I'm out of the loop on the gun control debate.

[Craig234]

You think that attacking legal supply will lead to a decrease in criminal supply. Given the sheer amount of firearms floating around, you'd need to make a pretty huge impact for such a strategy to be effective. I'm asking how you would accomplish said impact.

A lot of gun crime is committed with revolvers. How are you going to attack that legal supply such that it effectively limits criminal supply?

Reportedly the largest source of handguns in crimes IIRC is from straw purchases. It's reported that criminals commonly obvious violate these laws now, going to a gun store with a legal purchaser where the criminal selects the gun and the companion buys it for them. Whatever laws there are about this are inffective; one of the measures the Republicans just defeated was to strengthen the laws against straw purchases.

I forget what was second; but it might have been the 40% of guns sold at places without background checks like gun shows. Obvious remedy there.

I think third place was stolen handguns. The fewer legal handguns there are to steal, the fewer will be stolen.

We're already at a point where only about 100 million have guns, less than a third of the country. If that number drops, supply drops. Cost on the black market increases.

There are other ideas as well - how about increasing the number of guns that require the owner's fingerprint to be used? That's pretty 'gun right' and 'safety' friendly.

Then there's just the increased use of safety features on guns - something that the NRA has fought from being legislated, much as seat belts were fought.

How about just a general shift to move legal owners from handguns toward long guns? Handguns are by far an advantage for criminals. Long guns are better for home defense.

Edit: if anyone has any interest in the statistics, a couple of references:

One is the link from jackstar7 on where criminals get their guns; the 100 million Americans who have guns is from Chris Hayes on his MSNBC show in the last week.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

The 40% of sales without background checks has reportedly been cited by President Obama, with simply math that only federal licensed dealers require them and have 60% of sales.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Craig, do you have any actual data to back up those numeric claims?

 

[irishScott]

Reportedly the largest source of handguns in crimes IIRC is from straw purchases. It's reported that criminals commonly obvious violate these laws now, going to a gun store with a legal purchaser where the criminal selects the gun and the companion buys it for them. Whatever laws there are about this are inffective; one of the measures the Republicans just defeated was to strengthen the laws against straw purchases.

I forget what was second; but it might have been the 40% of guns sold at places without background checks like gun shows. Obvious remedy there.

I think third place was stolen handguns. The fewer legal handguns there are to steal, the fewer will be stolen.

We're already at a point where only about 100 million have guns, less than a third of the country. If that number drops, supply drops. Cost on the black market increases.

There are other ideas as well - how about increasing the number of guns that require the owner's fingerprint to be used? That's pretty 'gun right' and 'safety' friendly.

Then there's just the increased use of safety features on guns - something that the NRA has fought from being legislated, much as seat belts were fought.

How about just a general shift to move legal owners from handguns toward long guns? Handguns are by far an advantage for criminals. Long guns are better for home defense.

Edit: if anyone has any interest in the statistics, a couple of references:

One is the link from jackstar7 on where criminals get their guns; the 100 million Americans who have guns is from Chris Hayes on his MSNBC show in the last week.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

The 40% of sales without background checks has reportedly been cited by President Obama, with simply math that only federal licensed dealers require them and have 60% of sales.

So in a nutshell, you want registration on new purchases. That's nice, but what are you going to do about the 300,000,000 guns currently "in the wild". Oh sure compulsory registration could account for... say 40 million of those in light the civil disobedience such a move would likely incur, but what about the rest?

Guns don't have an expiration date. There are guns from the 19th century that are still kicking around, and I recently read an article by a competitive shooter who shot a match with a WWI era 1911 (90% original parts, including all components of the firing mechanism) and the gun performed flawlessly.

So how are you going to keep those guns out of the hands of criminals?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Guns don't have an expiration date. There are guns from the 19th century that are still kicking around, and I recently read an article by a competitive shooter who shot a match with a WWI era 1911 (90% original parts, including all components of the firing mechanism) and the gun performed flawlessly.

So how are you going to keep those guns out of the hands of criminals?

They aren't. They're going to try to keep ammunition out of the hands of criminals. (Which will work about as well as we keep pot and coke and meth out of the hands of addicts.)

 

[irishScott]

They aren't. They're going to try to keep ammunition out of the hands of criminals. (Which will work about as well as we keep pot and coke and meth out of the hands of addicts.)

Actually a very apt analogy. Ammo would literally start rolling across the Mexican border with the drugs.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

My guess is that laws trying to make bullets more traceable will be pushed soon. Shortly thereafter they will go after reloaders.

 

[Moonbeam]

They aren't. They're going to try to keep ammunition out of the hands of criminals. (Which will work about as well as we keep pot and coke and meth out of the hands of addicts.)

I'm wondering about the implications here. It would seem that it's laws that create criminals, generally, but specifically here by criminalizing posession of substances related to addiction either in the form of some relief form emotional pain afforded by the fog of drug induced euphoria or the high of the adrenilan rush of the stick up and the pleasure of spending money to aquire status and things, presumably, and acquired by the intimidating force of the bullet. And since we know there folk who use bullets to take and addicts that use drugs, we know also that this is not 100% effective as a deterent. So what is the point of law? Why not have no law and therefore no criminals of any kind.

