Gun Violence in America

[ptatc]

I'm sure there are plenty of people who were trained how to use guns at a very young age that still use them or used them very irresponsibly.

No doubt but would it be less than current people who become fascinated with them and do irresponsible thing out of ignorance?

[RockRaines]

It falls under "if you give them an inch they'll take a mile" If you give the government a concession on automatic rifles will they take more late.

 

I see why people get crazy about it.

But seriously, what are assault type rifles really used for? its not home protection or protection from the very rare large animal. I dont get the reluctance of giving those up.

[ptatc]

Growing up, I never touched a gun. My parents even kept toy guns away from me. I have no urge to carry one or want one.

Growing up, I was raised that all people are equal, no matter gender, skin color, religion, etc. I have no hate in my heart for anyone.

 

Not every case will be the same, I get that. But starting anything on kids when they're young, goes a long way.

You are a rare person if your parents and others around you had no animosity or bias against absolutely no one.

 

Responsibility goes a long way as well if it's started young.

[RockRaines]

ptac (and I guess anyone else) - thoughts on requiring firearms to be titled like a vehicle? Seems to me that would make it easier to create a regulated secondary market for firearm sales. It would require a nationalized database, and there would be issues accounting for the many millions of firearms already in circulation, but I've never heard a particularly compelling argument against.

I'm perfectly fine with it, in fact I'm more than happy to have inspections and certifications.

 

Also, we have the technology to make guns "smart." We easily could launch a program where guns will not fire right after you purchase them, as well as only fire when handled by the registered owner. Its quite easy actually.

[Brian]

You are a rare person if your parents and others around you had no animosity or bias against absolutely no one.

 

Responsibility goes a long way as well if it's started young.

 

I was kept away from my racist uncle from the south side.

I've had animosity against others, but not because of color, sex, or religion.

[ptatc]

But seriously, what are assault type rifles really used for? its not home protection or protection from the very rare large animal. I dont get the reluctance of giving those up.

I totally agree. As I said I think a logical place to start is somehow limiting high capacity magazines. However, I also understand the idea of "when does it stop."

 

Simple things like when the government made seat belts mandatory. People fought it saying that they will eventually fine people for not wearing them. The government response was always that they just wanted to help make people safer and would not ticket people for choosing not to. A couple decades later it changes.

 

 

[illinilaw08]

"It's the first step towards the government confiscating all firearms" is the number one gun advocate argument against it.

 

Right, that's the only argument that I have ever actually heard against that, and I don't really consider that a compelling argument (at all).

 

ptac and Rock, thanks for the responses.

[Dick Allen]

I totally agree. As I said I think a logical place to start is somehow limiting high capacity magazines. However, I also understand the idea of "when does it stop."

 

Simple things like when the government made seat belts mandatory. People fought it saying that they will eventually fine people for not wearing them. The government response was always that they just wanted to help make people safer and would not ticket people for choosing not to. A couple decades later it changes.

A lot of stuff is like that but it winds up being better. The situation evolves. Anyone still really pissed off there is no smoking in bars? They would all go out of business...

 

How many here are old enough, and you don't have to be that old, when people smoking in the office was no big deal?

 

 

Now, not only do people not smoke in bars or in the office, they don't do it in their cars, and go outside even at home.

 

If it's all about safety, and the vast majority of gun owners say they have one for precisely that, why not make owning guns safer for everyone?

Edited October 4, 2017 by Dick Allen

[illinilaw08]

It falls under "if you give them an inch they'll take a mile" If you give the government a concession on automatic rifles will they take more late.

 

I see why people get crazy about it.

 

See, this is the part that I don't get. With as strong as the gun lobby is in this country, we're infinitely closer to Medicare For All than we are to the government taking our guns away - and I don't think we're particularly close to actually having Medicare For All enacted.

 

Because firearms are not titled, they are really, really easy to sell to basically anybody on the secondary market right? Maybe I'm missing something here because I'm not a gun owner, and if I am, someone can educate me otherwise...

[Dick Allen]

See, this is the part that I don't get. With as strong as the gun lobby is in this country, we're infinitely closer to Medicare For All than we are to the government taking our guns away - and I don't think we're particularly close to actually having Medicare For All enacted.

 

Because firearms are not titled, they are really, really easy to sell to basically anybody on the secondary market right? Maybe I'm missing something here because I'm not a gun owner, and if I am, someone can educate me otherwise...

I would venture to guess most of the guns used in Chicago killings weren't purchased at the local gun store.

[bmags]

I think logical place to start is allowing any and all data to be collected and studies to occur but even that is not allowed.

 

Edit: just a reminder

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp...m=.806c8b846187

[ptatc]

A lot of stuff is like that but it winds up being better. The situation evolves. Anyone still really pissed off there is no smoking in bars? They would all go out of business...

