Gun control

[Chas]

Yes, thoughtful post, TBD.

We (TBD and I) have made several attempts to discuss gun control on another forum, but it always seems to get derailed by extremists on both ends of the spectrum.
Having a thoughtful, polite, constructive discussion has been difficult.

Neither TBD nor I is extremely anti- or pro-gun. We have tried to explore what can be done to reduce gun violence.

I am a gun owner, have been for 35 years. I have a concealed carry permit, and I sometimes carry a gun.
I have had firearms training, I store my firearms securely, I handle them safely.

On a practical basis, anything we do must account for the reality that we are not going to be able to make guns disappear in the U.S. There are about 300,000,000 in private ownership.

My basic position on the approaches to the problem are in general agreement with TBD's, with some real differences.

But the problem is not guns, per se, it is violence.
The underlying problems are poverty, ignorance, and mental health.
The largest steps we can take to reduce gun violence are social: mental health care, equitable opportunity for education and employment.

There should also be more rational firearms laws. Banning "assault weapons" is not constructive. The federal "assault weapons" ban did nothing to reduce gun violence.

[Zazzy]

Yes, thoughtful post, TBD.

We (TBD and I) have made several attempts to discuss gun control on another forum, but it always seems to get derailed by extremists on both ends of the spectrum.
Having a thoughtful, polite, constructive discussion has been difficult.

This is the problem, right there. It's so bad that I can't often ask for education on guns without getting insulted- it's like because I have never held a gun I'm the enemy, and to my own liberal peeps I'm the enemy for even asking gun owners to educate me. I can't win.

That's why I'm really enjoying this thread- because all the voices are so calm and rational, yet still state opinions with force- and it's teaching me. It's rare.

How does this kind of conversation happen in the real world? Can it?

But the problem is not guns, per se, it is violence.
The underlying problems are poverty, ignorance, and mental health.
The largest steps we can take to reduce gun violence are social: mental health care, equitable opportunity for education and employment.

I agree that these are obvious steps. Taking these steps would fix much more than just gun problems. I'm just not sure we as a culture are ever going to be invested in these things for any reason.

There should also be more rational firearms laws. Banning "assault weapons" is not constructive. The federal "assault weapons" ban did nothing to reduce gun violence

What should those laws look like? If you were in charge, what steps would you take?

[Chas]

Yes, thoughtful post, TBD.

We (TBD and I) have made several attempts to discuss gun control on another forum, but it always seems to get derailed by extremists on both ends of the spectrum.
Having a thoughtful, polite, constructive discussion has been difficult.

This is the problem, right there. It's so bad that I can't often ask for education on guns without getting insulted- it's like because I have never held a gun I'm the enemy, and to my own liberal peeps I'm the enemy for even asking gun owners to educate me. I can't win.

That's why I'm really enjoying this thread- because all the voices are so calm and rational, yet still state opinions with force- and it's teaching me. It's rare.

How does this kind of conversation happen in the real world? Can it?

But the problem is not guns, per se, it is violence.
The underlying problems are poverty, ignorance, and mental health.
The largest steps we can take to reduce gun violence are social: mental health care, equitable opportunity for education and employment.

I agree that these are obvious steps. Taking these steps would fix much more than just gun problems. I'm just not sure we as a culture are ever going to be invested in these things for any reason.

There should also be more rational firearms laws. Banning "assault weapons" is not constructive. The federal "assault weapons" ban did nothing to reduce gun violence

What should those laws look like? If you were in charge, what steps would you take?

I don't have a clear answer to what those laws should be.

One of the reasons I'm interested in the conversation/discussion/debate is to help work that out.

We in the U.S. currently have a mix of reasonable and unreasonable, effective and ineffective laws. And the enforcement is inconsistent.

On of the problems is the lack of uniform laws. There are the federal laws, the laws of each of the fifty states, and a hodge-podge of local ordinances.

Some states that have very restrictive laws (e.g. Massachusetts) are bordered by states with very non-restrictive laws (e.g. Vermont & New Hampshire). Some see that as a plus, some don't.

There is also the problem of reciprocity between states, some recognizing gun permits from some states but not others. There are surprising instances where a state with very few restrictions (e.g. Wyoming) won't recognize the carry permit from a strict state like Massachusetts.

