Gun Violence in America

[Kyyle23]

Purchase and possess. If you have a gun in your home you need a FOID card. I'm not sure if all states require them, but most do. I'm fine making that federal though. And in terms of sales, in Illinois there's a hotline you can call and give a FOID number and they'll verify if it's accurate. That's also how gun shops verify that you are legally able to buy a gun.

 

 

 

I don't think the two are exactly the same. You don't take a driver's test to prove you can operate a car, you take it to prove you know the rules of the road. But regardless, i'm 100% behind mandatory training/certification for obtaining a FOID card, which is the legal requirement to using/possessing a gun.

 

 

 

I'm sure Alpha or someone who's more into guns than me can speak to this, but a lot of this is already in existence from my understanding. Yeah, you're not registering the gun and the buyer and seller information on a national database, but there are still laws that need to be followed. I'm not super opposed to your suggestion here, but again I ask at the end of the day what does it solve? We're having this conversation not because of random crime using firearms but because of mass shooting tragedies, the vast majority of which involved people buying guns legally. The fact that we can, after the fact, trace the purchase of guns this guy used just goes to show a lot of this registration.tracing stuff is already happening. It doesn't stop anything though, so you're just forcing the 99% of gun owners to jump through a hoop.

 

 

Like I said, i'm fine with training/certification requirements because that's just a sensible thing to do. I'm fine with limiting high capacity magazines. You can have fun shooting auto/semi auto weapons somewhere. You don't need to be shooting 100's of rounds at a time doing it though. I'm fine creating some kind of gun limit - there's no reason someone needs to own 20 types of the same gun unless you've got some good credentials (e.g., you're a certified seller or a collector or something that can be proven). I'm fine increasing the penalties, both civil and criminal, for people who make straw purchases and/or people/gun shops that don't do any sort of adequate background checks. I'm absolutely behind banning any felon, undocumented immigrant and/or anyone receiving mental health treatment from obtaining guns. I'm fine with the various waiting periods on gun purchases. I'm open to limiting sales at gun shows, though I don't really think that's fair to the gun companies nor legitimate gun owners. So maybe more about tightening up how purchases can be made. That's all I can think of off the top of my head.

 

 

 

I believe in Illinois all gun sales require a bill of sale and you're supposed to keep that record for 10 years. Not 100% on that though. I'm fine making that a requirement if it's not. You should be able to prove when you sold a gun, what type of gun, and the seller.

 

Taking a drivers test is both rules of the road and knowing if you can operate a car. If you are bouncing off the curbs and don’t know how to park etc, you aren’t getting your license.

 

[Balta1701]

Look how many times Ive posted "can't we at least be allowed to study this?" and it gets no traction. CDC can't even provide statistics on how gun ownership may endanger children in the home. To say there's no middle ground, and people either want to ban guns or permit everything. Well most posts in this thread say otherwise, people have provided lots of middle ground solutions, and frankly they weren't even middle ground. Still very very tilted to gun ownership but trying to limit the amount of firepower we see in these massive displays.

 

I think I was the only person in this forum to say I'd abolish the 2nd amendment, and even then it wasn't about banning all guns, it was about allowing stricter federal regulations and limitations while still allowing guns for sport.

The biggest problem with that concept is that the results are very likely going to come back and overwhelmingly say that having any access to a gun puts the life of you and your family in much greater danger, from both violence and from suicide, and that no one should have these things in their home. And if the results came back saying that, people just wouldn't believe it.

 

it's only a solution if you're willing to listen to the results.

[bmags]

The biggest problem with that concept is that the results are very likely going to come back and overwhelmingly say that having any access to a gun puts the life of you and your family in much greater danger, from both violence and from suicide, and that no one should have these things in their home. And if the results came back saying that, people just wouldn't believe it.

 

it's only a solution if you're willing to listen to the results.

 

It also may say that increasing violence interventions or other social programs could be more effective.

 

There is no case like the US, and we are not allowed to know.

[StrangeSox]

It also may say that increasing violence interventions or other social programs could be more effective.

 

There is no case like the US, and we are not allowed to know.

 

That's a key part of a lot of the "gang" violence. It's a couple of dudes getting mad, often escalating things on social media these days, and then shooting each other over it. It's not planned out turf wars like it would have been a couple of decades ago because there's so little structure an hierarchy. If you can stop that confrontation before it gets too heated, you can stop a shooting. If there's no gun available in the first place, you can stop a shooting.

