Not that we're going to do anything about this at all (because we won't), but....Chris Rock joked about it years ago, but the best way to do this might be to severely restrict access to ammunition, whether through massive restrictions or taxation. The Second Amendment doesn't say a goddamn thing about the right to keep and bear bullets. It's a loophole, but what else is there at this point??
A bullet is no more a part of a gun than fruit smoothie ingredients are part of a blender.
It's also worth pointing out that criminals are not known for being hard-working or determined people. If folks who can't pass a background check can't get a legal gun and would have to jump through a lot of hoops and go to a lot of trouble to get their hands on an illegal weapon, a lot of those folks just won't bother.
People are lazy by nature. Criminals even more so.
re: Chris Rock...it is always funny when a celebrity speaks out in favor of gun control because their bodyguards are most definitely armed. Chris Rock isn't against guns, only against *you* having guns.
The chemist in me feels the need to point out that pouring bleach into a bowl of fruit punch is going to release chlorine gas, because most drinks, especially fruit drinks, are acidic, and bleach breaks down in the presence of acid to release chlorine gas. You'd KNOW if there was bleach in a drink from the smell, chlorine is a powerful irritant.
The chemist in *me* agrees--if your goal is "poison the punch at the wedding" then bleach is the last chemical you should be using. If that were my goal, I would probably sneak into the chemistry stockroom at a nearby community college and pick a handful of better options...but, no, I am not going to name them. Ammonia would be more damaging to the esophagus and stomach lining but, again, you would be able to smell it in the punch before drinking it...unless the punch is heavily spiked with strong distilled spirits and/or lots of fruit.
I didn't mean to drink ammonia... I meant it has plenty of nitrogen, which can be made very reactive. You're right, you'd definately smell either. The most dangerous thing I know about household bleach actually involves ammonia!
@Ammar , which country are you from? I am interested in figuring out whether gun legislation impacted overall violent crime. If it did thats a good case.
You wouldn't expect gun control to impact the number of instances of violent crime but you would expect it to affect the number of resulting casualties.
You wouldn't expect gun control to impact the number of instances of violent crime but you would expect it to affect the number of resulting casualties.
That, and whether other violent crimes went up. For example, U.K has very strict firearm laws relative to the U.S, but you hear quite a bit of horrific things like acid attacks. You don't want to trade one form of violent crime for another but instead, reduce violent crime.
You wouldn't expect gun control to impact the number of instances of violent crime but you would expect it to affect the number of resulting casualties.
That, and whether other violent crimes went up. For example, U.K has very strict firearm laws relative to the U.S, but you hear quite a bit of horrific things like acid attacks. You don't want to trade one form of violent crime for another but instead, reduce violent crime.
How many times have 27 or 50 people been killed by an acid attack within minutes??
You wouldn't expect gun control to impact the number of instances of violent crime but you would expect it to affect the number of resulting casualties.
That, and whether other violent crimes went up. For example, U.K has very strict firearm laws relative to the U.S, but you hear quite a bit of horrific things like acid attacks. You don't want to trade one form of violent crime for another but instead, reduce violent crime.
How many times have 27 or 50 people been killed by an acid attack within minutes??
I think most people would agree reducing the number of deaths is a step in the right direction.
It is but should be weighed in the context of political reality. You will never get all reforms you want. The best option is to find the most effective policy and stick with it. in the context of U.S at least.
No one is saying there aren't other ways to kill people. What we're saying is that guns are, BY FAR, the easiest, quickest, and cheapest way to do so, and also the way to kill as many people as possible. And anyone can walk into a Wal-Mart in this country and walk out with the means to kill multiple people with less effort than it takes to buy more than one package of Sudafed.
Not for nothing, but New York IS doing something in response to the truck attack. They are putting in barriers around bike paths to make it harder to pull off. Many of the main streets in New York already have objects on the sidewalk for this exact purpose. But guns?? Nothing....staus quo until the end of time.
The argument seems to be "we can't do anything to prevent gun deaths because there are other ways to kill people". I've never heard this argument made once when a bomb, or truck, or any other method of murder is used. No one says "well, we can't do anything about bomb or truck attacks because the guy might have used a knife or gun instead." Only guns are subject to this sort of whataboutism.
