Now isn't that a sad headline... :-(
VOX Texas Shootings
FOX Texas Shootings
Medical Center Hospital in Odessa said it received 13 shooting victims, seven of whom were in critical condition. Two others were in serious condition and one patient was deceased. One victim, a 17-month-old child, was airlifted to a level one trauma center in Lubbock, about two hours north of Odessa. The other two victims had been treated and released as of Saturday evening.
VOX Maps and Charts
VOX More Maps and Charts
And yet Trump is still scared of the gun lobby.
Of course I would go even further...
VOX Texas Shootings
FOX Texas Shootings
Medical Center Hospital in Odessa said it received 13 shooting victims, seven of whom were in critical condition. Two others were in serious condition and one patient was deceased. One victim, a 17-month-old child, was airlifted to a level one trauma center in Lubbock, about two hours north of Odessa. The other two victims had been treated and released as of Saturday evening.
VOX Maps and Charts
VOX More Maps and Charts
And yet Trump is still scared of the gun lobby.
Of course I would go even further...
Gun Control Summary
G2A's Simplified Gun Policy Goal Statement:
- Ensure that trained, responsible people can keep and carry their hunting and self defense weapons.
- Ensure these weapons are removed from the homes of scary angry, insane and generally irresponsible people.
- Minimize the death, injury and/or trauma to the innocent citizens of the USA when the system fails and a scary angry, insane and generally irresponsible person does not have their weapons confiscated.
G2A's Supporting Policy / Tools
- Mandatory back ground checks for every gun purchase or ownership transfer. Eliminate gun show / internet sales loop holes.
- Mandatory confiscation of guns from people with anger issues / restraining orders. (Red Flag Laws)
- Improve NICS, and State and Agency reporting into the database.
- Mandatory Gun Registration (especially for hand guns and semi-automatic rifles)
- Severe penalties for ANYONE holding a gun that is NOT registered, that should be.
- Allow law suits against people who allow their guns to be stolen, especially if they have not reported the theft.
- Allow trained school personnel to conceal and carry.
- Limiting clip sizes to ~15 or fewer bullets
- Banning weapons that are bump fire-able.
127 comments:
Notice the huge differences between Florida's law and your proposal?
One can only hope my list catches on...
Now 7 are dead.
The irony of course is that it keeps happening in Texas...
Where guns are every where. It kind of puts a big dent in that "good guy" will kill bad guy before people die excuse. :-(
I added some of the most interesting graphs / tables from the VOX links.
I guess the kind of good news is that low gun law states reap more of what they sew.
Higher gun deaths, more police killed, etc.
Too bad we can't keep the guns from leaving those states. :-(
It looks like Hawaii has things figured out. High gun ownership and low gun deaths.
How dangerous people get their guns
You need to read the book "more guns, less crime." Otherwise you're talking through your hat. You still have not explained why most of these mass shootings take place in "gun free zones" rather than at gun shows.
Here's a question for you. If Hawaii has strict gun laws and a low murder rate, how do you explain Chicago, D.C., Baltimore? Might the problem be cultural? Are there simply more "dangerous people" in some places, regardless of the number of guns?
While you're explaining, explain how disarming that "good guy with a gun" lessens the risk of a "bad guy with a gun."
As noted, unfortunately the guns come into the city from low law areas. As noted in the link.
None of my proposed rules remove guns from the hands of good guys.
None of your proposed rules would remove guns from the hands of the bad guys. We have red flag laws already. Trump has banned bump stocks. There is no "internet sales loophole, nor is there really a "gun show loophole." By definition, gun thefts do not result in background check or in proper registration. What is the point of registering guns, except to later confiscate them, or give gun thieves a list of targets? Please explain how prohibiting Dad gifting his 14-year-old son with his first duck gun prevents mass shooting in a gun-free school zone. We don't have a gun problem, we have a shooting problem. Now, if we only had a law against murder... oh, wait...
Anybody remember back when we had gun clubs in the school? Why no school shootings back then?
Jerry,
Thankfully your extreme positions are are losing support as more innocent people die needlessly.
Most of us want to know who has the guns and are they mentally stable?
And we see no need for assault style weapons with large clips in the hands of private citizens.
As for violence in schools back when... The schools were smaller, the families were more stable, parents were more engaged, semi automatic weapons were not available, etc. Unfortunately with folks like yourself unwilling to hold parent(s) accountable for being good parent(s), we will not be putting that genie back in the bottle.
I would also add that I think most of want to hold legal gun owner responsible for protecting their gun and holding them accountable if they lose it by illegal sale or theft.
We have to stop legal guns from moving into the illegal market.
Your problem is twofold: One, you mistake knee-jerk reactions, effective propaganda and the resulting "popular" opinion as the best policy, and second, you fail to recognize that good intentions do not make good law. How's that "gun free schools" law working out? Have you noticed we have not had a single armed robbery anywhere since those "no guns allowed on these premises" signs went up?
Name me ONE parent that trained their kid to be a mass killer. And "most of us" don't know an assault weapon from a slingshot. There AREN'T any "in private hands."
And talk about delusional! "....folks like yourself unwilling to hold parent(s) accountable for being good parent(s)...." You really think that /I/ or "folks like [me]" can turn all those poor single moms into Ward and June Cleaver? By any means whatsoever?
