The Thoughtful and Considered Gun Thread

[Dr Maturin]

What can be done to help reduce the loss of life?

If we want to look at the numbers, fewer people are dying by percentage now than ever before. People are living longer. We have a higher standard of living. Imposing restrictive measures on the populace and infringing on their rights in the attempt to save lives isn't a good tradeoff, especially considering that even though the measures may prevent prospective perpretrators from acquiring weaponry through "legitimate" means, they will still be able to carry out their murderous acts once they get the hardware from less-than-legal sources.

To conduct a mass killing, you need an appropriate weapon.

And a motive and will to act on it.

I'm not sure why you think the people in law enforcement would be more prone to this than those in the military,

Members of the military (save for MPs :P) are taught to defend their country and its citizenry. Cops are taught to be suspicious of and patrol the citizenry.

but even with heavily armed SWAT teams, the police do not have enough personel to subjugate the US. Especially if you believe the armed forces will do what's right.

If the civilians are unarmed, it would be a simple thing for police forces to impose their will. There could conceivably be a scenario where the military is reduced in size, spread thin, and subject to limitations in their ability to defend the American people. In short, just as I don't think the military would use violence on civilians, I also believe it is likely they would respect state, county and municipal forces' jurisdictions.

[Jan]

If we want to look at the numbers, fewer people are dying by percentage now than ever before. People are living longer. We have a higher standard of living. Imposing restrictive measures on the populace and infringing on their rights in the attempt to save lives isn't a good tradeoff, especially considering that even though the measures may prevent prospective perpretrators from acquiring weaponry through "legitimate" means, they will still be able to carry out their murderous acts once they get the hardware from less-than-legal sources.

The fact that people are living longer has nothing to do with the discussion. The question is how to reduce the needless loss of life. And while I keep hearing of how prospective shooters will get the weapons they want through criminal sources, I submit that for all that it's possible, it does provide a delay, even a roadblock since most people aren't exactly plugged into the black market. In addition, it would likely allow an avenue for law enforcement to discover and block the attempt, much as folks looking to hire somebody to kill another individual are sometimes caught before it can happen.

And you don't answer the question of whether all guns should be allowed in private hands or if some should be illegal.

Jan

[Milkman]

Just going to jump in here... not that anything i say will likely make any difference... but i feel many are looking at this the wrong way. You can have a thread on gun control, which i will comment on, but the real discussion needing to be had i feel is in my second paragraph.

There are how many millions of guns in the US? Maybe a billion? Of the type of gun used just the other day, i think i read somewhere there was like 3million of them made and sold in the US. How many of those have been used to kill? Whats the percentage there? If we stop their sale now... what do you do about all the guns already out there? What guns do you allow, what don't you allow. How easy will it be to change those laws once in place? Who will determine this list of allowed or not allowed? What penalty's will be put in place to those breaking these laws? Why will these laws be more helpful then DO NOT KILL?

The reason these deaths happen isn't because there are guns. Its because people want to kill people. Why? I don't know!?!?! Because doing so make one (in)famous? Because we have far too many sick/disturbed/mentally ill people who who untreated/mis-treated/under-treated? What i DO know is we have a social problem that there is no easy fix for. The key is fixing that problem without making things worse or impeding on the rights of everyone for the exceptions to the rules. Cure the disease, don't just treat the symptoms.

Anyway... in the end i have no solutions.. just different questions.

[Jan]

You're right, Milkman. And those are absolutely valid questions. But I do differ with you in the end. You wrote:

Cure the disease, don't just treat the symptoms.

Part of the problem is that the disease isn't easily defined. But for me, the main thing is that if all we concentrate on is a final cure, many will die unnecessarily in the meantime. Treating the symptoms is perfectly valid in the meantime and it might help point the way to a cure.

The three things I see people pointing to as THE problem are:

Guns (obviously)
Mental health issues and
a society that has a major gun culture

I've been around long enough to see a few social changes in my time, from equal rights (still in process) to anti-smoking (pretty much accomplished) and many others. They take *decades*.

Given that we've almost completely dismantled any kind of mental health safety net, while it's a very valid approach, again it'll take a long time to implement effective help.

But to some extent, it's possible to make changes to gun regulation right now. Ordinarily I'm very much *not* in favor of emotional legislating but recent years have shown us just how fleeting the attention span of the nation is so I'm supportive of some form of immediate legislative solution.

To partially answer your question about how many guns there are in the US, I found this but I don't know how accurate it might be:

The FBI estimates that there are over 200 million privately-owned firearms in the US. If you add those owned by the military, law enforcement agencies and museums, there is probably about 1 gun per person in the country.

Jan

[WorkerCaste]

I don't think anyone is ignoring the social problem that underlies these attacks. Going well back into history, these kinds of attacks have existed. I'm not sure when it actually originated, but "running amok" as an expression grew up prior to the 18th century (in Malay iirc) to describe men who took a sword or knife into a crowded place and attacked as many people as they could. The act itself is probably much older still. The cultural imperatives and psychiatric conditions that drive such attacks may change over time, but it seems like it is wired into the human condition.