I would like to see laws that:

• Allow law-abiding people to own firearms
  
• Allow trained people to carry firearms
  
• Prevent felons from possessing firearms
  
• Prevent people who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent to posses firearms
  
• Require safe storage of firearms
  
• Allow safe transport of firearms
  
• Provide rational reciprocity laws
  

There is more to it than that, and there are definitions to work out for "safe", "rational", "trained", and such.

[Raeven]

Chas, I am mostly in agreement with your list. The problem I see is enforceability. Which doesn't mean the goals ought not be pursued, only that there really is no way to determine on an ongoing basis that all 300,000,000 privately-owned guns are being stored in a safe manner, safely transported, or that felons are not in possession of them.

The other problem, of course, relates to reciprocity. Personally, I can't envision a world where "rational" in Texas is going to equate to "rational" in New York. I can't even think of a starting point for that one. Obviously I think "rational" changes a little bit depending on the culture of the individual state. For example, in states like Wyoming or Alabama, where hunting is the order of the day and virtually everyone has a CCW permit, even open carry is no big deal. But in California, you would cause a riot and likely get shot yourself if you tried it, even in the few areas where it is still permitted. Given the population density, I can understand that to an extent.

And people do have an irrational response to guns in general -- even gun owners, sometimes! Here's an example: I went to a little, sleepy country restaurant a couple of years ago, just a wayside joint on the way to somewhere from somewhere else. After we'd gotten ourselves settled on stools at the cafe counter, I noticed the cook, who was doing his thing in full view of the customers, had a .45 strapped to his hip. It gave me a bit of a jolt when I first saw it -- and I live in an open carry state. I wasn't afraid, but I had to examine my discomfort with the sight... it was just so incongruous. I guess it just sent an unpleasant message, even though I understood his concerns. I wondered how a non-gun owner would feel.

So... education is a big issue. It's the only way of which I am aware to dispel some of the irrational fears of guns, and maybe the only way to get gun owners to appreciate some of the legitimate concerns of people living in densely populated areas who keep getting hurt with guns. The biggest problem I see is getting folks to open their minds -- on both sides of the issue.

[Doubting Thomas]

I would like to see laws that:

• Allow law-abiding people to own firearms
  
• Allow trained people to carry firearms
  
• Prevent felons from possessing firearms
  
• Prevent people who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent to posses firearms
  
• Require safe storage of firearms
  
• Allow safe transport of firearms
  
• Provide rational reciprocity laws
  

This is how it would be in an ideal world, however I think it would be extremely difficult to enforce, and impossible to bring about with the NRA running around trying to block any and all attempts at rational gun control.

[downbeatplumb]

My thought.

Only people who don't want guns should be allowed to own them.

[Chas]

Chas, I am mostly in agreement with your list. The problem I see is enforceability. Which doesn't mean the goals ought not be pursued, only that there really is no way to determine on an ongoing basis that all 300,000,000 privately-owned guns are being stored in a safe manner, safely transported, or that felons are not in possession of them.

The other problem, of course, relates to reciprocity. Personally, I can't envision a world where "rational" in Texas is going to equate to "rational" in New York. I can't even think of a starting point for that one. Obviously I think "rational" changes a little bit depending on the culture of the individual state. For example, in states like Wyoming or Alabama, where hunting is the order of the day and virtually everyone has a CCW permit, even open carry is no big deal. But in California, you would cause a riot and likely get shot yourself if you tried it, even in the few areas where it is still permitted. Given the population density, I can understand that to an extent.

And people do have an irrational response to guns in general -- even gun owners, sometimes! Here's an example: I went to a little, sleepy country restaurant a couple of years ago, just a wayside joint on the way to somewhere from somewhere else. After we'd gotten ourselves settled on stools at the cafe counter, I noticed the cook, who was doing his thing in full view of the customers, had a .45 strapped to his hip. It gave me a bit of a jolt when I first saw it -- and I live in an open carry state. I wasn't afraid, but I had to examine my discomfort with the sight... it was just so incongruous. I guess it just sent an unpleasant message, even though I understood his concerns. I wondered how a non-gun owner would feel.