Why do right wingers suddenly stop being originalists when it comes to the second amendment, and why don’t they listen to one of their SCOTUS heroes, Scalia, writing in the Heller decision:
"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
Moose
Moose, That is an excellent quote.
Jerry, Keep telling yourself those things as children suffer and innocent victims die.
Why must /I/ deny reality so that your completely useless proposals become law that is at best ineffective and may make matters worse than they are? Where is the absolute evidence that ANY of these proposals would have stopped one, let alone a substantial percentage, of these very rare mass shootings?
For example, there were more people shot in Chicago last week than in this Odessa shooting rampage.
I'm not telling myself things; I'm asking you questions that you seem unwilling to answer.
Answering your questions is somewhat pointless.
You have your views and retreat to them instead of truly challenging them in any way. :-)
Maybe if I am bored sometime... :-)
OK, I have my views. The difference between my views/opinions and yours is that mine are backed by solid research and facts, as well as simple logic.
8 stubborn facts
My guess, you can't answer my questions because they point out the vacuousness of your opinion.
As stated above, with my proposal the vast majority of Americans can still have and carry guns.
Your source does a good job of down playing the importance of the lives of these innocent victims through the use of cherry picked stats and averages.
And it neglects answering some crucial questions:
- How do we stop criminals and unstable people from buying guns?
- How do we reduce the small number of factors?
Your using this source reminds me of when Moose said that illegal immigrants have little impact on the death and assault of legal residents. :-(
Here are eight stubborn facts to keep in mind about gun violence in America:
1.Violent crime is down and has been on the decline for decades.
2.The principal public safety concerns with respect to guns are suicides and illegally owned handguns, not mass shootings.
3.A small number of factors significantly increase the likelihood that a person will be a victim of a gun-related homicide.
4.Gun-related murders are carried out by a predictable pool of people.
5.Higher rates of gun ownership are not associated with higher rates of violent crime.
6.There is no clear relationship between strict gun control legislation and homicide or violent crime rates.
7.Legally owned firearms are used for lawful purposes much more often than they are used to commit crimes or suicide.
8.Concealed carry permit holders are not the problem, but they may be part of the solution.
As stated above, with my proposal the vast majority of Americans can still have and carry guns.
Your source does a good job of down playing the importance of the lives of these innocent victims through the use of cherry picked stats and averages.
And it neglects answering some crucial questions:
- How do we stop criminals and unstable people from buying guns?
- How do we reduce the small number of factors?
- How do we stop the mass casualty events? (>10 victims in event?)
Your using this source reminds me of when Moose said that illegal immigrants have little impact on the death and assault of legal residents. Remember how we thought that was so cold and inappropriate.:-(
Here are eight stubborn facts to keep in mind about gun violence in America:
1.Violent crime is down and has been on the decline for decades.
2.The principal public safety concerns with respect to guns are suicides and illegally owned handguns, not mass shootings.
3.A small number of factors significantly increase the likelihood that a person will be a victim of a gun-related homicide.
4.Gun-related murders are carried out by a predictable pool of people.
5.Higher rates of gun ownership are not associated with higher rates of violent crime.
6.There is no clear relationship between strict gun control legislation and homicide or violent crime rates.
7.Legally owned firearms are used for lawful purposes much more often than they are used to commit crimes or suicide.
8.Concealed carry permit holders are not the problem, but they may be part of the solution.
This somewhat explains the problem.
Violent crime is down in all countries that have worked to keep lead out of the environment since the 70s.
It has little to nothing to do with guns.
Moose
Can I agree with Moose? "It has nothing to do with guns." And "it" is any of the "crucial" questions above.
As for your concern for the innocent victims, that's touching. Naive, but touching. Would you be happier if, as a consequence of your gun laws and the unavoidable law of unintended consequences, if there were millions MORE innocent victims, because they were denied the right to defend themselves that they now have?
"...somewhat explains the problem..." Exactly. The public perception is driven by massive media hype, driving politicians to "do something" that will do nothing to solve the problem. Kinda like climate change.
You’re delusional if you think my comment supports your position.
Moose
If it was not your intent to support my position, then why did you say it-- increased or decreased crime has nothing to do with guns? John's piece says essentially the same thing, that mass shootings are rare and becoming less frequent over time. You want to argue "gun control" will solve the problem-- tiny as it is-- of mass shootings. Heck, we can do that just by not permitting the news media to go bonkers every time one occurs, lavishing publicity on the crazed perpetrator. It has nothing to do with guns.
Jerry,
Your ability to block out what you do not want to see is absolutely incredible.
The headline of my last link was.
"Mass Shootings Are Getting Deadlier, Not More Frequent
Data show that mass public shootings are roughly as
common now as they were in the 1980s and ’90s.
What has changed? The death toll."
And a key paragraph...
"What has increased over time is the number of people shot in these incidents. Looking at annual trends in the total number of victims shot in mass public shootings (on a per capita basis), you can see that the severity has recently increased, reaching a 40-year high. Because the trends in the rates at which victims have been killed and wounded have been similar, I focus on the total number of victims shot (either killed or wounded). Before 2012, the five-year moving average never exceeded 20 victims shot (per 100 million Americans). Since then, the five-year moving average rate has been above 20 every year but one (2014)."
And as I keep noting, my proposal maintains the right to own weapons and maintains "conceal and carry".
