Last February, Trump signed a bill making it easier for people with mental illness to buy guns

[Falvlun]

There are certainly things you can do. The question is why do these things? There is a difference between making more hoops to jump through and actually addressing what you see as a problem. Unless people getting guns is what you see as a problem
But that is similar to me saying that people having the ability to drive is the problem when the bus crashes.

The problems, as I see it, are:

1) The wrong people obtaining a gun. This includes qualifying felons (which are already barred but manage it anyhow) as well as mental health risks and children.

2) Lack of training for those who own guns. This includes basic gun safety, storage standards to prevent (1), etc.

3) The prevalence and ease of obtaining guns that can kill many people in a short time. This includes semi-automatics, large magazines, bump stocks.

More rigorous, universal, and easily obtained background checks would aid in (1), as would more stringent storage requirements and mental health clearance.

A required training program, like drivers ed, for gun ownership would aid in (2). I think different classes of guns should require additional training, like driving a semi does. Ongoing license renewal would also be preferable rather than a one time class.

I think reasonable restrictions on certain kind of guns should also be on the table (3). Such restrictions could be limiting number of guns that can be owned, requiring additional training, etc.

I think these solutions speak directly to the problems I see.

Your first suggestion would likely run foul of privacy laws. Medical information is protected by addition acts like hipaa laws. Getting a job is different than owning a gun.

Then we rewrite the privacy laws.

If you have a qualifying mental illness it should put you on a database that restricts your ability to obtain a gun (or maybe just a specific type of gun). If you become well, you should be able to be removed from that database. The database should be an inherent part of the background check.

Mandatory training and licensing is something that can and would have to be enacted at the state level. It could not be cost prohibitive. And it would have to be a license to purchase or carry not a license to own.

I do not think any gun law will be effective if it is only enacted piecemeal at state levels.

The costs should be whatever it costs to run. You are not entitled to own a gun— guns aren’t free the last time i checked. And yes, you should have to pass training in order to own an operable gun.

Setting up an easy background check is certainly a possibility. But what problem are you trying to address here? People with felonies or domestic abuse purchasing guns? If that is the specific issue, how great is that problem? I assume by universally, you don't mean to include private party sales or gifts.

Yes, I mean exactly that: every gun transfer of ownership should require a background check. The current issue I’ve been hearing is that they aren’t easy for private people to do. So let’s make them easy for anyone to do.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you mean there aren't metal detectors at pretty much every bank's entrance in the USA ?
I am honestly surprised if that's true.

"If that's true"?
Ask any Americastanian.
See what they say.
I've never seen a metal detector in a bank or any business here.
They're in some government buildings & airports.

Until a couple decades ago, I even had permission
to carry concealed in police stations & courts.
Those days are gone though.

 

[Curious George]

The problems, as I see it, are:

1) The wrong people obtaining a gun. This includes qualifying felons (which are already barred but manage it anyhow) as well as mental health risks and children.

2) Lack of training for those who own guns. This includes basic gun safety, storage standards to prevent (1), etc.

3) The prevalence and ease of obtaining guns that can kill many people in a short time. This includes semi-automatics, large magazines, bump stocks.

More rigorous, universal, and easily obtained background checks would aid in (1), as would more stringent storage requirements and mental health clearance.

Again with the medical information. How are you going to enforce storage requirements?

A required training program, like drivers ed, for gun ownership would aid in (2). I think different classes of guns should require additional training, like driving a semi does. Ongoing license renewal would also be preferable rather than a one time class.

This is done at the state level, I do not think one need go through drivers ed. If one is 18 in most states.

I think reasonable restrictions on certain kind of guns should also be on the table (3). Such restrictions could be limiting number of guns that can be owned, requiring additional training, etc.

I think all reasonable restriction should be on the table, we just different on what is reasonable based on the level of scrutiny.

I think these solutions speak directly to the problems I see.

And hinder individuals who are completely unrelated to the problems you see.

