The Thoughtful and Considered Gun Thread

[Chipmunk]

This week, PBS is running a series of gun violence related documentaries.

Tomorrow, "Nova" is going to do something on the science of pre-detecting spree killers.

Tonight's were a mixed bag.

"Frontline" used to be amazing, and still sometimes is, but this episode on the Newtown killer was disappointing. It's clear that there is not yet enough info to warrant what they were trying to examine (background/upbringing of the killer). There was a lot of hand waving and questionable (bias-wise) second hand very vague reports about the kid, mainly by friends of the mother.
There were definite indications of severe emotional abuse, but they didn't pursue that angle.

The big surprise was the excellent "After Newtown: Guns in America".
It was just a straight up history of guns in the US, with no obvious (to me) bias.
Methodical, yet interesting.

[David Panzer]

I just had to post this

[WorkerCaste]

I've been wondering about something. Please don't take this as a provocation or trolling; I'm just honestly wondering.

How do the advocates of less or no gun control believe that the line should be drawn in terms of what sort of weaponry is legal for citizens to own? Mines, grenades, tanks, rocket launchers. Should these things be illegal? If so, how would such laws be justified in your view?

I think it's a reasonable question. The 2nd Amendment concerns the right to bear arms, and while that might not include tanks, personal arms could certainly be construed to include grenades, hand-held rocket launchers, etc. Since those aren't widely considered a protected arm, the question about how to draw the line seems to be very appropriate.

I'd take a stab and say it's mostly habit. Guns have been around longer than some of the other more dangerous personal arms. People have been thinking about long arms and pistols since the 2nd amendment was authored. Most people probably don't even stop to think about the others. I'm sure there are some militias who like to believe these other arms are covered by the 2nd, but the average person just thinks of guns.

[Jonas]

I've been wondering about something. Please don't take this as a provocation or trolling; I'm just honestly wondering.

How do the advocates of less or no gun control believe that the line should be drawn in terms of what sort of weaponry is legal for citizens to own? Mines, grenades, tanks, rocket launchers. Should these things be illegal? If so, how would such laws be justified in your view?

[Marsden]

Thanks for posting that, Jan. It was an interesting read and I have to say you have conducted this thread very well, but you always have been my favorite moderator.

[Jan]

I'm *not* playing devil's advocate here but I do at least try to have an informed opinion on things and this seems to be a pretty good article for the pro-gun side of things from somebody who at least seems to know what he's talking about.

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

It's long.

Jan

[WorkerCaste]

I'm sure that's true right now. I propose that minimum liability insurance be required of any gun owner unless they can provide witnessed (notorized) proof that it's kept in a safe deposit or other secure off-site place.

I've seen the insurance proposal in a couple of places, and in general I think it would be a good idea. The only thing I have trouble wrapping my head around is what the liability is. How much would insurance be required to pay to whom under what circumstances. There would need to be some way to assess the risk in order for insurance companies to establish rates.

For example, would they be required to pay the "value" of a life in the case of an insured gun being used to kill someone. There are already actuarial guidelines on how to place a monetary value on a lost life, not that anyone really feels that is the true value of that life. Part of the problem on that is that even a bolt action hunting gun can be used to take a life, so even the most innocuous gun would be a huge monetary risk. Insurance actuarials would need to be very conservative so the rates would likely be through the roof, especially until good actuarial tables can be created to relate environmental factors of the gun owners to risk. Ultimately, the biggest risk factor, though, is the mental of all the people with access. That's very hard to evaluate, especially under health information privacy laws.

The other end of the spectrum is to cap the monetary liabilty to a "reasonable" risk, but in the case of a mass shooting who does the money go to? It could be adding insult to injury to pay a victim's family some token amount representing an nth of the capped liability.

Again, I'm not saying I'm against the idea, it's just that in my limited knowledge of insurance I'm not seeing how you make it work. Anybody have any thoughts?

[Jan]

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.

I'm sure that's true right now. I propose that minimum liability insurance be required of any gun owner unless they can provide witnessed (notorized) proof that it's kept in a safe deposit or other secure off-site place.

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

I'm sure there will be many bills proposed, some introduced and few if any actually passed. But then, I'm pretty cynical at the moment.

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.

[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]

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?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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!