Racial inequality is a real issue, what that has to do with gun control and protecting children is a mystery.
| sundin13 said: I would personally ban Class #3, but otherwise I think that seems to be a pretty solid plan in regards to firearm legality, however I think it misses a lot of other avenues where we should be attempting to combat this crisis. Namely, universal background checks and restrictions on who can own guns. So, I would add the following: -Every time a firearm changes possession, a background check must be conducted. No exceptions. -Raise the age required to purchase a firearm to 21. -Ban individuals with a history of substance abuse or non-felony domestic violence charges from firearm ownership for a period of time (Research would be necessary to determine how long this period should be). Additionally, violent felons should never get their firearm owning rights returned to them. -All firearms must have a unique serial number. I would also support a firearm registry in order to both improve enforcement and to help solve crimes, but this seems like more of a long term goal than a short term one. Additionally, we should seek to more holistically address crime by seeking to improve access to housing, improve schooling, improve wages, etc, but while I believe this is extremely important, I do think it is a bit of a different discussion. |
The logic behind allowing Class 3 is that Switzerland and the Czech Republic have similar allowances with very low criminality. This strongly hints that other social factors, like income equality and relative social integration are pretty crucial in reducing violent crime.
I can support a 21 year old age limit for Class 2 + in so much as the military also must be limited to 21 year olds or older to join. I think allowing supervised Class 1 for people under 21 years old is fine for hunting and game shooting.
I don't think people with substance abuse issues should necessarily be banned because that creates a disincentive to seek help for one's substance abuse problem, but agree about non-felony domestic violence.
I think there is some fundamental issue with prisons if they don't actually do what their advocates say they do -- reform criminals. If people don't exit prisons reformed there is something fundamental that needs to change about them, as that is the entire ostensible basis for their existence. See: Prisons: A Social Crime and Failure
Personally I think the overwhelming majority of crime is based on people trying to meet their material needs through illegal means. If those material needs are met, the bulk of crimes don't happen. This is what I see as the major difference between the U.S and other developed countries.
| Chrkeller said: Racial inequality is a real issue, what that has to do with gun control and protecting children is a mystery. |
I've literally linked multiple sources explaining the connection and described the connection in multiple posts.
This tweet by a councilwoman in Denver explains it quite clearly though.
I am physically sick to my stomach. Council just approved a ban on CCW in parks that'll justify racial profiling & responding guns drawn to allegations of a gun. No proof needed. No data backing this ban except that last year Black ppl had the highest rate of CCWs approved.Shame
— Candi CdeBaca (@CandiCdeBacaD9) May 17, 2022
"that'll justify racial profiling"
"No data backing this ban except that last year Black ppl had the highest rate of CCWs approved."
Or this article which sources data on how gun charges disproportionately affect Black men, titled There’s a large racial disparity in federal gun prosecutions in Missouri, data shows
https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/gun-violence-missouri/article258304878.html
Racial profiling isn't the same as gun control. With all due respect your argument non sequitur.
And we should fix both. Using one to block the other is silly.
| Chrkeller said: Racial profiling isn't the same as gun control. With all due respect your argument non sequitur. And we should fix both. Using one to block the other is silly. |
The pretense of most racial profiling instances is that the people being profiled are carrying illegal guns. This is precisely the issue the councilwoman was addressing. When white people were concealed carrying there was no reason for this council to pass a law, but when Black people started to conceal carry the law was passed.
It is possible and almost always the case that multiple issues intersect.