So unless you think people are carrying around assault weapons with big clips for personal protection, there will be no change in protection.
It is sad that you are unwilling to do anything to help these innocent victims.
Please remember that the latest tragedy took place in a lax gun law / high gun ownership state. As did several of the recent events, seemingly more guns is not a good preventative. :-(
Just curious... If it has nothing to do with guns?
How many people do you think a "crazed perpetrator" could seriously injure or kill without a gun before they were stopped or killed by police / by standers?
As I have been saying for years, and the article supports, the problem is not the number of occurrences. It is the severity of the events.
The number of victims was ~12 per attack...
And now it is ~47...
The more rapid fire the weapon.
The more death can occur in a shorter period of time.
Jerry,
Assuming you do not want the death of innocent victims by the dozens, many times per year.
What is your proposed solution since you dislike mine?
I know logic isn’t your strong suit, jerry, but try to follow.
From your link, suggesting that guns are responsible for:
“1.Violent crime is down and has been on the decline for decades.”
My response:
“Violent crime is down in all countries that have worked to keep lead out of the environment since the 70s.
It has little to nothing to do with guns.”
Moose
stats for you
See if you can read this.
"my proposal maintains the right to own weapons" Does it, really? You are again confusing good intentions with good law.
What would I do? Trump is already doing it. He has banned bump stocks (no way around that one). He has noted there are ways to improve the existing background check system but of course Democrats want to go far too far on that. The many red flag laws on the books could be enforced better without going too far as Democrats propose. AND we should, as the sheriff in Odessa has done, refuse to publicize the name, photo, background or motive of the shooter. And quit talking as if "automatic weapons" fire themselves whenever a crowd gathers.
Oh, and another stat for you, since you want to blame "automatic weapons" for mass killings. The average rate of fire for bold-action weapons is two seconds. The average semi-auto mass killer averages FOUR. "severity" has nothing to do with the gun used.
Jerry,
I would need a user name and password to access the link. Not worth it.
Now please remember that this is bump firing an ar15 WITHOUT a bump stock.
Severity is definitely a problem.
Red Flag Laws in few States
What has Trump proposed for improving background checks. I hear that he is like a non-committal and wish washy as usual.
So again. What do you want to do to save these innocent victims?
Or is their dying an appropriate cost so people can have certain guns with no record of ownership or personal responsibility?
One of the key questions as raised in the articles above.
How to stop legal guns from flowing to the illegal market?
Shooter failed back ground check
Odessa Victim Information
"How many people do you think a "crazed perpetrator" could seriously injure or kill without a gun before they were stopped or killed by police / by standers?"
We just had a case like that. Sydney, Australia, one killed, many others threatened before [brave] bystanders stopped him with chairs and a milk crate. Too bad the one killed was not allowed to have a gun.
"All the knife deaths across London so far this year
As of August 27, there have been 90 violent deaths in the capital [caused by knife-wielding attackers]. It comes as shocking figures revealed knife crime in England and Wales has soared to a record high, with 43,000 offences last year."
So, criminals still commit crimes, even without guns? Quelle horreur!
And what the question supposes, contrary to your contention, is that you DO, indeed, wish to prevent law-abiding citizens from having a gun.
Let me quote the blocked information:
The US is 3rd in murders in the world.
Leave out Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC, St. Louis and New Orleans and we are 189th out of 193 countries. PS: all of these cities have strict gun control laws.
One of the "small factors" is location. If we want to be concerned about "innocent victims" perhaps we should be concerned about the 99.9% (literally) of those killed NOT in mass shootings? And ask why most of them occur in those 5 cities with strict gun control?
There is a huge difference between "universal background checks" and "effective background checks." Why is it that Trump seems to understand the difference, while you and Democrats do not?
Jerry,
I'll take a crazy guy with a knife over a crazy guy with this any day. And though you have this "armed hero" concept in your head. The perpetrator of the crime has the benefit of preparation and shelter if chosen. The "armed hero" will lose, even if he is present and capable. And if he does kill the assailant, many will die our be injured first
Now back to my questions that you avoided.
What do you want to do to save these innocent victims?
Or is their dying an appropriate cost so people can have certain guns with no record of ownership or personal responsibility?
One of the key questions as raised in the articles above.
How to stop legal guns from flowing to the illegal market?
And to answer your question about guns in cities.
"The report also found that guns that were seemingly trafficked were more likely to come from states that don’t neighbor New York but have lax gun laws. New Jersey, which borders New York but has fairly strict gun laws, “contributed less than one percent of New York’s trafficked guns.” Pennsylvania, which borders New York and has lax gun laws, contributed 13 percent. Six non-neighboring states with weak gun laws (Florida, Georgia, Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia) contributed 61 percent. This suggests that it’s these states’ lax gun laws — not just their proximity to New York — that drives the pipeline of firearms."
How many people would be killed by someone using a gun if nobody had guns?
If that sounds absurd, imagine how you sound.
Moose
McConnel Blames Trump for Inaction
What happens when you have 2 spineless wish washy people in charge. :-(
Gun sourced through private sale
"What do you want to do to save these innocent victims?"
Asked and answered: "What would I do? Trump is already doing it. He has banned bump stocks (no way around that one). He has noted there are ways to improve the existing background check system but of course Democrats want to go far too far on that. The many red flag laws on the books could be enforced better without going too far as Democrats propose. AND we should, as the sheriff in Odessa has done, refuse to publicize the name, photo, background or motive of the shooter. And quit talking as if "automatic weapons" fire themselves whenever a crowd gathers."