Starting from that point we then compound the problem through a couple of historic trends. For one, the population has increased a lot. That makes it both more likely to happen, and more likely to happen in an environment where many people are potential victims.

The second factor that comes to mind for me, is the technology enabling the killing. If you run into a crowd with a sword, it is harder and slower to kill, and unarmed people have a better chance to intervene. Range is also reduced, so those more able can move in to stop the attack while the more vulnerable move away.

You probably can't change human nature, so you're stuck with the impulse in sick minds to kill. We keep learning more about detecting and treating such illness, but it's not going away. The population is pretty much here to stay, so you're also stuck with higher rates of affliction and denser population centers. To my mind, that leaves the technology as an area to impact.

I don't have the answer, either. I'm not anti-gun. I just don't think we are doing enough to limit the effectiveness of the weapons available when someone does run amok.

[Dr Maturin]

The fact that people are living longer has nothing to do with the discussion.

If the conversation was framed in the context of savings lives, more lives are being saved today than ever before.

The question is how to reduce the needless loss of life. And while I keep hearing of how prospective shooters will get the weapons they want through criminal sources, I submit that for all that it's possible, it does provide a delay, even a roadblock since most people aren't exactly plugged into the black market. In addition, it would likely allow an avenue for law enforcement to discover and block the attempt, much as folks looking to hire somebody to kill another individual are sometimes caught before it can happen.

It wouldn't really be a "black market" with transactions taking place in a damp alley. It isn't hard to get your hands on a gun. I buy and trade guns all the time on different websites. There aren't any background checks there. Regulating that medium would not make many of the (mostly harmless) people who trade in guns go away. They'd just find other ways of engaging in business. If there is a buyer, there is a seller. A few times I've had gang-looking types (I like Facebook name search) respond and I simply deleted their e-mail.

And you don't answer the question of whether all guns should be allowed in private hands or if some should be illegal.

I have semi-automatic pistols and rifles and shotguns. I'd like to own a fully auto. Does that answer your question?

[Jan]

If the conversation was framed in the context of savings lives, more lives are being saved today than ever before.

Only if you completely ignore the topic of conversation as stated in the thread title. As JMS pointed out, that's pettifogging (I like that word).

I have semi-automatic pistols and rifles and shotguns. I'd like to own a fully auto. Does that answer your question?

Can you give some insight into why you like them and want the fully automatic? What do you do with them?

BTW, I'm aware that we're not concentrating on the original questions, but I'm good with that as long as there's actual communication happening.

Jan

[Jan]

Going well back into history, these kinds of attacks have existed. I'm not sure when it actually originated, but "running amok" as an expression grew up prior to the 18th century (in Malay iirc) to describe men who took a sword or knife into a crowded place and attacked as many people as they could. The act itself is probably much older still. The cultural imperatives and psychiatric conditions that drive such attacks may change over time, but it seems like it is wired into the human condition.

At one time berserkers were valued by the military (or what fulfilled that function). These days the military requires a more well-balanced soldier, I hear.

The second factor that comes to mind for me, is the technology enabling the killing. If you run into a crowd with a sword, it is harder and slower to kill, and unarmed people have a better chance to intervene. Range is also reduced, so those more able can move in to stop the attack while the more vulnerable move away.

A lot of comparisons have been made with the incident in China where children were stabbed. One reason why I'm in favor of fewer bullets in a gun or magazine is that, in theory at least) there would be a window for intervention while a shooter reloaded.

Jan

[WorkerCaste]

At one time berserkers were valued by the military (or what fulfilled that function). These days the military requires a more well-balanced soldier, I hear.

Beserkers (and other military versions) actually originate from a different imperative. They generally came out of desperation. When outnumbered and hopeless, the frenzy would come out and sometimes shift an otherwise dire outcome. It didn't come from a desire simply to do harm to others. I think they would still tolerate a beserk frenzy in the military today.

A lot of comparisons have been made with the incident in China where children were stabbed. One reason why I'm in favor of fewer bullets in a gun or magazine is that, in theory at least) there would be a window for intervention while a shooter reloaded.

Exactly!

[Milkman]

Part of the problem is that the disease isn't easily defined. But for me, the main thing is that if all we concentrate on is a final cure, many will die unnecessarily in the meantime. Treating the symptoms is perfectly valid in the meantime and it might help point the way to a cure.

Fair point, however as you even mentioned we are dismantling our mental health programs not building them. And quite truthfully we are trying to tear down our education system as well which is also just as much as issue. So really we are NOT looking for a cure as if almost on purpose. Why? because there is no profit in it? Do we as a society WANT to have these issues for some reason?

The three things I see people pointing to as THE problem are:

Guns (obviously)
Mental health issues and
a society that has a major gun culture

I disagree with your list.. as obviously i don't think guns are the actual problem. Mental health issues and that society has a major VIOLENCE culture is the problem.

Regulation of guns... might make some small dent, but if there really are that many guns already out there, its too late on that front. It will take a very long time for those to all quit working. If you try to take the guns away, or limit bullet production there will be quite a LARGE backlash and im guessing more than a little violence as a result from that.