The argument seems to be "we can't do anything to prevent gun deaths because there are other ways to kill people". I've never heard this argument made once when a bomb, or truck, or any other method of murder is used. No one says "well, we can't do anything about bomb or truck attacks because the guy might have used a knife or gun instead." Only guns are subject to this sort of whataboutism.
What, then, would you propose as a way to try and prevent more gun deaths? I am curious what steps you think would reduce the overall number. I don't mean that sarcastically, either--I really am curious.
@bob_veng I didn't mean you, personally; I meant in general as in "there is almost no media attention paid to the problem in Chicago, Detroit, or Baltimore".
The argument seems to be "we can't do anything to prevent gun deaths because there are other ways to kill people". I've never heard this argument made once when a bomb, or truck, or any other method of murder is used. No one says "well, we can't do anything about bomb or truck attacks because the guy might have used a knife or gun instead." Only guns are subject to this sort of whataboutism.
What, then, would you propose as a way to try and prevent more gun deaths? I am curious what steps you think would reduce the overall number. I don't mean that sarcastically, either--I really am curious.
@bob_veng I didn't mean you, personally; I meant in general as in "there is almost no media attention paid to the problem in Chicago, Detroit, or Baltimore".
Having to obtain a license to own one that requires a rigourous criminal background check and a psychological evaluation for starters. As well as passing a mandated safety course. At the very least, this would put a severe hurdle in front of the lazy criminals @semiticgod was talking about.
As for the argument that criminals will get the guns anyway, just how easy is this?? Does anyone here know where to buy an illegal gun?? I wouldn't even know where to start the search. And if laws aren't a deterrent to behavior, why doesn't everyone drive 90 mph on the freeway, or steal a 10 lb brisket every time they visit the super market??
Sounds good--a license costs money, the thorough background check would rule out people who already have any history of violence, and a psychological evaluation would rule out the ones who have a history of certain difficulties. Which crimes rule out a person for background checks, though, only violent ones? Drug abuse? Identity theft by using a stolen credit card? Any felony offense, even white collar ones like insider trading or fraud?
The real problem will be the psychological evaluation, though. HIPPA will have to be amended to allow law enforcement agencies to conduct this sort of testing because of the medical information/diagnoses involved. Also, would the person being tested be able to submit results from their own psychologist/psychiatrist or are only the resutls from the law enforcement tester used to make a determination? What happens if those results disagree with each other?
I am not trying to rain on the parade, mind you, but those are questions which will need to be answered before such a system could be put in place.
Without getting into details or specifics, I actually do know someone who could point me in the direction of a back alley, back-of-the-truck gun dealer. I won't do that, though--local/State crimes are bad enough but Federal ones are worse.
Laws deter criminal activity in most normal, average people because the fear of the consequences--jail, fines, court costs, social humiliation of being labeled a "criminal"--is sufficient to cause them not to want to violate the law in that manner. I don't know what freeways you frequent, but here in the Metroplex I see drivers blowing past me all the time, and I normally do 70-75 once I get on the highway. For the last...well, look up video clips using the phrase "stupid criminal" and you will see plenty of people trying to shoplift all sorts of things, usually by stuffing it down their pants, under their shirt, etc. (one of my favorites is the guy who shoplifted, got his picture taken, then went back to the same store less than an hour later still wearing the same clothes as before--hurr durr) That being said, the fraction of people who go around committing petty crimes is a very slim minority.
Beyond that, I would also add proof of at least one year of liability insurance before the transaction can take place. So people can have the guns, but you are going to make damn sure society at large is at least marginally protected against your weapon.
As for the crimes, not being a criminal justice major, I'd say any violent misdemeanor and ANY felony. If you can lose your right to vote for getting one, you should certainly lose your right to a firearm.
The governor's race in Virginia must be important. Barack Obama has called me 5 times in the last 2 days to urge me to vote.
The problem with any official psychiatric screening conducted by law enforcement is black people will "fail" it at a much higher rate than white people. Also, in many states, crimes that are more likely to be committed by blacks are disproportionately felonies, while traditionally "white" crimes are more likely to be misdemeanors (forex, simple possession of crack cocaine vs powder cocaine).