99.99% of all guns in the US didn't kill anybody. Actually 100%, if you factor in the human being firing them.
And then the obvious, given the power: 1) Change the culture so that Personal grievances, such as who is President, are a totally unacceptable excuse for violence, 2) That there is widespread respect for human life not found in the "fourth trimester abortions" or "assisted suicide" movements, and 3) that desensitizing, simulated mass shootings are not a popular video-game pastime.
Moose, how many people would be murdered if we had a law against murder? Oh, wait...
'Moose, how many people would be murdered if we had a law against murder? Oh, wait...'
Apples, meet oranges.
Moose
Jerry,
Your answers were weak when I first replied to them and they have gotten no better with time.
In essence you are okay with dead women, children and men because "there are not too many of them".
And you are OK with dead women, children and men because there are a LOT of them-- hundreds of times as many as in mass shootings.
IF your proposals stopped all mass shootings tomorrow (which they cannot possibly do), you will still leave 99.99% of the murders to take place just as before. We have a systemic problem, and it isn't guns. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
"Third, contrary to popular belief, the U.S. is not home to an unusual number of mass shootings. Rather, we are a very large country. On a per capita basis, as of a few months ago the U.S. ranked 56th in the world in mass shootings (as defined by the FBI) and 61st in per capita deaths in mass shootings. Gun laws have nothing to do with these numbers. In the US, some of the states with the highest rates of gun ownership, like Idaho, also have the lowest homicide rates."
So, Moose, what do you call a mass shooting, if not murder? A little harmless recreational shooting? Point being that laws against murder don't prevent murder, and laws against using guns to commit murder aren't going to matter, either. The law cannot control all human behavior; we must depend upon some self-control and social norms for that.
Jerry,
As usual.
Lots of claims, no sources and no solutions.
As usual, a complete denial of facts and a seeming inability to check them on your own. Do you deny that mass shootings constitute only about 0.01% of murders? And that violent crimes with /all/ long guns are below 3%?
Any of the other 8 inconvenient facts you want to deny, just to prevent actual solutions from being suggested?
"So, Moose, what do you call a mass shooting, if not murder?"
It IS murder. And since I never argued that an absence of guns would mean an absence of murder, I don't know who you're arguing with.
Moose
"Any of the other 8 inconvenient facts you want to deny."
"Fact" #1 is unrelated to guns, so it's not an inconvenient fact about guns at all.
So, we're down to 7.
Moose
I'm arguing with the illogic that says "gun control" will result in fewer murders. Or did I miss your argument that gun control is essential to stopping these rampant shootings? (99.99% of which are not mass shootings).
So, shootings are not a violent crime?
"I'm arguing with the illogic that says "gun control" will result in fewer murders."
Good for you. That's not what I said, because I don't say illogical things.
Let's take a look at the replay:
"How many people would be killed by someone using a gun if nobody had guns?"
Moose
"So, shootings are not a violent crime?"
I didn't say that. I said that Fact #1 is not related to guns. The reduction isn't happening because more people have guns. It's happening due to completely unrelated factors, one of which is the reduction of lead in our environment.
Moose
Let me get this straight. The fact that we have outlawed lead paint and lead in gasoline has created a reduction in crime? So all crime is committed by mental defectives? Well,you may be right about that, but environmental lead isn't the predominant cause of that.
This started because you stated "How many people would be killed by someone using a gun if nobody had guns? If that sounds absurd,...
I agreed with you it is absurd, and proposed a counter, far more pertinent idea that, if murder was outlawed, no one would be murdered. We know that doesn't work, either,so the notion that any realistic (i.e. non-magical) "gun law" is going to prevent murders is absurd.
You have a unique ability to not get it.
One more time: If I don't have a gun, I can't kill someone with a gun. Notice I DID NOT say that I can't murder someone. YOU alone are talking about the murder rate. Literally everyone else is talking about gun deaths.
"The fact that we have outlawed lead paint and lead in gasoline has created a reduction in crime?"
Correct.
Moose
Jerry,
I am still waiting for you to propose:
"actual solutions from being suggested"
….
Now back to my questions that you avoided.
What do you want to do to save these innocent victims?
Or is their dying an appropriate cost so people can have certain guns with no record of ownership or personal responsibility?
One of the key questions as raised in the articles above.
How to stop legal guns from flowing to the illegal market?
Jerry's weak solutions...
1. banned bump stocks (no way around that one) Somewhat pointless as shown here.
2.Improve the existing background check system. How? Trump has nothing so far.
3. The many red flag laws on the books could be enforced better. How? Can the Feds pass this to drive consistency?
AND we should, as the sheriff in Odessa has done, refuse to publicize the name, photo, background or motive of the shooter. Sounds good, can we put it in a law
You rail against Trump when he moves without Congress.
You rail against Trump when he waits for Congress.
It's as if you don't want the problem solved.
Good idea, though, about passing a law telling people and the press what they can and cannot say. Many want to abrogate the Second Amendment, so why not the First,too?
Moose, you have a unique ability to be unable to explain "it" to me. I suppose if we existed in some fantasy world where the Chinese had never invented gunpowder...