My guess is that folk think that crime and addiction are evil and even go hand in hand, and the idea is not to deter by threat but by putting people in prison. This seems to be our answer to everything. Once we outlaw bullets and lock up all the folk who have them, gun violence will end. And the work force to accomplish the task will mean millions of jobs.

On the other hand I aam not an addict or a criminal because I don't use drugs or even bullets for that matter, but the reason I don't, in the case of the former, is because it is illegal to posess them, at least here in California, federally, even with a state medical permit. I don't want to fall victim to the beaurocratic machine.

 

[irishScott]

My guess is that laws trying to make bullets more traceable will be pushed soon. Shortly thereafter they will go after reloaders.

I'm not so sure. If they couldn't get background checks through, how do they think they'll succeed with something even more invasive?

 

[smackababy]

I'm not so sure. If they couldn't get background checks through, how do they think they'll succeed with something even more invasive?

How are they going to convince anyone it is logistically possible to do something like ID and register every bullet to a person. And then convince the public that actually stops these tragic shootings on the news. In every Columbine / Aurora typing shooting, we have caught the perpetrator/s. What exactly does having "traceable" bullets do besides solving crimes committed in the ghetto, which nobody cares about?

 

[Craig234]

... solving crimes committed in the ghetto, which nobody cares about?

Speak for yourself. I care. Many care.

That's an immoral position.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I'm not so sure. If they couldn't get background checks through, how do they think they'll succeed with something even more invasive?

I don't. That's why I qualified with "go after" and "trying".

Speak for yourself. I care. Many care.

That's an immoral position.

It's an honest one. Sure, most people in the sense of not wanting a fellow human being to come to harm. But it's not something that hits home for most folks, who recognize that the problems are endemic, have been going on for decades, and that we aren't likely to change any time soon.

 

[Craig234]

So in a nutshell, you want registration on new purchases. That's nice, but what are you going to do about the 300,000,000 guns currently "in the wild". Oh sure compulsory registration could account for... say 40 million of those in light the civil disobedience such a move would likely incur, but what about the rest?

Guns don't have an expiration date. There are guns from the 19th century that are still kicking around, and I recently read an article by a competitive shooter who shot a match with a WWI era 1911 (90% original parts, including all components of the firing mechanism) and the gun performed flawlessly.

So how are you going to keep those guns out of the hands of criminals?

Again, you are asking about something not close to passing.

If the government banned new sales, the large existing pool would start to reduce gradually over a long time.

To have more impact, they'd have to reduce the number. The first easiest way to do that would be a lot of buyback programs for voluntary selling.

To do more starts to get to that 1969 presidential commission recommendation of banning possession of handguns.

Handguns really are most of the issue of criminal murder. Mass killings are more press, more sensational, more subject to those 'assault weapon' and '30 clip' bans.

But they aren't where most of the killings are. Handguns are uniquely suited to crime over lawful use.

I have to wonder if there isn't room for a handgun ban under the second amendment just as we ban automatic weapons. Even the 'military arms' definition of arms doesn't really include handguns - technically they are used by the military but in a very small way compared to long guns. But politically, we're not close to that.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

If the government banned new sales, the large existing pool would start to reduce gradually over a long time.

Maybe if by "gradually" you mean a few percent per decade and by "long time" you mean centuries.

But they aren't where most of the killings are. Handguns are uniquely suited to crime over lawful use.

Really. And what do you base that on, exactly?

Why do you suppose police officers carry handguns?

But politically, we're not close to that.

To say the least.

And you also have Heller to contend with.

 

[smackababy]

I have to wonder if there isn't room for a handgun ban under the second amendment just as we ban automatic weapons. Even the 'military arms' definition of arms doesn't really include handguns - technically they are used by the military but in a very small way compared to long guns. But politically, we're not close to that.

The problem is the supreme court has already ruled the 2nd amendment applies to self defense. They have already found handgun bans to be unconstitutional.

The problem with "limiting supply" arguments is they don't work. Let's look at drugs. They are illegal to own, use, and manufacture in the US. This has had such a minimal impact on actually limiting the supply. The only way to stop drugs or guns, is to limit the demand. This is not done through legislation.

 

[Craig234]

The problem is the supreme court has already ruled the 2nd amendment applies to self defense. They have already found handgun bans to be unconstitutional.

The problem with "limiting supply" arguments is they don't work. Let's look at drugs. They are illegal to own, use, and manufacture in the US. This has had such a minimal impact on actually limiting the supply. The only way to stop drugs or guns, is to limit the demand. This is not done through legislation.

That's a false analogy - drugs are a lot easier to manufacture than handguns.

Long guns meet a requirement for self defense generally. If I recall, the court rulings have pretty much been the 5-4 type.

So maybe there's some room for changes on handguns.