Last edited by sc94597 - on 25 May 2022
sc94597 said:
Thank you for engaging with the questions I asked. While the bolded works to prevent the future sales of semi-automatic weapons from licensed dealers, how does one reduce weapons already owned from circulating? There are enough guns in the U.S for almost everyone to have two, and plenty of people who have hoarded them. You mention that there can be hefty fines when somebody is found with a weapon without a license. But many people with these particular weapons live in Second Amendment sanctuaries.The likelihood that they would even be reported and/or there is evidence that they own the weapon (since there are no registries) is slim if they live in these counties/states. Buy-back programs would have to be very generous, especially when the price of the weapon suddenly increases if there is no new production. New York for example had a buy-back program with very low compliance. The discussion surrounding race isn't to make an excuse, but to bring it to the forefront that enacting even more strong gun-law criminalization will lead to more inequalities between races. It is only a separate issue if the race issue is addressed before or concurrently to the enactment of the laws. Addressing the race issue addresses many of these mass-shootings at the source anyway. Advocates of gun control as the solution, should be even stronger advocates against white-supremacy because eliminating white-supremacy is the only mechanism in which gun laws can be equitably applied. Having said all of that, I do support a licensing system. The sort of licensing system that is found in the Czech Republic would probably be quite an easy sell. Alternatively, one of the best ideas for a licensing system I've heard is to have multiple different classes of fire-arms based on if they are rim-fire or center-fire, concealable vs. non-concealable, etc, and to couple the license with a nationwide carry permit to act as an incentive for gun owners to become licensed so that they can carry seamlessly across states. It isn't clear to me that this really solves the problem of there being hundreds of millions of guns already in circulation though, although it does solve other problems -- like educating gun owners on safe-storage, accident prevention, theft prevention, etc. |
I did not know about second amendment sanctuaries. Americans are even crazier than I thought... Why is that a thing. Get rid of them first. If you don't agree with the law, you don't create a law free area. Why was this allowed to evolve? Wth...
You can start from the other direction, make gunpowder a controlled substance. Sure, there's tons of ammunition around and you can make your own bullets. Same for alcohol and drugs though. The extra barrier helps.
It seems to work for Czech republic, still only at half the number of guns / 100 inhabitants as Canada. But you're right, there are still far too many guns in the USA. If you look at this table:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Venezuela sits at nearly 50 gun related deaths per 100,000, USA at 12.2, 18.5 guns / 100 inhabitants in Venezuela vs 120.5 / 100 in the USA. Yet there are no school shootings in Venezuela. Kids apparently don't have access to guns.
Part of the education for a licensing system is to keep guns safely locked away. So it would help. Of course if you want to keep a loaded gun under your pillow because of armed home invasion risk...
You got to start somewhere, so good idea to start with licensing and education. You would think parents would get it by now, but it just keeps happening. If your kid takes your car for a joy-ride, aren't the parents responsible for the damage caused? Do the parents get charged with accessory to murder in school shootings?
It's been tried as involuntary manslaughter
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/14/opinion/school-shootings-parents.html
It is not unheard-of for adults to be charged with child abuse, violation of gun laws or even involuntary manslaughter after children too young to be prosecuted accidentally shoot themselves or other children. But for the most part, adult prosecution for school shootings by children is rare:
Between 1999 and 2018, children committed at least 145 school shootings, according to a review from The Washington Post.
Children used guns taken from their own homes or from those of relatives or friends in 84 of the 105 instances where a source could be identified, or about 80 percent of the time.
Across those 84 cases, just four adult owners were ever convicted of a crime.
“I can’t think of a high-profile mass shooting where the parents were prosecuted,” said Allison Anderman, director of local policy at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
Why? Legal experts told The Times that a major hurdle to prosecution is the absence in most states — including Michigan — of what’s known as child-access prevention, or C.A.P., laws, which require gun owners to secure their weapons when children are in the household. McDonald has tried to get around that hurdle by charging the parents with involuntary manslaughter.
And we're back to racism why it's a bad idea
“Given common negative stereotypes about Black criminality and parental irresponsibility, holding parents responsible for their children’s felonies could easily lead to still more racially disparate prosecutions,” he writes in The Washington Post. And because racial minorities are also more at risk for gang involvement, “prosecutors might target Black parents who fail to identify warning signs in advance and don’t intervene before someone gets hurt or killed.”
Get those C.A.P. laws nation wide first thing. The more I dive into this rabbit hole, the scarier the USA gets as a country...
This seems to be the last of that case (delayed)
https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/judge-delays-case-against-michigan-school-suspect-s-parents-1.5706275
https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/judge-won-t-lower-bond-for-michigan-school-shooting-suspect-s-parents-1.5866627
That was April 19th. So I guess they are still in county jail waiting for trial.
Bullying and child neglect should be taken more seriously everywhere. We had tragic news a couple months ago. A 12 year old girl that used to live in our neighborhood and stayed at our house a couple times took her own life. She swallowed a full bottle or Tylenol and Advil. By the time they found her, her liver had sustained too much damage and she died in the hospital.