Your brain can't handle the data that shows that fewer guns equals fewer deaths by gun. That's why you'll never get it. N.B.: This isn't an argument about murder in general.
Moose
Jerry,
Still no answers?
"Your brain can't handle the data that shows that fewer guns equals fewer deaths by gun."-- Moose
That's because you cannot produce data that, in aggregate, shows that fewer guns equals less gun crime. Statistics seem to prove the opposite. Strange but true.
John, I've given you answers. That you choose not to believe them is not something I can fix. Maybe you're asking the wrong questions?
"That's because you cannot produce data that, in aggregate, shows that fewer guns equals less gun crime."
I give you the rest of the First World countries, none of which have the gun violence we have (not even close), and most or all of which have fewer guns per capita.
If you mean to say the statistics in this country show otherwise, well, I suppose so. We're not very bright here.
Moose
Jerry,
Trump has done almost nothing to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane.
No red flag laws, no improved background checks, etc
And bullets 5 & 6 clearly show a strong link between gun ownership and gun deaths.
Again, leave out five cities with strong gun control, and our murder rate is way down the list of all countries.
And nobody seems to want to address culture as a causal factor, since it is far easier just to hold some inanimate object as the culprit. It makes no sense to compare gun ownership vs murder rates in countries that have vastly different cultures. Heck, I'll bet you could find vast culture differences, along with guns/murders between, say, Idaho and South Chicago. I know the appeal of simple answers; I just believe they're way TOO simple.
I mean, are you really going to tell me that these proposed laws, as burdensome as they may get to citizens who will NEVER commit murder, let alone mass murder, will actually have any beneficial effect we can find? Remember the federal assault weapons ban?
Jerry,
Please remember that the guns are flowing into those cities from places with weaker laws.
So again...
How to stop legal guns from flowing to the illegal market?
Or how do you expect to change our culture?
What again is "burdensome" about my list again?
By the way, bullet 5 shows how wrong you are.
How to stop legal guns from flowing to the illegal market? VERY simple. You pass a law against it.
How do I expect to change the culture? It would help greatly if we had less news, granting fame and attention to these few nutjobs. Last thing we ever need is publishing some "manifesto." It would also help if our publicity-addicted politicians would quit rushing to the microphone to demagogue simplistic solutions rather than getting on the right side of the culture war.
I cannot even find your list of proposals, but I am certain they all fail on one basis, which is that they apply to law-abiding citizens. As I keep saying, we have strong laws against murder, but murders and mass murders happen anyway. If you pass a gun law attempting to keep guns from murderers (or potential murderers), the law-abiding citizens will be burdened by them, to some degree, and the murderers will not. It's futile. Solve the problems of Chicago, Baltimore, etc., by changing the culture there, and then we can entertain more fanciful notions about the problem, if necessary. The problem isn't that Chicago gangs get guns from outside Chicago. The problem is that there are gangs in Chicago killing people.
"How to stop legal guns from flowing to the illegal market? VERY simple. You pass a law against it."
We have laws against murder, but that doesn't stop people.
Moose
Moose gets it!
LOL
If there are no guns in Indiana to be illegally brought to Chicago, the gun deaths will drop.
The statistics bear it out. You are wrong.
Moose
Jerry,
They were in the post, but here you go.
G2A's Supporting Policy / Tools
1.Mandatory back ground checks for every gun purchase or ownership transfer. Eliminate gun show / internet sales loop holes.
2.Mandatory confiscation of guns from people with anger issues / restraining orders. (Red Flag Laws)
3.Improve NICS, and State and Agency reporting into the database.
4.Mandatory Gun Registration (especially for hand guns and semi-automatic rifles)
5.Severe penalties for ANYONE holding a gun that is NOT registered, that should be.
6.Allow law suits against people who allow their guns to be stolen, especially if they have not reported the theft.
7.Allow trained school personnel to conceal and carry.
8.Limiting clip sizes to ~15 or fewer bullets
9.Banning weapons that are bump fire-able.
Moose,
Thankfully we do not need to convince Jerry, he apparently has no problem with dead children as long as people do not need to register or be responsible for their weapons.
I mean that is how legal guns get to the illegal market, people sell them there or do not keep them adequately protected from theft.
But who will miss hundreds of innocent children, women and men each year?
Certainly not Jerry. :-(
1,4, 5, 6 and 8 burden law-abiding citizens.
2 is current law, with some versions questionably impinging on civil rights.
Trump has ordered #9
Trump has proposed 3 and 7, but those require legislative action.
I care more for these "innocents" than YOU do, because I would like them to be able to defend themselves if necessary, both from the criminal elements that government can NOT seem to control despite 20,000 gun laws already on the books and the fact that all criminal acts are against the law already, as well as protecting them from a powerful nanny-state government who insists they be protected from themselves.
Tell me, which of Chicago's many gun laws is saving hundreds of "innocent" lives every year? You keep insisting that we can pass laws that completely regulate human behavior and that is utter folly. Only individual humans can regulate individual human behavior BEFORE the act. Government CAN work to change the culture, but obviously it would rather take simplistic but ineffectual steps like 1-9.