[Jenksismyhero]

The biggest problem with that concept is that the results are very likely going to come back and overwhelmingly say that having any access to a gun puts the life of you and your family in much greater danger, from both violence and from suicide, and that no one should have these things in their home. And if the results came back saying that, people just wouldn't believe it.

 

it's only a solution if you're willing to listen to the results.

 

1) this is a pretty obvious conclusion. Owning a car increases your likelihood of being in an auto-accident, ban cars!

 

2) who cares? It's a choice. Give people the info they need if you really want to (though, see #1, it's common sense). If you have someone in your family that has rage/anger issues and/or is suicidal or has depression or anxiety, probably not the best idea to have guns readily available.

 

[ptatc]

Take a look at the thread. 59 people were just brutally murdered. You have a bond with your son involving this and according to you that is your reason for not being able to imagine a world without them. Turn around and look at how that statement looks to my eyes. I read what you said and also saw an underlying "I can't imagine a world where these 59 people weren't murdered". I can equally get to "sure those 59 people were murdered but this helps my relationship with my son and that's more important to me, so I won't even attempt to picture a world where those 59 people aren't dead."

 

So yeah, I think that's a little creepy. Those 59 people won't be having any bond with their families again.

That's fine. You can think it's creepy.

 

But also remember there is no such thing as a gun ban. Even in the UK the type of firearms I use are legal and can be obtained with permits. If said all along I'm for restrictions especially with high capacity firearms.

 

If you can't determine the difference between the firearms I use and what was used in this case, you need to look at the cases a little closer.

 

i know you tend to believe things are cut and dry or yes and no. All Republicans bad. All firearms bad. But these issues are not that dichotomous.

 

Edited October 5, 2017 by ptatc

[Kyyle23]

1) this is a pretty obvious conclusion. Owning a car increases your likelihood of being in an auto-accident, ban cars!

 

2) who cares? It's a choice. Give people the info they need if you really want to (though, see #1, it's common sense). If you have someone in your family that has rage/anger issues and/or is suicidal or has depression or anxiety, probably not the best idea to have guns readily available.

 

No, that’s the extreme conclusion. Automobiles have safety regulation, they are tested many times for multiple scenarios and things like seatbelts became mandatory and airbags are in pretty much all new vehicles. And vehicles that are considered dangerous, not street worthy, you are not allowed to drive. Yea, some cars can possibly reach 200MPH, but you don’t see rocket powered cars or nascar capable cars driving around your block every day? Why? Because that s*** is unsafe and we all know it.

 

Something has to be done, a compromise needs to be made somewhere. People shouldn’t be able to easily modify their guns to become an automatic weapon as easy as he did. If you are stocking up on ammo, someone somewhere should ask “why is this happening? Why does he need this?”

[ptatc]

If the Republican representative is voting for a speaker who brings legislation removing permitting requirements to the floor of their legislative chamber...even if they vote against the legislation, the speaker and the party are choosing what to bring to the floor.

 

You may have voted for your representative so that you can get your taxes cut. Your representative may even vote against the upcoming bill to allow concealed carry across state lines or whatever the next one is. But they're also supporting the people setting the agenda. You may have wanted lower taxes, but Paul Ryan wants more people who are having their mental illness treatments paid for through the Social Security administration to buy guns, and if you voted for someone who supported Paul Ryan - congratulations, you also supported that.

Again the "if" Were all of these votes and support unanimous. Your comment was not "if" they voted this way or if they supported Ryan. It was ALL of you are the cause of this.

 

The everyone without exception comment you made is where I have the issue.

[Balta1701]

Again the "if" Were all of these votes and support unanimous. Your comment was not "if" they voted this way or if they supported Ryan. It was ALL of you are the cause of this.

 

The everyone without exception comment you made is where I have the issue.

Out of 248 Republicans in the House, 247 voted for Paul Ryan and Paul Ryan brought the bill I noted to the floor. Literally 1. Kim Jong Un has greater opposition when he calls for a vote.

[ptatc]

That's a key part of a lot of the "gang" violence. It's a couple of dudes getting mad, often escalating things on social media these days, and then shooting each other over it. It's not planned out turf wars like it would have been a couple of decades ago because there's so little structure an hierarchy. If you can stop that confrontation before it gets too heated, you can stop a shooting. If there's no gun available in the first place, you can stop a shooting.

