdoers, already ignoring existing statutes and safety measures, are unlikely to be convinced to adopt safe practices by a new overlay of regulations.

Ultimately, WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH ET AL. v. HELLERSTEDT, COMMISSIONER, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES, ET AL. is another bomb waiting to explode, along with OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. because in order for the law to work; you can't differentiate between rights as if they were first, second, third, or fourth class rights; and the logic used by the court(s) has to be internally consistent from case to case (otherwise, you're just making shit up as you go along).

[madd0ct0r]

Define 'extremely negatively effect' please. From what I can tell at it does is 'make them switch magazines more often' which is a nonissue in range situations and usually in self-defense situations.

It also makes them possibly be criminal by possessing property, have to possibly turn in their property without compensation, and tells people they cannot be trusted with an object because of the actions of others. The problem is not the fact people need to reload more in self defense or range situations because thats pretty much a non-issue I'd think.

This has been alluded to before. Is there any reason gun owners think they wouldn't be compensated?

[Joun_Lord]

This has been alluded to before. Is there any reason gun owners think they wouldn't be compensated?

Mostly fear brought upon by the underhanded tactics of some gun control that have little respect for their property. Its possibly overblown fear but a fear nonetheless.

From my research, admittedly limited, there is very little evidence of most gun confiscations happenin' without compensation.

Though getting paid is a small comfort for pretty much your property being stolen. And the compensation may not reflect the actual financial value of the firearm and certainly won't cover the emotional value for some.

The truth is (the truth? You can't handle the truth!!!) the question of compensation is less important then the fact someone is getting their property forcefully removed despite not using the property improperly, despite being a completely law abiding citizen, and getting it taken away because of the actions of others. Which as far as I'm concerned is messed up.

[His Divine Shadow]

They'd have to pay a million per gun for me.

[TimothyC]

This has been alluded to before. Is there any reason gun owners think they wouldn't be compensated?

Post-Katrina New Orleans residents had to sue to get their legal, registered weapons back. And even then, the weapons were functionally destroyed by virtue of improper storage.

[Purple]

And just because something is designed to kill doesn't mean it will automatically cause harm or is dangerous or even needs banned. Swords are designed to kill. They suck at cutting wood, probably can't play baseball with them, and I doubt a chef could find a use for them. But they are not banned, not even really regulated in most places. Crossbows are designed to kill. Everything a gun does it does and does it far quieter. The ammo can be reused. You can even find repeating "assault" crossbows. They were considered so dangerous a Pope wanted to completely ban their usage. Despite in some areas they being considered the same as firearms they is very little regulation of them in the US and elsewhere.

But the thing to remember is a sword, a crossbow, or even a gun is only dangerous when someone uses it in a dangerous way. Most law abiding gun owners are just that, law abiding. Never going to use their weapons to harm anything except maybe Bambi.

Forget swords and crossbows. If Forgotten Weapons is to be believed, in america Flame Throwers are perfectly legal to own.link Flame throwers.

[madd0ct0r]

This has been alluded to before. Is there any reason gun owners think they wouldn't be compensated?

Post-Katrina New Orleans residents had to sue to get their legal, registered weapons back. And even then, the weapons were functionally destroyed by virtue of improper storage.

Katrina. The omnishambles of organisation. Conceeded.

[Beowulf]

It also makes them possibly be criminal by possessing property, have to possibly turn in their property without compensation, and tells people they cannot be trusted with an object because of the actions of others. The problem is not the fact people need to reload more in self defense or range situations because thats pretty much a non-issue I'd think.

This has been alluded to before. Is there any reason gun owners think they wouldn't be compensated?

(c) A person who, prior to July 1, 2017, legally possesses a large-capacity magazine shall dispose of that magazine by any of the following means:
(1) Remove the large-capacity magazine from the state.
(2) Prior to July 1, 2017, sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer.
(3) Destroy the large-capacity magazine.
(4) Surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction.

1 - can't have the property in the state
2 - sell for an unreasonably low price
3 - destroy without compensation
4 - destroy without compensation

They destroyed the market in this type of property, and now are going to take the property from the legal owners. And legally, this is a "taking", I'm pretty sure. I foresee a lawsuit being filed on the 5th.

---

I could actually get on board with the magazine capacity limit. It's not going to make mass shootings go away (no amount of gun regulation will do that) but it'll make them harder. I don't see why people need 30 round (or more) magazines for target shooting (you have all the time in the world to reload-that target isn't going anywhere) or self defense (you didn't hit him with the first 10 rounds you're not likely to hit him with the next 20 either).
Besides, if you persist long enough to actually empty a 10 round magazine, chances are there's cover available so you can reload.

It won't make mass shootings harder. Virginia Tech? Used handguns. Fort Hood? Handgun. Luby's Cafeteria? Handguns. Binghamton shootings? Handguns. Washington Navy Yard? Started with a 12 gauge shotgun. Columbine? All had reduced capacity magazines (and was intended as a giant bombing anyway). San Bernardino? Hard to find info, but if they had any mags past the capacity limit, they were illegally acquired.

I can go on, but generally speaking, standard capacity magazines don't make a difference. Super high capacity magazines tend to jam, and they weigh a ton fully loaded.

I don't see why police need magazines which aren't capacity limited. Everything you mention for regular civilians applies more so to them, and they can count on their friends driving to the rescue.

[Simon_Jester]

Sports cars are no more dangerous than regular cars and guess what, you need a driver's license to operate those either way. Guns? 2ND AMENDMENT! YOU CAN'T WITHHOLD MY GUNS JUST BECAUSE I'M TOO STUPID TO TIE MY OWN SHOELACES!

See how fast that turned into a strawman?

The measure being objected to here is a ban on a feature of many common guns, which does not make guns significantly more dangerous. And which will gravely inconvenience many law-abiding gun owners who spent hundreds or thousands of dollars on legal products that are now being made illegal and (apparently) confiscated.

And this reduces to "people are complaining that their guns are being 'withheld' " when in fact the guns are being taken away entirely... And this reduces to people objecting that "they're too stupid to tie their own shoelaces" when in fact the objection is that this is a useless measure that will not decrease gun crime, and will take away the property of law-abiding citizens to no benefit.