If you want to change the culture, require people to be responsible for every single gun they own. Every gun gets registered. Any unregistered gun discovered is confiscated and destroyed. If your gun is stolen, in addition to the thief being responsible, YOU are responsible for the gun not having been properly secured. Guns that are deemed too dangerous to be in society can still be owned, but must be registered and kept at regulated gun ranges (public or private). Hold gun manufacturers accountable for the public health crisis they have helped create. None of these things are burdensome for the citizen. Fact: fewer guns = fewer gun deaths.
Moose
You don't change the culture with more laws that burden law-abiding citizens. You change the culture by reminding people that with freedom comes responsibility, and that they should find within themselves some moral/ethical standards that are good for the society as a whole. Suggesting that "deplorables" should be exterminated, or the President assassinated, or that newborn babies can be killed at will or that any grievance whatsoever is an excuse to kill a dozen kids in school, is the cultural problem that needs solving. Do that, and guns won't matter.
Take just one of your suggestions: "Any unregistered gun discovered is confiscated and destroyed." HOW are you going to discover them? Are you going to allow police "stop and frisk" authority? Depriving gangs of weapons doesn't "change the culture" by much, but the act of doing it does, by setting the expectation gangs shouldn't have illegal weapons. And you can do that without gun registration.
Jerry,
I hope you have fun at the pearly gates explaining why you were against registering weapons and promoting their staying securely with the registered owner.
Trump has done squat and red flag laws are only in States that have other gun controls. Have you read none of the links?
And even McConnel is on the record saying that he is waiting for our non-committal POTUS to get of the pot...
Jerry,
Unfortunately you are such a hypocrite. :-(
"by reminding people that with freedom comes responsibility"
Our biggest problems are:
- Legal gun owners doing illegal things with their guns
- Legal gun owners selling to unstable people and/or into the illegal market
- Legal gun owners not securing their weapons adequately and/or reporting when they are stolen
And yet you demand no responsibility or accountability of these people in exchange for the freedom our society has granted them.
“You change the culture by reminding people that with freedom comes responsibility,”
Indeed. The responsibility to register your guns and keep them safe from theft and misuse.
Discovered means discovered. No need to parse it.
Moose
"The responsibility to register your guns and keep them safe from theft and misuse."
And if every single law-abiding adult did this, how many criminal sociopaths would still find, possess, and misuse guns? You're pushing on the wrong end of a very long, wet string.
Remember how gun thefts went up when some activist posted addresses of registered gun owners?
If every single law abiding citizen did this, then every single other gun that’s out in the population is illegal and can be confiscated and destroyed. You can better fight the source of the illegal guns. You can remove guns from circulation. Fewer guns = fewer gun deaths.
Moose
Well, that is the supposition and the talking point, but it isn't true. The correct formulation is the more CRIMINALS, the more crime. The more law-abiding citizens with guns, the LESS crime. Read the book.
Look, the illegal guns now in the hands of criminals CAN be confiscated and destroyed, or at least removed from their hands, according to the laws already on the books. Yet criminal shootings haven't stopped, because criminals don't OBEY the laws and they don't "advertise" their crimes. They NEED a gun to pursue their criminal enterprise and will obtain one however necessary. Hindering those who want one for self-defense, sport or just aesthetics makes essentially no difference.
Jerry,
Guns are removed from the illegal market every as criminals are arrested or they dispose of evidence.
Unfortunately folks like yourself keep supporting their re-arming fairly easily. All they need is a straw purchaser.
“Well, that is the supposition and the talking point, but it isn't true. The correct formulation is the more CRIMINALS, the more crime. The more law-abiding citizens with guns, the LESS crime. Read the book.”
This is entirely, demonstrably false.
Moose
The vast majority of gun deaths are suicides. Unless you meant to call all suicide victims criminals, it is a fact that less access to guns equals fewer suicides.
You keep arguing about crime when the argument is about gun deaths.
Moose
Jerry,
If every legal gun owner kept their guns secure and was liable for damages done if they did not report it's theft. And if every gun transaction required a background check. How do you think the criminal sociopaths are going to get their guns?
"And if every single law-abiding adult did this, how many criminal sociopaths would still find, possess, and misuse guns?" Jerry
It is sad that our lax laws not only cause deaths here, but in Canada and Mexico. :-(
Jerry,
Now we have shown over and over that guns are flowing into the illegal markets via the legal markets. Straw purchases, used gun sales, etc.
How is requiring better background checks on every weapons transaction and requiring the reporting of stolen weapons "hindering" owners?
Or do you have a source to support this silly claim?
"Hindering those who want one for self-defense, sport or just aesthetics makes essentially no difference."
How many innocent lives are required for you to be willing to fill out a form and wait a couple days before getting your weapon?
How many innocent lives to insist that owners report gun thefts?
By the way, the reporting is crucial... If someone keeps having their guns stolen, they are likely a straw purchaser.
And you keep referring to criminal acts-- stealing guns, straw purchases, not reporting "repeated" gun thefts-- as if they could be stopped by another gun law. How is it NOT "hindering" a father having to fill out a huge pile of paperwork just to give his son his treasured old bird gun? How is it NOT hindering to require a waiting period to get a gun (an idea I agree with) but it IS hindering for a woman to wait a couple days for an abortion?