So... education is a big issue. It's the only way of which I am aware to dispel some of the irrational fears of guns, and maybe the only way to get gun owners to appreciate some of the legitimate concerns of people living in densely populated areas who keep getting hurt with guns. The biggest problem I see is getting folks to open their minds -- on both sides of the issue.

I would like to see laws that:

• Allow law-abiding people to own firearms
  
• Allow trained people to carry firearms
  
• Prevent felons from possessing firearms
  
• Prevent people who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent to posses firearms
  
• Require safe storage of firearms
  
• Allow safe transport of firearms
  
• Provide rational reciprocity laws
  

This is how it would be in an ideal world, however I think it would be extremely difficult to enforce, and impossible to bring about with the NRA running around trying to block any and all attempts at rational gun control.

We have all kinds of laws that are largely unenforceable except in the breach, like robbery, murder, embezzlement, ...

In Massachusetts, we have the laws I have listed, except rational reciprocity and the training requirement is minimal. No one has come to inspect my gun storage, but I know it's the law and I am at risk if it is discovered that I leave guns lying around.

Raeven makes a reasonable point about reciprocity. This is why I see the 51 different sets of laws for licensing (which includes no license necessary) being an issue. However, there could be a federal minimum license standard that states may voluntarily enact. Those states would be bound by reciprocity.

I don't agree with a lot of the rhetoric that comes from the NRA, but not all of it is crazy. They generally perceive the anti-gun zealots as wanting to make it impossible to legally own guns.

Like I said, I don't have the solution, but I want to talk about the actual problems and possible solutions - not irrational ones like "assault weapons bans".

[Raeven]

My thought.

Only people who don't want guns should be allowed to own them.

Really? Is that a reasonable position, I mean?

I can't say I WANTED a gun, not like something I'd wish for as a birthday present. I never stayed awake at night thinking excitedly to myself, "Oh, boy! I'm going to go get a gun in the morning!!"

But... when I made a decision to stay on my place alone and look after livestock, I decided I'd better learn to use the guns I had for the purposes for which they are meant. The more I learned, the more of an opinion I formed about what was suitable for me. Not every gun I had via inheritance from my family and my husband was a comfortable fit. So... I bought a few guns that were.

I suppose if I tot up my collection of firearms at this point, I might seem like something of a "gun nut" to an outside person. If I had to, though, I could pretty comfortably distill it down to two, and neither is a handgun. Personally, I'd like to see more action taken on the gun control side for those over long guns, including "assault-style" long guns.

I'm afraid the NRA has completely blown its credibility with me. Whereas they could have served a useful function for representing gun owners in a reasonable way, they have chosen instead to gratuitously goose irrational fears and positions simply for the sake of furthering their own existence. No respect from me, at all.

I was at Cabella's a few months ago, buying ammunition... the register clerk asked if I wanted to "round up" my purchase to make a voluntary contribution to an organization. "Which one?" I asked.

He waved vaguely at a wall behind him and said, "Oh, one of those."

I couldn't make out anything specific, so I asked, "Is the NRA one of them?"

He grinned broadly and said, "Yes, of course!"

"Then no," I replied.

I enjoyed the look of bewilderment that crossed his face, I admit.

[Minimalist]

An interesting piece that hit the news today. Deals with the other side of the coin. Crazy people.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/2013102...20S82.html

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) - The last piece of legislation President John F. Kennedy signed turns 50 this month: the Community Mental Health Act, which helped transform the way people with mental illness are treated and cared for in the United States.

Signed on Oct. 31, 1963, weeks before Kennedy was assassinated, the legislation aimed to build mental health centers accessible to all Americans so that those with mental illnesses could be treated while working and living at home, rather than being kept in neglectful and often abusive state institutions, sometimes for years on end.

Kennedy said when he signed the bill that the legislation to build 1,500 centers would mean the population of those living in state mental hospitals - at that time more than 500,000 people - could be cut in half. In a special message to Congress earlier that year, he said the idea was to successfully and quickly treat patients in their own communities and then return them to "a useful place in society."

Recent deadly mass shootings, including at the Washington Navy Yard and a Colorado movie theater, have been perpetrated by men who were apparently not being adequately treated for serious mental illnesses. Those tragedies have focused public attention on the mental health system and made clear that Kennedy's vision was never fully realized.

As always...money is a factor.