 

How many here are old enough, and you don't have to be that old, when people smoking in the office was no big deal?

 

 

Now, not only do people not smoke in bars or in the office, they don't do it in their cars, and go outside even at home.

 

If it's all about safety, and the vast majority of gun owners say they have one for precisely that, why not make owning guns safer for everyone?

I think people are just afraid that if you if you give anything to the government, they will slowly continue to take more and more and who knows where it will end.

[ptatc]

See, this is the part that I don't get. With as strong as the gun lobby is in this country, we're infinitely closer to Medicare For All than we are to the government taking our guns away - and I don't think we're particularly close to actually having Medicare For All enacted.

 

Because firearms are not titled, they are really, really easy to sell to basically anybody on the secondary market right? Maybe I'm missing something here because I'm not a gun owner, and if I am, someone can educate me otherwise...

I agree but as i said in other responses, people are afraid that if you allow the government to take something away they will just want to continue it.

 

You are correct about the firearms and the secondary market. This is a loophole that really needs to close.

[Jenksismyhero]

illinilaw08 -

 

I think the other response to your question is "what will this new law really change? Is it even necessary?" If your aim is to decrease crime, what does a gang banger care if he's carrying an unregistered gun? Or a guy like this mass-murderer. He went through all the steps to legally acquire the guns he used, so he would do the same thing if registration was required. That wouldn't have stopped anything.

 

Some gun laws/changes to existing law I agree with - limiting high capacity magazines, limiting straw purchases, increasing civil/criminal penalties on gun shops, opening up the data for research, etc. But a lot of them are just pointless. Look at the responses in this thread. At the end of the day what anti-gun people want is a total ban and they won't be happy until they get it. And I think that justifies the "fear" on the part of responsible, legal gun owners. As soon as they give an inch, another shooting happens and the anti-gun lobby will demand more until at some point access to guns is extremely limited.

 

I'm not sure i'm on board with a total ban on a type of gun either. I mean I wouldn't lose sleep over it, but while I agree that an auto/semi-auto assault rifle has no utility outside of military use, it's probably awesome as hell to shoot. No one needs a car that can drive 200 mph. It's illegal to drive it that fast in 99.9% of situations. But people still want them because it's fun. And yeah yeah guns are intended to kill while cars are not, but those cars and the morons that drive them are still a danger to the public and still hurt themselves and others using those cars. So why not ban them too? Why not ban alcohol? Why are we allowing bars to serve people that drive knowing that tens of thousands of people will die this year due to drunk driving? Why not change laws to make bars responsible if they serve someone that drove?

 

At some point society is "ok" with unnecessary death. That's why I find the whole twitter/Kimmel response so infuriating. "If you don't agree with a total ban you have blood on your hands!" f*** off. So do you for drinking beer and allowing bars to exist. Get off your soap box.

Edited October 4, 2017 by JenksIsMyHero

[StrangeSox]

hell of a photo

 

[illinilaw08]

illinilaw08 -

 

I think the other response to your question is "what will this new law really change? Is it even necessary?" If your aim is to decrease crime, what does a gang banger care if he's carrying an unregistered gun? Or a guy like this mass-murderer. He went through all the steps to legally acquire the guns he used, so he would do the same thing if registration was required. That wouldn't have stopped anything.

 

Couple of practical applications:

 

1) If firearms have to be titled and registered, then there's an easy mechanism to ensure that people are competent to own a gun when they buy a gun. Before my father-in-law took me shooting with him, he made me watch a safety video and spend a couple hours working on safety before he was comfortable taking me to the range. I don't think everyone is that cautious about guns. But if you had to take a firearm safety test before owning a gun, that would go a long way toward making sure that firearm owners respect the tool.

 

2) If you are selling a gun on the secondary market, and it goes through the Department of Firearms, there's an infinitely better chance that you are selling the gun to somebody who is legit. At some point in my life, I will probably inherit some firearms, and they are definitely going to be sold. It would be a lot easier to do that if the process was regulated.

 

3) The gang banger argument doesn't really work for me. That might be a large portion of the gun violence in Chicago, but it isn't all of the gun violence nationally. Furthermore, my understanding of gun crimes in Chicago is that they are by and large committed using firearms that are purchased legally in Indiana and other bordering states. Registering and titling firearms might slow the black market transfer of guns because they will be easier to trace - of course it's impossible to actually get a handle on that because we can't study anything relating to firearms (shout out to bmags).

 

My take on firearms (which I've said on here a lot) is that they are a particularly dangerous tool. Make sure that people are competent to handle them, keep them out of places where liquor is served. Guns have the potential to turn an argument tragic to a degree that fists or a knife do not. Yes, you might not be able to eradicate gun crime or mass shootings like we saw in Vegas, but those aren't good arguments to not make common sense changes to our gun laws!