It makes you wonder if you could have done more. We called the school years ago with our concerns of how she was mostly on her own. Hanging out at the park by herself not even 10 years old. She was bullied at school because of her weight and ultimately didn't survive the move back to in school learning. I don't know if the parents could have done more, they were well aware and tried to get her more help:
https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/brantford-family-calls-for-increased-youth-mental-health-services-after-losing-12-year-old-daughter-1.5850300
The difference with the USA is, too easy to turn suicide into murder spree suicide. Yet the root cause is the same. Guns don't cause depression, but they do add collateral damage and make it a lot easier to commit suicide as well as accidental deaths.
It's not an easy problem, inequality, racism, bullying, lack of counseling, lack of supervision, class size, school size, it all plays a big part.
| Chrkeller said: Racial profiling isn't the same as gun control. With all due respect your argument non sequitur. And we should fix both. Using one to block the other is silly. |
I don't fully agree.
Bias in the policing system is an issue inherent to all changes in our legislation which increases interactions between civilians and police. It is not off topic to say "We should be careful about trying to solve this problem by throwing laws at individuals", it is an entirely valid concern. Now, that of course doesn't mean we should do nothing, but we should look at the many points in the chain instead of simply the final one. This is part of the reason I feel point-of-sale laws are likely to be better than possession laws. The implementation issues that come with the latter don't hit the former in the same way. Further, especially when it comes to sales by businesses, this is something that can be regulated by the Federal government, avoiding issues with sanctuary cities and police violence to a large degree.
sc94597 said:
The logic behind allowing Class 3 is that Switzerland and the Czech Republic have similar allowances with very low criminality. This strongly hints that other social factors, like income equality and relative social integration are pretty crucial in reducing violent crime. I can support a 21 year old age limit for Class 2 + in so much as the military also must be limited to 21 year olds or older to join. I think allowing supervised Class 1 for people under 21 years old is fine for hunting and game shooting. I don't think people with substance abuse issues should necessarily be banned because that creates a disincentive to seek help for one's substance abuse problem, but agree about non-felony domestic violence. I think there is some fundamental issue with prisons if they don't actually do what their advocates say they do -- reform criminals. If people don't exit prisons reformed there is something fundamental that needs to change about them, as that is the entire ostensible basis for their existence. See: Prisons: A Social Crime and Failure Personally I think the overwhelming majority of crime is based on people trying to meet their material needs through illegal means. If those material needs are met, the bulk of crimes don't happen. This is what I see as the major difference between the U.S and other developed countries. |
I feel like if we get to a point where we have low crime, we can perhaps allow those Class 3 weapons then, but until that point it doesn't seem to make sense to me.
As for substance abuse, the reason it is included is because it is a strong predictor of gun violence. This operates on largely the same level as mental health evaluations, and the same argument could be made regarding mental health (banning people who wouldn't pass a mental health screening disincentivizes seeking help). However, especially with substance abuse, this is often something that comes with legal consequences if left untreated, so disincentive effects would be less prevalent. Overall, I feel that this is a trade-off that I am more than willing to make. As previously stated, I do believe that there should be a path to being allowed to own a firearm, however I don't know what that would specifically look like.
I agree with your point regarding prisons, however until this issue is fixed, I think this is a key reason why we should not return gun rights to felons after serving their sentence. It may be a long term goal, but it would be reckless to return these rights without first fixing the prison system.
| sc94597 said: There is estimated to be about 400-600 million guns in the U.S. The majority of them are probably semi-automatic weapons at this point. That is a gun to person ratio of between 1.2 and 1.8. Controlling the supply of guns is just not logistically possible at this point. It would be easier to:
Introducing every point on this list would be easier (and likely have a greater effect on shootings) than reducing the supply of guns in the U.S. Solving these problems would also solve many other social problems in the U.S as well. |
I saw your post and words cannot express the joy I feel that there is one person who sees the root over the symptom.
SvennoJ said:
|
Only the Venezuelan government has the guns. Communism and mass poverty followed gun control. The gun related deaths are the citizens being shot by military police.
Stop selling high powered, high mag assault rifles
Raise the age for all guns to 21
Stop second hand sales
The idea that ease of access isn't a contributing factor is baffling. About all I can in this thread, because too many simply care about their guns more than people.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