And let's get past this "innocent lives" nonsense. Let's talk about how many CRIMINAL lives are involved in these CRIMES. By definition, murder is against the law. It has been said that the recent school shooter violated SEVEN gun laws before he even got to the school. There are allegedly 20,000 gun laws already on the books. As appealing and simplistic as it might be to blame the guns, the only way to reduce gun deaths is to create a culture that respects all life, in which murder and suicide are no longer socially acceptable. Where petty grievances do not create bloodshed, like "I was bullied so I am going to shoot everybody in that school and then kill myself."
"This is entirely, demonstrably false." -- Moose
Okay, demonstrate. Better yet, read the book.
more guns less crime
I'm especially interested in how you intend to prove that it is not criminals that commit crimes.
Apparently Lott's work is suspect.
And more reviews
"The theory has largely been fueled by a deeply contested 1997 paper by economists John Lott and David Mustard, who concluded that "concealed handguns are the most cost-effective method of reducing crime thus far analyzed by economists." If states without concealed-carry laws had them back in 1992, Lott and Mustard calculated, that year they could have avoided hundreds of murders, thousands of rapes and tens of thousands of assaults.
Today, all 50 states have some kind of concealed-carry law (Illinois became the last to enact one earlier this year).
"John Lott’s research was in my opinion very instrumental over decades in having more states pass laws to make it easier to get permits to carry concealed loaded guns, and to lessen the barriers for those permit holders to take guns in ever more places, whether it's bars, or places of worship, or schools," says Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. "It’s all based upon Lott’s scholarship that has been completely discredited."
Jerry,
Actually I am focused on the legal person aspects.
1. Must have background check
2. Must register guns
3. Must report stolen guns
4. If you fail to do these responsible citizen things and your gun is used in a crime or recovered from someone other than you, you are subject to potential criminal charges and liability claims.
And as I said above, sonny can file some paperwork and wait a few days to legally own Grandpa's gun. Until then he can just borrow it from Dad.
Again it is sad that you actual seem to want to promote sending guns into the illicit market. :-(
By the way, please remember that I am fine with conceal and carry...
As long as the person and gun are registered and the appropriate training has taken place.
So, you are perfectly happy if law-abiding citizens abide by the laws on the books, and you think adding a few more will be just hunky-dory. Are you equally happy with criminals violating all the laws already on the books, so much so that you are willing to wager innocent lives that making criminals of law-abiding citizens is the key to making those who are already criminals change their ways?
Oh most certainly, unlike you I truly believe that freedom comes with responsibility.
If I am free to own and use a deadly weapon, I am responsible to ensure the weapon stays secure and out of the hands of mentally deranged and/or criminal individuals.
Where as you know that the guns are being purchased through legal channels, and then diverted to mentally deranged and/or criminal individuals. Thus enabling the deaths of thousands of innocent unsuspecting citizens. And yet you fear holding these citizens to account even as the children die.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Attributed to Edmund Burke, including by John F Kennedy in a speech in 1961. Burke didn’t say it, and its earliest form was by John Stuart Mill, who said in 1867: “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” Thanks to Andrew Marshall."
I think that makes you complicit in the deaths.
Remember that my proposals do not prevent legal individuals from having or carrying legal firearms, it just holds them accountable for being responsible.
My guns have never been stolen and have never harmed anybody. This is true of well over 99% of all gun owners. I will ask again: How will making criminals out of law-abiding gun owners change the behavior of law-breaking criminals?
Suppose, just for an instant, that we have a national gun registry, and then go out and confiscate every registered firearm. Who will then have firearms?
You keep insisting that your simplistic changes will make a difference. Most studies say your solutions make matters WORSE: Every place that has banned guns (either all guns or all handguns) has seen murder rates go up.
As one study points out, the problem isn't the prevalence of guns, it is the prevalence of criminal minds.
Jerry,
Hopefully you are correct that the majority of gun sellers and owners are law abiding responsibility citizens. If then, having them register and be responsible for their weapons will be a non-issue. (ie no criminality)
It would be no different than our standard expectation that our cars be registered and licensed. And re-registered when they are sold.
Now the "confiscate" concern is apparently what causes your irrational willingness to let children, women and men be killed today. You want to keep guns unregistered and available to freedom fighters, criminals, etc because you fear a potentially hostile gun seizing government more than you mourn the innocent dead. This a trade off you are willing to make... Good luck at those pearly gates. :-)
How many innocent dead each year is acceptable, in order to keep guns unregistered in this country?
Back to your NRA backed buddy Founder and President CPRC was founded by Dr. John R. Lott, Jr. who seems to want to compare the USA to lawless third world countries. I think I will stick with countries of similar cultures, government stability and law /order.
OK, FIND me a country with a "culture, government stability and law/order." THAT is exactly the problem; there are none, and it is the culture which must change. Supposedly the US homicide rate is going down (which I attribute to an aging population) but I contend that the WANTONNESS of those homicides is going UP. That is, people used to have a good reason for killing other people. Now it seems that any reason or "no good reason" is enough.
You are correct, these killings of innocent people have to stop, and I want to stop them. So I'll tell you what. You get every criminal to register their guns and then surrender them, and THEN we won't have to talk about eliminating sporting guns and self-defense weapons. Problem solved?
Just like all reservoirs, guns come into and out of the illegal market…
If we track the incoming sources we can slow the flow in, while the police continue to remove 10s of thousands of guns each year. Unfortunately you want to keep the sources and transactions hidden.
How many innocent dead each year is acceptable, in order to keep guns unregistered in this country?