[illinilaw08]

I agree but as i said in other responses, people are afraid that if you allow the government to take something away they will just want to continue it.

 

You are correct about the firearms and the secondary market. This is a loophole that really needs to close.

 

Don't those necessarily play together though? Registering firearms isn't taking them away. And it's the only way to really close (or manage) the secondary market for firearms, isn't it?

[Quin]

I would venture to guess most of the guns used in Chicago killings weren't purchased at the local gun store.

 

Something like 60% in state. The rest mainly come from Indiana, Wisconsin and Mississippi.

[StrangeSox]

cool, cool

 

Amid Talk of Banning Bump-Stocks for Guns, Retailers Are Selling Out of the Devices

[Balta1701]

I would venture to guess most of the guns used in Chicago killings weren't purchased at the local gun store.

There is one single gun shop in Riverdale that sold guns used in 1500 crimes in Chicago in a 5 year period.

[Jenksismyhero]

Couple of practical applications:

 

1) If firearms have to be titled and registered, then there's an easy mechanism to ensure that people are competent to own a gun when they buy a gun. Before my father-in-law took me shooting with him, he made me watch a safety video and spend a couple hours working on safety before he was comfortable taking me to the range. I don't think everyone is that cautious about guns. But if you had to take a firearm safety test before owning a gun, that would go a long way toward making sure that firearm owners respect the tool.

 

I dunno, you title and register your car, doesn't mean you're a good driver. If you're going with a training/certification route, make that a requirement for getting your FOID card. I'm not opposed to this and think it's a good idea, but it's not going to change shooting/death numbers significantly.

 

2) If you are selling a gun on the secondary market, and it goes through the Department of Firearms, there's an infinitely better chance that you are selling the gun to somebody who is legit. At some point in my life, I will probably inherit some firearms, and they are definitely going to be sold. It would be a lot easier to do that if the process was regulated.

 

OK, more paperwork/bureaucracy, more restrictions on you trying to sell the guns. Whose paying for this department of firearms? Seems like a lot of work and a lot of responsibility placed on individuals. Something like this at gun stores I would be fine with.

 

3) The gang banger argument doesn't really work for me. That might be a large portion of the gun violence in Chicago, but it isn't all of the gun violence nationally. Furthermore, my understanding of gun crimes in Chicago is that they are by and large committed using firearms that are purchased legally in Indiana and other bordering states. Registering and titling firearms might slow the black market transfer of guns because they will be easier to trace - of course it's impossible to actually get a handle on that because we can't study anything relating to firearms (shout out to bmags).

 

Replace gang banger with just a general criminal. Criminals are already violating laws by using the guns in a manner that is illegal. Bans don't work, they just create black markets. I don't see any difference with guns, especially when you already have a 350 million gun back log. Again, i'm fine limiting gun sales to prevent this type of issue. When a gun is purchased from a store or trade show, the person should have a valid FOID card, mental/background checks should be done to ensure the person buying should have gun to begin with (e.g., anyone with psychotropic medications should be banned, felons should be banned, etc.). But registering/titling doesn't prevent someone from using a gun, and if people are already buying guns legally now, they'll figure out the "legal" way to do it later. So you register and title guns, the same person that legally buys the gun in Indiana legally buys the same gun in Indiana via the registration/titling law you want. That same person still transfers the gun to the eventual criminal. I believe, but am not 100% certain, that you're only allowed to sell a gun privately if you ensure the person buying has a FOID card. I don't think it's a criminal penalty but a civil one. I need to check to see if that's still accurate though.

 

My take on firearms (which I've said on here a lot) is that they are a particularly dangerous tool. Make sure that people are competent to handle them, keep them out of places where liquor is served. Guns have the potential to turn an argument tragic to a degree that fists or a knife do not. Yes, you might not be able to eradicate gun crime or mass shootings like we saw in Vegas, but those aren't good arguments to not make common sense changes to our gun laws!

 

I disagree to a certain extent because it's not just the inability to eradicate crime, it's the inability to appreciably lessen crime coupled with the unfair burden on the vast majority of law abiding gun owners/purchasers. There's a balancing act there.

Edited October 4, 2017 by JenksIsMyHero

[BigSqwert]

I'd be happy with a buy-back program where you get $1K for every gun you turn in. Then ban them altogether. The black market would dwindle and we can eliminate one of the greatest causes of death in this country.

 

Yeah it's a pipe dream that would never happen, but I have yet to hear a reason why it shouldn't. People treating guns like it's the equivalent of oxygen or water and we would wither away without them.

[illinilaw08]

I dunno, you title and register your car, doesn't mean you're a good driver. If you're going with a training/certification route, make that a requirement for getting your FOID card. I'm not opposed to this and think it's a good idea, but it's not going to change shooting/death numbers significantly.