Then we rewrite the privacy laws.

Really worth giving up the right to abortion? It is not to me.

If you have a qualifying mental illness it should put you on a database that restricts your ability to obtain a gun (or maybe just a specific type of gun). If you become well, you should be able to be removed from that database. The database should be an inherent part of the background check.

You are asking a lot.

I do not think any gun law will be effective if it is only enacted piecemeal at state levels.

So you don't support any state gun regulation?

The costs should be whatever it costs to run. You are not entitled to own a gun— guns aren’t free the last time i checked. And yes, you should have to pass training in order to own an operable gun.

No, you are not entitled to a gun, but I would hope that creating a dual class of rights for people who can afford them and for people who cannot, is bothersome to you.

Yes, I mean exactly that: every gun transfer of ownership should require a background check. The current issue I’ve been hearing is that they aren’t easy for private people to do. So let’s make them easy for anyone to do.

So, I have to run a background check on my daughter to give her a gun for her 18th birthday? That just seems silly.

 

[suncowiam]

The trend is small. It is a very different than the trend of gun violence. When we look at the disparity between the two types of statistics, we have to ask why we don't see similar disparity between nations in one type as the other type?

Could it be because guns are a relatively small addition to the actual violence? Or could it be because guns don't cause the additional violence and that is caused by other factors. I point to Russia and Brazil as counter examples. We see higher homicide rates in these countries even though they have stricter gun laws than the U.S.
India has much stricter gun laws than the U.S. but the murder rate is only 1 less per 100k. Why is that? Well, it could be cultural factors. But if we allow for cultural factors to explain these discrepancies, how come we do not allow for "cultural factors" to explain the differences in homicide rates between the U.S. and the U.K or Australia

Why are you so certain that it is guns? You haven't shown that. That is what is missing from your argument.

Having 100 homicides to 25 homicides is considered small? How subjective of a notion to assert? I won't even further address that.

Ok... Here is another use of statistics to show the correlation of stricter gun controls over the years in Australia and UK. It shows a causation between gun laws and homicide rate.

Gun Control in Australia, Updated - FactCheck.org
Murder and suicide figures plummeted in Australia after gun control laws were put in

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...b931670f35d_story.html?utm_term=.5c5b6c2f2021
UK didn't show a positive trend until 2005. I would expect a lull in the statistics for the enforcement to catch up. But since 2005, it's been positive.

Although, to be fair to you, here is a website that suggests UK did not have a positive correlation.
Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center
But when you dig deeper into this website. It clearly is biased from gun advocates. It stops its presentation of UK data at 2004. And it advertised books on gun ownership.

Again, I am showing a trend. Three different types of statistics pointing to the same trend? Of course, you're going to throw something else into this mix without presenting your data?

Look, I'm seriously done. I'm not responding unless you actually want to present data.

 

[Revoltingest]

How are you going to enforce storage requirements?

I have a suggestion.
I warn you that it's not foolproof.
But it avoids government entering homes.

We have to buy liability insurance for our guns.
Insurance companies require that storage standards be met.
They inspect when they find it useful.
If the unthinkable happens due to lack of proper storage,
the owner loses coverage....a great financial risk.
This is how property insurance works.

Failing to meet legal storage requirements could also
result in prosecution....
- False statement about compliance
- Lack of compliance
I smell the threat of large fines & prison time.

 

[Curious George]

Having 100 homicides to 25 homicides is considered small? How subjective of a notion to assert? I won't even further address that.

Ok... Here is another use of statistics to show the correlation of stricter gun controls over the years in Australia and UK. It shows a causation between gun laws and homicide rate.

Gun Control in Australia, Updated - FactCheck.org
Murder and suicide figures plummeted in Australia after gun control laws were put in

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...b931670f35d_story.html?utm_term=.5c5b6c2f2021
UK didn't show a positive trend until 2005. I would expect a lull in the statistics for the enforcement to catch up. But since 2005, it's been positive.