The governor's race in Virginia must be important. Barack Obama has called me 5 times in the last 2 days to urge me to vote.
The problem with any official psychiatric screening conducted by law enforcement is black people will "fail" it at a much higher rate than white people. Also, in many states, crimes that are more likely to be committed by blacks are disproportionately felonies, while traditionally "white" crimes are more likely to be misdemeanors (forex, simple possession of crack cocaine vs powder cocaine).
Well, this is a good point. I've already discussed the atrocity that is the sentencing disparity between crack vs powder cocaine. However, it's worth pointing out (according to a PEW Research Study) that 48% of white men own a gun, compared to 24% of black men. I'm not particularly worried about the women because they never seem to go off the handle and massacre dozens of people. In fact, when it comes to mass shootings (of which we technically have one a day in this country) men are the perpetrators a staggering 98% of the time. Beyond that, murder itself, when the gender of the perpetrator is known, is a male 90% of the time. If you want to boil this down to one thing, it's pretty simple. Men. You'll never see statistics this lopsided for anything else.
I'm not really a big fan of the fact that we run modern society based on a document written well over 250 years ago, but......
If you take into context the time, and what the 2nd Amendment says, and listen to scholars on the way the founding fathers thought, it's fairly easy to infer what they actually meant. They had just got done fighting a war where local militias of farmers had played a major role in the victory. Most of them were not at all fond of the idea of a standing peacetime national army. This was about the individual states maintaining militias for the national defense, should it be needed. This was about federalism.
Now if you accept this was the case (and I generally do), it's fairly obvious that the cat is out of the bag on the standing peacetime national army. That bridge has been crossed a million times over. The 2nd Amendment has really no bearing on modern America. The Supreme Court agreed with this until fairly recently (the mid-70s). In this case (and in many others) we are simply operating on the opinion of what the majority of the Supreme Court THINKS a bunch of guys were thinking when they wrote this two centuries ago.
I don't even buy into the idea that "well-regulated" means we can regulate guns as seen fit. Just like I don't think the rest of it means every person has the right to own a personal firearm. The 2nd Amendment was about STATES having the power to raise a military so the national government wouldn't be all powerful in that regard. That ship has sailed.
Wouldn't that equate to the National Guard, though?
I can see requiring liability insurance. We have it for our cars....
I was thinking more local chapters. Gun clubs basically. Yes with liability insurance and stuff. A hobby enthusiast club that trains people on responsible gun usage. You go, you are responsible, you follow their rules, you can use their guns. You screw up and shoot up a school it reflects poorly on the militia and they'll have some explaining and introspection to do to prevent it happening again. Even if you blow your own brains out, the club adapts.
Maybe even just you have to pass a shooting license test every two years or something and pay a fee like a driver's license.
People always ignore the start of the second amendment.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the..."
Seems like the US is failing the well regulated part by a damn sight allowing bump stocks and what have you to be sold. There is no regulations basically, it's the wild west. Trump even is backsliding on sensible regulations that Obama made, Trump made it easier for the mentally ill to get guns.
@smeagolheart makes an excellent point, and it's something I'd nearly entirely forgotten over the last 10 months. One of the first things Trump and the Republicans did was rollback the Obama Administration regulation that would have flagged people in the national database who were receiving Social Security benefits because of severe mental illness, or those who couldn't even handle their own finances. It wouldn't have done much, maybe added 75,000 names to the list. Who knows who may have ended up on it and if it would have saved a life. But it might have. Those with mental health problems so severe that they can't work and need a caretaker much of the time need all the help we can provide them. But what they probably don't need is a frickin' gun. The #1 reason being that any lapse in a necessary medication to control their illness could possibly create a bad situation. People get prescribed all sorts of necessary and unnecessary drugs in this country. But oftentimes the shit really hits the fan when people STOP taking these drugs suddenly.
It can be any reason that people snap - though it's usually spouse problems, divorce, finances or other stresses and people that are normally responsible can snap. It doesn't even have to happen quickly - look at yourself five, ten years ago - are you the same person?
Comments
A bullet is no more a part of a gun than fruit smoothie ingredients are part of a blender.