 

Is there any place in the world where firearms are totally banned? Within at least a semi-free society.

[ptatc]

Out of 248 Republicans in the House, 247 voted for Paul Ryan and Paul Ryan brought the bill I noted to the floor. Literally 1. Kim Jong Un has greater opposition when he calls for a vote.

Let me ask you this. Have you agreed with every single thing every politician you ever voted for did. Did you vote for Blagoevich? You obviously approved of all of his crimes.

 

Again you are looking at it far too dichotomously. A person is right or wrong all the time. Real life isn't like that.

[ptatc]

No, that’s the extreme conclusion. Automobiles have safety regulation, they are tested many times for multiple scenarios and things like seatbelts became mandatory and airbags are in pretty much all new vehicles. And vehicles that are considered dangerous, not street worthy, you are not allowed to drive. Yea, some cars can possibly reach 200MPH, but you don’t see rocket powered cars or nascar capable cars driving around your block every day? Why? Because that s*** is unsafe and we all know it.

 

Something has to be done, a compromise needs to be made somewhere. People shouldn’t be able to easily modify their guns to become an automatic weapon easily. If you are stocking up on ammo, someone somewhere should ask “why is this happening? Why does he need this?”

All of these are reasonable.

[StrangeSox]

Is there any place in the world where firearms are totally banned? Within at least a semi-free society.

 

There are places where handguns aren't as ubiquitous so there isn't one always readily available.

[bmags]

Is there any place in the world where firearms are totally banned? Within at least a semi-free society.

 

The point is to reduce the amount of situations where a gun is available. Just like, in the sentence preceding yours, no, we will not be able to insert an intervention into all violent scenarios, but we could insert them where we can and REDUCE VIOLENCE.

 

If the situations where guns were involved was reduced, lethality would reduce, but here's the important thing: maybe not all violence.

 

No, I do not think all gun murders being eliminated is a likely goal. But reducing them is a very worthy goal, something that should be sought after and tweaked and revised toward the best solutions daily.

[bmags]

Something has to be done, a compromise needs to be made somewhere. People shouldn’t be able to easily modify their guns to become an automatic weapon as easy as he did. If you are stocking up on ammo, someone somewhere should ask “why is this happening? Why does he need this?”

 

When I read this paragraph what sticks with me is an ongoing regulatory board for guns needs to be created. If they make a 94 style law, there will be workarounds and a lot of hearty "they said they banned assault rifles but ...". If the goal is to actually reduce these arsenals, we need a group that does that on an ongoing process, similar to FDA.

 

And the FDA is not perfect. And it is frustrating. And it makes incorrect decisions, and it is influenced by industry and often not as much by suffering patients. BUt, it's a reasonable set-up that I'm sure has led to vastly better results than if that industry was unregulated.

[StrangeSox]

The ATF is the board currently. They evaluate products all the time.

 

It's already illegal to modify your rifle into a fully automatic rifle. You can make your semi-auto into a "nearly" fully auto using either these bump fire stocks which are currently okay'd by the ATF or just by holding onto your belt loop as it fires (this exploits the same recoil physics that makes the bump stock work). And while modifying a semi into an actual fully automatic weapon is very, very illegal, it's trivially easy to do so. The only way to change that would be to ban semi-automatic weapons.

 

I guess the problem is is that the ATF's scope is somewhat limited to only considering the actual firing mechanism rather than the gun as a whole. You could rewrite regulations to change that, but I'm not sure how or what you'd change to accomplish reductions in gun violence.

 

Biggest dent would be severely restricting or banning handguns, but you'd have to overturn Heller and McDonald or rewrite the Constitution in order to do that.

Edited October 5, 2017 by StrangeSox

[illinilaw08]

The point is to reduce the amount of situations where a gun is available. Just like, in the sentence preceding yours, no, we will not be able to insert an intervention into all violent scenarios, but we could insert them where we can and REDUCE VIOLENCE.

 

If the situations where guns were involved was reduced, lethality would reduce, but here's the important thing: maybe not all violence.

 

No, I do not think all gun murders being eliminated is a likely goal. But reducing them is a very worthy goal, something that should be sought after and tweaked and revised toward the best solutions daily.