Although, to be fair to you, here is a website that suggests UK did not have a positive correlation.
Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center
But when you dig deeper into this website. It clearly is biased from gun advocates. It stops its presentation of UK data at 2004. And it advertised books on gun ownership.

Again, I am showing a trend. Three different types of statistics pointing to the same trend? Of course, you're going to throw something else into this mix without presenting your data?

Look, I'm seriously done. I'm not responding unless you actually want to present data.

Why when you are supplying all the sources I need to show we cannot conclude a causal link:

"While it also noted an accelerated decline in firearms deaths since the ban, and a statistically significant acceleration in the downward trend of firearm suicides, it concluded they could not be causally linked to Mr Howard’s ban despite this correlation"

 

[Curious George]

I have a suggestion.
I warn you that it's not foolproof.
But it avoids government entering homes.

We have to buy liability insurance for our guns.
Insurance companies require that storage standards be met.
They inspect when they find it useful.
If the unthinkable happens due to lack of proper storage,
the owner loses coverage....a great financial risk.
This is how property insurance works.

Failing to meet legal storage requirements could also
result in prosecution....
- False statement about compliance
- Lack of compliance
I smell the threat of large fines & prison time.

I already addressed insurance. Now you are bringing in a third party to arbitrarily dictate rights. You are bringing in an extra expense to further remove rights from lower socioeconomic groups.

How is that constitutional?

The government hiring a proxy to infringe on our rights is no different from the government doing it themselves. Back to strict scrutiny. The measure is overly broad, therefore does not pass muster.

 

[Koldo]

The trend is small. It is a very different than the trend of gun violence. When we look at the disparity between the two types of statistics, we have to ask why we don't see similar disparity between nations in one type as the other type?

Could it be because guns are a relatively small addition to the actual violence? Or could it be because guns don't cause the additional violence and that is caused by other factors. I point to Russia and Brazil as counter examples. We see higher homicide rates in these countries even though they have stricter gun laws than the U.S.
India has much stricter gun laws than the U.S. but the murder rate is only 1 less per 100k. Why is that? Well, it could be cultural factors. But if we allow for cultural factors to explain these discrepancies, how come we do not allow for "cultural factors" to explain the differences in homicide rates between the U.S. and the U.K or Australia

Why are you so certain that it is guns? You haven't shown that. That is what is missing from your argument.

The problem with your examples is that those laws aren't effectively enforced.
Just to add some perspective, I will talk about my state ( Rio de Janeiro, Brazil ) : About a decade ago, our former governor decided to create the 'UPP' project. It stands for 'Unidade de Polícia Pacificadora'. It means quite literally 'Peacemaker Police Unit'. The idea was simple: Create a foothold in each and every slum where criminal activity was abound. This might sound weird but without this the police couldn't get into slums to enforce anything without facing gunfire, which in practice meant the law couldn't be properly enforced there.

Now, how did they intend to do that ? First, the army would be sent into the slums and it got to the point even tanks were assigned to make sure the objective would be achieved. After that, more policemen were hired to make use of the footholds created by the army.

The idea was great and all, but the money eventually ran short. The project stopped halfway through and not only many slums still don't have an UPP, criminals migrated from one city to another to continue their criminal activity, mostly related to drug trafficking.

The current situation ? Our governor asked the president for military intervention. He said he can't handle it anymore. He can't find a way to lower the crime rates by himself.

Either way, my point is that if you want to know whether stricter gun laws reduce homicide rates you ought to consider only countries or states where they are actually properly enforced. Mentioning Brazil doesn't really help your argument.

 

[Revoltingest]

I already addressed insurance. Now you are bringing in a third party to arbitrarily dictate rights. You are bringing in an extra expense to further remove rights from lower socioeconomic groups.

Aye, it's my suggestion.
I'm not removing any rights.
But I am imposing a reasonable (IMO) regulatory burden....
- To elevate safety
- To ensure ability to pay for a loss suffered by a 3rd party if one handles one's guns irresponsibly.