No innocent dead are acceptable, and you need to stop with that foolish personal attack.
Again you claim, without evidence or the possibility of it, that putting guns into the illegal market can be stopped by not allowing guns into the legal market, or by somehow enforcing the laws already on the books making the illegal transfer of guns illegal.
Same question: When are you going to demand that all criminals give up their guns?
Jerry,
When are you going to accept that your desire to keep guns unregistered is what enables the illegal gun market to thrive?
Where do you think criminals and the insane get their guns from?
So, if I register my guns, every criminal will register theirs? Why do I doubt that? If I don't register my guns, will thieves be MORE likely to break in and steal them? How about gun stores, are they ever robbed? Your insistence on this bad idea just isn't making any sense, except as magical thinking.
It is amazing the lengths you will rationalize too to not hold citizens accountable for being responsible with their weapons. :-(
So yes you are partially responsible for the deaths that occur when irresponsible gun owners allow their weapons to fall into the wrong hands.
More regarding the illegal arms flow
The nice thing about recording all transactions is that we would know who these irresponsible gun owners are when the gun was recovered by the police. Hopefully then we could punish them accordingly.
And yet you insist on keeping these transactions hidden and supporting the criminals. :-(
"... the lengths you will rationalize too to not hold citizens accountable for being responsible with their weapons."
Whatever are you talking about?!? Don't we already have laws against murder, ADW, armed robbery, illegal possession, illegal sale, even threatening? We hold EVERY citizen accountable through the law for "irresponsible" and unlawful acts. You seem deliberately blind to the definitional reality that crimes are committed by criminals, not by law-abiding citizens. Now if you want to improve background checks (not "universal," just improved) to aid in that essential distinction in the legal sale of firearms, that's fine. Anything else is simply magical thinking, that criminalizing law-abiding citizens will reduce criminal behavior by criminals.
Jerry,
Let's try again.
Where do you think criminals and the insane get their guns from?
Hint: Look at the many sources I have provide in this comment string.
OK, so your solution is to wave your magic wand and eliminate all the guns on the planet? I don't really care where anybody gets their guns, basically. All I care is that they not obtain them criminally and, more importantly, do not use them for criminal endeavors. The laws we have are totally sufficient for that, but they are not and cannot be enforced in a "preventive" manner as you would wish for. As I keep repeating: Someone intent on murder will not be dissuaded by a misdemeanor gun law violation. Remember that mass shooter who violated at least 7 gun laws before even getting to the school, which was a "gun free zone" by law?
I have no desire to eliminate any guns from the planet. I just want approved owners held accountable for keeping the gun we allowed them to purchase to stay safely in their possession.
And if they fail to do so or to report the loss they can be held civilly or criminally liable for the irresponsible behavior of losing their weapon / not reporting the loss.
Of coursed the laws are not sufficient or the "illegal gun market" would not be full of guns, with enough extras to export to Canada and Mexico.
Same old question:
Where do you think criminals and the insane get their guns from?
Hint: Look at the many sources I have provide in this comment string.
See... Nothing about eliminating guns...
G2A's Supporting Policy / Tools
1.Mandatory back ground checks for every gun purchase or ownership transfer. Eliminate gun show / internet sales loop holes.
2.Mandatory confiscation of guns from people with anger issues / restraining orders. (Red Flag Laws)
3.Improve NICS, and State and Agency reporting into the database.
4.Mandatory Gun Registration (especially for hand guns and semi-automatic rifles)
5.Severe penalties for ANYONE holding a gun that is NOT registered, that should be.
6.Allow law suits against people who allow their guns to be stolen, especially if they have not reported the theft.
7.Allow trained school personnel to conceal and carry.
8.Limiting clip sizes to ~15 or fewer bullets
9.Banning weapons that are bump fire-able.
" I just want approved owners held accountable for keeping the gun we allowed them to purchase to stay safely in their possession." And I just want all gun owners to be 100% assured that nobody will ever, ever attempt to steal those firearms. How is that coming? And what is this "we allowed them to purchase" nonsense? Is there a right to keep and bear arms, or not?
You SAY you don't want to eliminate guns, but most of your "solutions" lead to exactly that as a means. What you have is a "wish list" that you think will solve the problem that some people choose to murder other people. 3 and 7 are OK, depending on details.
"Remember that mass shooter who violated at least 7 gun laws before even getting to the school, which was a "gun free zone" by law?"
And if there had been no gun to get, he couldn't have done what he did. You "solution" doesn't keep people from doing the deed.
Moose
"Is there a right to keep and bear arms, or not?"
Something something something well-regulated something something something.
Moose
"...solve the problem that some people choose to murder other people."
There's your problem. That's not the problem we're attempting to solve. You can't 'solve' human nature.
"What you have is a "wish list" that you think will solve the problem that some people choose to murder other people, using guns."
FIFY
Moose
Moose,
Wouldn't it be a dream if all the good responsible gun owners kept their guns secure like responsible citizens who have been given a wonderful freedom.
Then all those bad and insane folks would have to be satisfied with sticking people with pointy sticks and knives...
It's hard to believe we agree on something.
Moose
Not that surprising to me...:-)
Are you saying you’re becoming a Progressive Liberal? Great! Welcome. It’s a big tent. :-)
Moose
Not that big...
I am saying that even 2 distinct circles may have a spot where they over lap some.
Post a Comment