 

The goal, IMO, should also be to reduce suicide by gun. I've harped on this before here, but attempted suicide by gun is almost always a successful attempt vs. attempted suicide by other means (pills, cutting, etc.). Now this is definitely a trickier point because it necessarily requires firearms to be less accessible in the home. But (shout out to bmags) since the government can't fund studies on gun deaths, we don't really have data available to talk solutions to that issue that both protect gun owners while also making an appreciable dent on firearm deaths...

[StrangeSox]

The NRA also does its level best to make non-governmental academic studies of gun violence politically and academically toxic. They really are just an awful, awful organization..

[southsider2k5]

He has a point. It's the people that must take everything to extremes, see everything as us and them that make any agreement or compromise impossible. You can't have gun control when one side wants no restriction and the other wants a ban with no working to the middle. It's the same with healthcare. One side wants total healthcare the other wants a useless minimal version. They portray an us and them and nothing gets done.

 

It would be an awful world without firearms.

 

My favorite parallel to the gun debate is abortion, with the sides flip-flopped. Both groups on one side feel that fully illegal and never acceptable is the way to go, while the other wants to have no restrictions at all, unwilling to let even the common sense stuff happen in fear of the slippery slope argument.

[southsider2k5]

Taking a drivers test is both rules of the road and knowing if you can operate a car. If you are bouncing off the curbs and don't know how to park etc, you aren't getting your license.

 

The problem with any of the commonly given "Yes, but what about..."'s is that none of the others are constitutionally protected. There aren't many constitutional equals to gun rights that are up for debate... thinking more about it, maybe voting rights? Then again like abortion, the people who want common sense gun laws tend to be the ones who favor no voting restrictions and the ones who want no gun restrictions want voting restrictions. Politically, it is fascinating to me.

[Brian]

[ptatc]

There are places where handguns aren't as ubiquitous so there isn't one always readily available.

Agreed. There is justification with that, ease of hiding etc. I'm talking about a total ban where the hunting/sports firearms are banned as well.

 

i can't speak for everyone here but my personal view is that these are the types which have justification for ownership and use.

[ptatc]

The point is to reduce the amount of situations where a gun is available. Just like, in the sentence preceding yours, no, we will not be able to insert an intervention into all violent scenarios, but we could insert them where we can and REDUCE VIOLENCE.

 

If the situations where guns were involved was reduced, lethality would reduce, but here's the important thing: maybe not all violence.

 

No, I do not think all gun murders being eliminated is a likely goal. But reducing them is a very worthy goal, something that should be sought after and tweaked and revised toward the best solutions daily.

I agree. i have not disagreed with this point.

 

My problem is with the posters stating that if firearms should be banned or have no use. i don't think this happens anywhere and shouldn't happen.

 

 

[ptatc]

The ATF is the board currently. They evaluate products all the time.

 

It's already illegal to modify your rifle into a fully automatic rifle. You can make your semi-auto into a "nearly" fully auto using either these bump fire stocks which are currently okay'd by the ATF or just by holding onto your belt loop as it fires (this exploits the same recoil physics that makes the bump stock work). And while modifying a semi into an actual fully automatic weapon is very, very illegal, it's trivially easy to do so. The only way to change that would be to ban semi-automatic weapons.

 

I guess the problem is is that the ATF's scope is somewhat limited to only considering the actual firing mechanism rather than the gun as a whole. You could rewrite regulations to change that, but I'm not sure how or what you'd change to accomplish reductions in gun violence.

 

Biggest dent would be severely restricting or banning handguns, but you'd have to overturn Heller and McDonald or rewrite the Constitution in order to do that.

Isn't there a ban on handguns in Chicago?

[ptatc]

My favorite parallel to the gun debate is abortion, with the sides flip-flopped. Both groups on one side feel that fully illegal and never acceptable is the way to go, while the other wants to have no restrictions at all, unwilling to let even the common sense stuff happen in fear of the slippery slope argument.

Good analogy. The hard lines on both sides is what frustrates me. I get ideology, however, in almost all cases taking any issue to an extreme either way rarely is good for everyone. People need to find compromise to do at least some good.

 

i forget who said the quote about the budget Illinois passed but it was something to the effect of "if everyone is unhappy it must have been a good compromise"