How is that constitutional?

The right to bear small arms is preserved because useful regulatory requirements are a di minimis burden.

The government hiring a proxy to infringe on our rights is no different from the government doing it themselves. Back to strict scrutiny. The measure is overly broad, therefore does not pass muster.

Government hires no proxy.
It requires us to buy insurance in order to make whole (ie, hold harmless) a party whom we've injured.
It's analogous to auto liability insurance in that we preserve our right to travel while.

I see increasing regulation happening.
But in what way?
I prose regulation which preserves gun rights by regulating owner behavior & governmental competence.
This is better (constitutionally) than the simplistic gun bans proposed by so many.
You could call it the lesser of 2 evils.
But I think my approach is actually pretty darned good.

 

[Koldo]

"If that's true"?
Ask any Americastanian.
See what they say.
I've never seen a metal detector in a bank or any business here.
They're in some government buildings & airports.

Until a couple decades ago, I even had permission
to carry concealed in police stations & courts.
Those days are gone though.

I will trust you if you say so.
I am honestly surprised because metal detectors are pretty much mandatory in banks around here.
Truthfully, I can't even remember ever seeing any bank without one, and I live in a country where guns are mostly forbidden. I find it bemusing your banks don't take this precaution.

 

[Revoltingest]

I will trust you if you say so.
I am honestly surprised because metal detectors are pretty much mandatory in banks around here.
Truthfully, I can't even remember ever seeing any bank without one, and I live in a country where guns are mostly forbidden. I find it bemusing your banks don't take this precaution.

Bank robberies are so rare that I can't remember one happening here.
It could just be my memory though.

Metal detectors would be inconvenient because we all travel with something metal,
eg, keys, pliers, tape measure, coins, steel toed shoes, watches, phones.
The sirens would be going off every few seconds.

 

[Curious George]

The problem with your examples is that those laws aren't effectively enforced.
Just to add some perspective, I will talk about my state ( Rio de Janeiro, Brazil ) : About a decade ago, our former governor decided to create the 'UPP' project. It stands for 'Unidade de Polícia Pacificadora'. It means quite literally 'Peacemaker Police Unit'. The idea was simple: Create a foothold in each and every slum where criminal activity was abound. This might sound weird but without this the police couldn't get into slums to enforce anything without facing gunfire, which in practice meant the law couldn't be properly enforced there.

Now, how did they intend to do that ? First, the army would be sent into the slums and it got to the point even tanks were assigned to make sure the objective would be achieved. After that, more policemen were hired to make use of the footholds created by the army.

The idea was great and all, but the money eventually ran short. The project stopped halfway through and not only many slums still don't have an UPP, criminals migrated from one city to another to continue their criminal activity, mostly related to drug trafficking.

The current situation ? Our governor asked the president for military intervention. He said he can't handle it anymore. He can't find a way to lower the crime rates by himself.

Either way, my point is that if you want to know whether stricter gun laws reduce homicide rates you ought to consider only countries or states where they are actually properly enforced. Mentioning Brazil doesn't really help your argument.

Actually it does exactly that. So what you are saying is that simply comparing laws across the board does not give us a clear perspective? Incidentally that is what I have said. The issue is more complicated. We cannot look at gun laws and say, see that will work!

 

[Koldo]

Bank robberies are so rare that I can't remember one happening here.
It could just be my memory though.

Metal detectors would be inconvenient because we all travel with something metal,
eg, keys, pliers, tape measure, coins, steel toed shoes, watches, phones.
The sirens would be going off every few seconds.

They are inconvenient. Period.
We also tend to carry those very same things.

 

[Revoltingest]

They are inconvenient. Period.
We also tend to carry those very same things.

Do you have a high risk of bank robberies?