 

 

 

OK, more paperwork/bureaucracy, more restrictions on you trying to sell the guns. Whose paying for this department of firearms? Seems like a lot of work and a lot of responsibility placed on individuals. Something like this at gun stores I would be fine with.

 

 

 

Replace gang banger with just a general criminal. Criminals are already violating laws by using the guns in a manner that is illegal. Bans don't work, they just create black markets. I don't see any difference with guns, especially when you already have a 350 million gun back log. Again, i'm fine limiting gun sales to prevent this type of issue. When a gun is purchased from a store or trade show, the person should have a valid FOID card, mental/background checks should be done to ensure the person buying should have gun to begin with (e.g., anyone with psychotropic medications should be banned, felons should be banned, etc.). But registering/titling doesn't prevent someone from using a gun, and if people are already buying guns legally now, they'll figure out the "legal" way to do it later. So you register and title guns, the same person that legally buys the gun in Indiana legally buys the same gun in Indiana via the registration/titling law you want. That same person still transfers the gun to the eventual criminal. I believe, but am not 100% certain, that you're only allowed to sell a gun privately if you ensure the person buying has a FOID card. I don't think it's a criminal penalty but a civil one. I need to check to see if that's still accurate though.

 

 

 

I disagree to a certain extent because it's not just the inability to eradicate crime, it's the inability to appreciably lessen crime coupled with the unfair burden on the vast majority of law abiding gun owners/purchasers. There's a balancing act there.

 

Couple things really quick here:

 

1) Isn't a FOID only a requirement to purchase a gun in Illinois? Also, to the extend that a FOID card is a national thing (I honestly don't know), who is actually monitoring and enforcing sales that don't comply?

 

2) You have to at least pass a driver's test to legally operate a vehicle. There's some minimum threshold of competency that's required.

 

3) I think more restrictions on you selling guns is a good thing. I shouldn't be able to order a gun over the internet without jumping through hoops. Registration addresses that. That's honestly the point of sale that I think is the MOST concerning.

 

And here's my biggest issue with the gun debate. I've advocating for registering firearms, and for ensuring a minimum level of competence to own a firearm - basically treating them like vehicles. At what point is a regulation not an "unfair burden on the vast majority of law abiding gun owners/purchasers?" Jenks, what regulations on guns ARE you ok with?

 

ETA: Don't know how I missed this the first time through. With a registration and titling system, it's easier to report a firearm stolen. If your gun is used in the commission of a crime, and you didn't report it stolen, and you didn't transfer title, then there could be some sort of potential penalty (civil or criminal) to the person whose gun was used. I obviously haven't thought that all the way through, but there's actually a paper trail to follow - it's like why banks have cash reporting requirements - if somebody deposits cash above $x, the banks have to report it. Makes it way easier to chase money laundering and RICO investigations.

Edited October 4, 2017 by illinilaw08

[ptatc]

Don't those necessarily play together though? Registering firearms isn't taking them away. And it's the only way to really close (or manage) the secondary market for firearms, isn't it?

I have no problem with it. It would help at least to some degree and wouldn't make obtaining them any more of a hassle legally.

[ptatc]

illinilaw08 -

 

I think the other response to your question is "what will this new law really change? Is it even necessary?" If your aim is to decrease crime, what does a gang banger care if he's carrying an unregistered gun? Or a guy like this mass-murderer. He went through all the steps to legally acquire the guns he used, so he would do the same thing if registration was required. That wouldn't have stopped anything.

 

Some gun laws/changes to existing law I agree with - limiting high capacity magazines, limiting straw purchases, increasing civil/criminal penalties on gun shops, opening up the data for research, etc. But a lot of them are just pointless. Look at the responses in this thread. At the end of the day what anti-gun people want is a total ban and they won't be happy until they get it. And I think that justifies the "fear" on the part of responsible, legal gun owners. As soon as they give an inch, another shooting happens and the anti-gun lobby will demand more until at some point access to guns is extremely limited.

 

I'm not sure i'm on board with a total ban on a type of gun either. I mean I wouldn't lose sleep over it, but while I agree that an auto/semi-auto assault rifle has no utility outside of military use, it's probably awesome as hell to shoot. No one needs a car that can drive 200 mph. It's illegal to drive it that fast in 99.9% of situations. But people still want them because it's fun. And yeah yeah guns are intended to kill while cars are not, but those cars and the morons that drive them are still a danger to the public and still hurt themselves and others using those cars. So why not ban them too? Why not ban alcohol? Why are we allowing bars to serve people that drive knowing that tens of thousands of people will die this year due to drunk driving? Why not change laws to make bars responsible if they serve someone that drove?

 

At some point society is "ok" with unnecessary death. That's why I find the whole twitter/Kimmel response so infuriating. "If you don't agree with a total ban you have blood on your hands!" f*** off. So do you for drinking beer and allowing bars to exist. Get off your soap box.

They are especially on full auto.