 

[Fern]

Reportedly the largest source of handguns in crimes IIRC is from straw purchases. It's reported that criminals commonly obvious violate these laws now, going to a gun store with a legal purchaser where the criminal selects the gun and the companion buys it for them. Whatever laws there are about this are inffective; one of the measures the Republicans just defeated was to strengthen the laws against straw purchases.

I forget what was second; but it might have been the 40% of guns sold at places without background checks like gun shows. Obvious remedy there.

I think third place was stolen handguns. The fewer legal handguns there are to steal, the fewer will be stolen.
-snip-

Yes, correct about straw purchases.

No, regarding the second and third largest sources for criminals.

Here's a PBS article citing info from ATF agent Jay Wachtel, an expert on how/where criminals acquire guns: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

1. Straw purchases

2. Purchased from crooked FFL (criminals get the FFL to divert guns to the illegal market)

3. Criminal unlicensed black market gun (street) dealers.

4. While not specifically mentioned in this article, in others he has said the 4th largest is acquiring from relative or friend (gift or borrowing).

Neither gun shows or theft are significant sources for criminals to acquire guns.

Fern

 

[Charles Kozierok]

That's a false analogy - drugs are a lot easier to manufacture than handguns.

You seem to be very long on blank assertions and very short on backing them up.

I've now asked you several times to provide anything to back up your claims, all of which appear to be complete nonsense to me.

Same here -- what is your basis for saying this? Guns are made in pretty much every corner of the world. They require very little in the way of technology. That's not the case with a lot of modern drugs, which require considerable understanding of chemistry to manufacture.

 

[Fern]

Well, at least some small progress in fixing the background check system:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51777643/ns/local_news-greenville_sc/#.UYcM80rMSho

It's been called one of the most important pieces of legislation passed this year in our state. The "Ashley Hall" bill enables South Carolina to report who has been found by the courts to be mentally ill to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

The bill passed with significant bipartisan support from legislators and law enforcement authorities as well as the National Rifle Association

From one of the reddest states, no less.

Fern

 

[Fenixgoon]

after a bunch of high-profile, mass-shootings, politicians at the state level decided to try and ram ineffective and nonsensical legislation through their congresses. some succeeded (see New York, Maryland). The debate at the federal level took much longer and eventually nothing happened.

Here on ATPN, many anti-gun people said "no one should have weapons that are that lethal!"

i asked repeatedly asked for people to define what makes some weapons more lethal than others, even including numerous example firearm characteristics from which to choose. i have not received an objective or subjective answer yet.

 

[schneiderguy]

A certain segment of the population believes that using men with guns to deny civil rights to a large portion of the citizens of the United States of America is "common sense gun control", not a morally indefensible initiation of force.

A particularly vile specimen of this population, named Diane Feinstein, wants to ban "assault weapons" from the hands of civilians. She became an expert of the damage that "assault weapons" can do in the hands of a civilian after witnessing the murder of San Francisco mayor Harvey Milk by a police officer armed with a six shot revolver. She also recently spent an entire day looking at pictures of "assault weapons", to further boost her credibility in the field. Unfortunately, possibly due to dementia caused by old age, her "assault weapons ban" only bans guns that look scary, so the revolver that caused her such emotional trauma would still be completely legal.

Thankfully, the non-violent, pro-rights segment of society was able to peacefully convince our government at the federal level, through a coordinated grassroots campaign, that a law like Feinstein's would be a bad idea, so it didn't pass, despite intense lobbying by moneyed entities like billionaire Michael Bloomberg, and most of the mainstream media.

 

[deathfrisbees]

What about the whole teachers should have access to guns thing? I mean can we all agree that this specifically would be a terrible idea?

 

[Craig234]

What about the whole teachers should have access to guns thing? I mean can we all agree that this specifically would be a terrible idea?

No, we can't. There are regions who are strongly in favor of it, and schools were are increasing teachers with guns.

 

[corwin]

What about the whole teachers should have access to guns thing? I mean can we all agree that this specifically would be a terrible idea?

Yeah no, I fully support letting the people responsible for shaping the minds of my children being trained and carrying a weapon to defend them if need be when I can't be there

 

[Fenixgoon]

What about the whole teachers should have access to guns thing? I mean can we all agree that this specifically would be a terrible idea?

forcing all teachers to CCW would be a terrible idea.

allowing teachers who want to take on that responsibility, and ensuring they have the appropriate training? that i have no problem with.


"what if a student gets ahold of the gun?"

if it's well-concealed, how are you going to know if someone is packing?

 

[deathfrisbees]

The only way a weapon could be put in schools would be if all teachers and staff had firearm training and it was locked up somewhere. I would be supportive more on a less violent alternative. Tazers even.

The root of the problem has to be addressed more so than the question of shooting people. Teenagers that want to shoot their peers and authority figures feel isolated and angry. If mental health was better treated and made aware of in schools we might not need guns to stop them. This might be bad, but at times I can totally understand where a beaten down, lonely and depressed teen with access to guns might lash out. They are angry, so let's address what they are angry about.