 

[Curious George]

Aye, it's my suggestion.
I'm not removing any rights.
But I am imposing a reasonable (IMO) regulatory burden....
- To elevate safety
- To ensure ability to pay for a loss suffered by a 3rd party if one handles one's guns irresponsibly.

The right to bear small arms is preserved because useful regulatory requirements are a di minimis burden.

Government hires no proxy.
It requires us to buy insurance in order to make whole (ie, hold harmless) a party whom we've injured.
It's analogous to auto liability insurance in that we preserve our right to travel while.

I see increasing regulation happening.
But in what way?
I prose regulation which preserves gun rights by regulating owner behavior & governmental competence.
This is better (constitutionally) than the simplistic gun bans proposed by so many.
You could call it the lesser of 2 evils.
But I think my approach is actually pretty darned good.

Car insurance are state laws not federal. It affects parties that are not at issue. Driving is distinct from owning a gun. I can own a car and not drive it and pay no insurance. Driving a car is closer to carrying a gun, not owning a gun. Inspecting Sally's house and forcing her to buy insurance for a gun that is locked in her house and will never see the light of day is unnecessary.

 

[Koldo]

Actually it does exactly that. So what you are saying is that simply comparing laws across the board does not give us a clear perspective? Incidentally that is what I have said. The issue is more complicated. We cannot look at gun laws and say, see that will work!

I agree with that up to a certain extent. It is hard to say whether something will work somewhere specifically because each case is different.
However, if you see a model that has worked and you can't bring up clear reasons as to why it wouldn't work somewhere else, that is good enough to give a try in my book. On the other hand, if you can bring up clear reasons then skepticism should be reasonable.

 

[Koldo]

Do you have a high risk of bank robberies?

Depends on what you mean by 'high risk' and 'bank robberies'.
If by that you mean an armed individual going into a bank at daylight I don't think so, but I would have to look it up.
If, however, what you mean by that is any sort of bank robbery involving even the cases where the robbers blow up the door at night time, I think so. Every once in a while we hear of that happening.

 

[Revoltingest]

Car insurance are state laws not federal.

I was hoping you'd just leave it as something widely accepted.
That you wouldn't make me go here.
It's going to be really offensive.

Spoiler: Controversial law

Obamacare insurance is federal, & the USSC says it's legal to impose the insurance requirement upon us.
I don't agree, btw.
It's a precedent.

It affects parties that are not at issue.

If one wrongly shoots another, or causes it, then one is liable to the injured party.
This can cause a huge loss, one which few people are financially able to cover without insurance.

Driving is distinct from owning a gun. I can own a car and not drive it and pay no insurance. Driving a car is closer to carrying a gun, not owning a gun. Inspecting Sally's house and forcing her to buy insurance for a gun that is locked in her house and will never see the light of day is unnecessary.

This difference between a gun & a car strikes me as insignificant.
Any gun in private hands can be used or stolen, & this is also what the insurance is for.

Think of this as a compromise to reduce the carnage associated with guns.
If not my approach, then what?
Got a better idea?

 

[Revoltingest]

Depends on what you mean by 'high risk' and 'bank robberies'.
If by that you mean an armed individual going into a bank at daylight I don't think so, but I would have to look it up.
If, however, what you mean by that is any sort of bank robbery involving even the cases where the robbers blow up the door at night time, I think so. Every once in a while we hear of that happening.

It it just a love of metal detectors then?
Or are robberies rare because of this?
Hey, what happens when it detects metal....is there
an immediate armed response....guards or cops?

 

[Koldo]

It it just a love of metal detectors then?
Or are robberies rare because of this?

Good question but I am too young to know the answer to that. I don't really know how it used to be in the past, but I assume there are less robberies nowadays ( proportionally ) considering how widespread their use is.

Hey, what happens when it detects metal....is there
an immediate armed response....guards or cops?

There are always guards in banks. They ask you to step back, put whatever metal object you might have on you in a box, so to say, and then try again to pass through the door.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words:

It's a hassle, I know.