If you can just get people not to want to kill each other... doesn't mater how many weapons there are. Remove the desire to use them against one another and the problem goes away. And yes i know that's not happening anytime soon either.

I guess this is just another example of our technology advancing faster than our societies ability to cope with it.

[Jan]

Fair point, however as you even mentioned we are dismantling our mental health programs not building them. And quite truthfully we are trying to tear down our education system as well which is also just as much as issue. So really we are NOT looking for a cure as if almost on purpose. Why? because there is no profit in it? Do we as a society WANT to have these issues for some reason?

I think that's way beyond the scope that we can cover here. Yes, it's happened/is happening. But I don't think anybody can think that this kind of problem could have been foreseen.

I disagree with your list.. as obviously i don't think guns are the actual problem.

Not the entirety, no. But it's undeniable that with guns, more people end up dead than injured.

Mental health issues and that society has a major VIOLENCE culture is the problem.

I don't disagree. But it's not an either/or issue, I don't think. Why not try to approach the problem from several angles?

And I definitely agree that it's a violence culture at least as much as a gun culture. I've often quoted Spider Robinson's observation that there's something sick about a society that finds a naked breast more obscene than a naked blade.

If you can just get people not to want to kill each other... doesn't mater how many weapons there are. Remove the desire to use them against one another and the problem goes away. And yes i know that's not happening anytime soon either.

Mainly because, while it's simple to say, it's not simple to accomplish.

I read a book by John Brunner once (I believe it's Stand on Zanzibar) and his term for the people who go on killing rampages was 'mucker', a take off on the word 'amok'. In that society, it was overpopulation that seemed to be the trigger for the killer. I don't think that's really the case here but I can't help wonder if it might be a contributing factor in some cases.

Jan

[WorkerCaste]

Regulation of guns... might make some small dent, but if there really are that many guns already out there, its too late on that front. It will take a very long time for those to all quit working. If you try to take the guns away, or limit bullet production there will be quite a LARGE backlash and im guessing more than a little violence as a result from that.

I agree that with the number of guns already out there, the impact of any regulation will be greatly lessened, but doing nothing as a result of the scope of the challenges is no better than doing nothing about mental health issues as a result of the problem. Sometimes you have to start making things better in whatever way you can and work your way towards the big solution.

[Milkman]

Well.. on that note. Since we have no quick answers and people think at least something can be done right away. I would support right now the first 2 things on Jan's list at the start of this thread without blinking.

1.) Wait periods to make sure someone who is buying a gun isn't unstable or a criminal is a totally acceptable idea. While that does cause problems with 'gun shows' which are quite popular in my area, i think things can be worked out. The length of waiting time isn't as important as the ability to completely check out the person in my opinion. The time should be enough to adequately check the person buying.

2.) Gun training and safety is also very important. I have taken training courses, it is required for youth hunters in my area, and plan on having my children take them even if they decide not to hunt. Its important they know how guns work and how to respect how dangerous they can be.

Insurance... in theory i like the idea. In practice good luck. Having just had my car/home owners insurance dropped because a storm in the last year then trying to find another who will take on a 'high risk' person for decent price SUCKS. I did nothing to cause the damage, but yet im punished. What happens if your guns get stolen? Will you be dropped? Rates go up? How will THAT get regulated?

As for clip size... i will agree that 100 mag clips are a little crazy, not to mention unreliable. :P But at what point is the cut off? hand guns are a little easier as the clip is usually in the handle. Clip should FIT in the gun. Shotguns, the shells can fit in storage the length of the barrel, drum addons un-needed for general use. But rifles and such is all a mater of opinion. What is too much? Why 6 to 10? Why not 10-15?

Last the slippery slope argument... I think B5 is a good example of how slippery slopes can work to the harm of many. But, not everything is a slippery slope. Are some of these ideas?

[Jan]

Insurance... in theory i like the idea. In practice good luck. Having just had my car/home owners insurance dropped because a storm in the last year then trying to find another who will take on a 'high risk' person for decent price SUCKS. I did nothing to cause the damage, but yet im punished. What happens if your guns get stolen? Will you be dropped? Rates go up? How will THAT get regulated?

Sorry about your home/car insurance. As for your questions...

- Seems to me that if the NRA wants people to have guns so badly, maybe they should do the insuring. That's not quite as flippant as it sounds because I know that the NRA promotes gun safety and training.

- What if the gun gets stolen? Make sure it doesn't. Get a gun safe. Bolt it to the wall. Make a secret compartment someplace. But never have that gun anyplace it can get into the wrong hands. And if it does get stolen and isn't reported before a crime is committed - be glad you've got the insurance and be prepared to get dropped.

More seriously, though - maybe DM can also share what he does insurance-wise since he's the one gun owner that we know of who's in the conversation.

Jan

[Milkman]

And if it does get stolen and isn't reported before a crime is committed - be glad you've got the insurance and be prepared to get dropped.

As far as i know there is not any special insurance i have to carry as a home owner with a gun. Its just another possession in it. BUT if you have a nice gun collection, you may chose to insure it separately i would assume.

Also just saw a headline about a new assault weapons ban. Not sure there are any details on it yet though.