People are lazy by nature. Criminals even more so.
The argument seems to be "we can't do anything to prevent gun deaths because there are other ways to kill people". I've never heard this argument made once when a bomb, or truck, or any other method of murder is used. No one says "well, we can't do anything about bomb or truck attacks because the guy might have used a knife or gun instead." Only guns are subject to this sort of whataboutism.
@bob_veng I didn't mean you, personally; I meant in general as in "there is almost no media attention paid to the problem in Chicago, Detroit, or Baltimore".
As for the argument that criminals will get the guns anyway, just how easy is this?? Does anyone here know where to buy an illegal gun?? I wouldn't even know where to start the search. And if laws aren't a deterrent to behavior, why doesn't everyone drive 90 mph on the freeway, or steal a 10 lb brisket every time they visit the super market??
The real problem will be the psychological evaluation, though. HIPPA will have to be amended to allow law enforcement agencies to conduct this sort of testing because of the medical information/diagnoses involved. Also, would the person being tested be able to submit results from their own psychologist/psychiatrist or are only the resutls from the law enforcement tester used to make a determination? What happens if those results disagree with each other?
I am not trying to rain on the parade, mind you, but those are questions which will need to be answered before such a system could be put in place.
Without getting into details or specifics, I actually do know someone who could point me in the direction of a back alley, back-of-the-truck gun dealer. I won't do that, though--local/State crimes are bad enough but Federal ones are worse.
Laws deter criminal activity in most normal, average people because the fear of the consequences--jail, fines, court costs, social humiliation of being labeled a "criminal"--is sufficient to cause them not to want to violate the law in that manner. I don't know what freeways you frequent, but here in the Metroplex I see drivers blowing past me all the time, and I normally do 70-75 once I get on the highway. For the last...well, look up video clips using the phrase "stupid criminal" and you will see plenty of people trying to shoplift all sorts of things, usually by stuffing it down their pants, under their shirt, etc. (one of my favorites is the guy who shoplifted, got his picture taken, then went back to the same store less than an hour later still wearing the same clothes as before--hurr durr) That being said, the fraction of people who go around committing petty crimes is a very slim minority.
As for the crimes, not being a criminal justice major, I'd say any violent misdemeanor and ANY felony. If you can lose your right to vote for getting one, you should certainly lose your right to a firearm.
The problem with any official psychiatric screening conducted by law enforcement is black people will "fail" it at a much higher rate than white people. Also, in many states, crimes that are more likely to be committed by blacks are disproportionately felonies, while traditionally "white" crimes are more likely to be misdemeanors (forex, simple possession of crack cocaine vs powder cocaine).
Want a gun? You gotta be in a well regulated militia. A responsible, trained organization.
I can see requiring liability insurance. We have it for our cars....
If you take into context the time, and what the 2nd Amendment says, and listen to scholars on the way the founding fathers thought, it's fairly easy to infer what they actually meant. They had just got done fighting a war where local militias of farmers had played a major role in the victory. Most of them were not at all fond of the idea of a standing peacetime national army. This was about the individual states maintaining militias for the national defense, should it be needed. This was about federalism.
Now if you accept this was the case (and I generally do), it's fairly obvious that the cat is out of the bag on the standing peacetime national army. That bridge has been crossed a million times over. The 2nd Amendment has really no bearing on modern America. The Supreme Court agreed with this until fairly recently (the mid-70s). In this case (and in many others) we are simply operating on the opinion of what the majority of the Supreme Court THINKS a bunch of guys were thinking when they wrote this two centuries ago.
I don't even buy into the idea that "well-regulated" means we can regulate guns as seen fit. Just like I don't think the rest of it means every person has the right to own a personal firearm. The 2nd Amendment was about STATES having the power to raise a military so the national government wouldn't be all powerful in that regard. That ship has sailed.
Maybe even just you have to pass a shooting license test every two years or something and pay a fee like a driver's license.
People always ignore the start of the second amendment.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the..."
Seems like the US is failing the well regulated part by a damn sight allowing bump stocks and what have you to be sold. There is no regulations basically, it's the wild west. Trump even is backsliding on sensible regulations that Obama made, Trump made it easier for the mentally ill to get guns.