Extreme gun control positions

[Belk]

The NY Times posted this chart a while back on what might be helpful vs what might be politically possible. I don't think it had much impact on the debate: How to Reduce Mass Shooting Deaths? Experts Rank Gun Laws

Interesting. Thank you. I'm one of those radical pro second amendment gun owners who thinks we should have sensible laws to reduce gun violence.

 

[Radagast]

Interesting. Thank you. I'm one of those radical pro second amendment gun owners who thinks we should have sensible laws to reduce gun violence.

And I'm one of those Australians that lives with strict gun laws.

But for a law to be sensible it has to be both effective and constitutional. Some of the proposals I've heard from the US are neither (given the second amendment).

What's worse, some of the more extreme proposals (like eliminating all semiautomatic handguns, which would be unconstitutional) create a not entirely unjustified fear among gun owners that people want to take their existing guns away. That creates a climate where compromise becomes very difficult. In that sense, the more extreme proposals are definitely counter-productive.

 

[Vylo]

I often hear conservatives say that if liberals in America had their way, any kind of private gun ownership would be completely illegal, and all privately-owned firearms would be confiscated by the government.

I certainly don't support that. In my opinion that would be ridiculous. I just support stricter background checks, less NRA influence on politicians, and more required training and safety classes - just like you need to pass a test and get a license to drive a car, the same should go for using a gun. So I was just wondering, how many self-identified liberals here believe that a a complete ban of firearms would be beneficial, practical, and Constitutional?

I'm a liberal that firmly supports the 2nd amendment. It has it's costs, but I feel it is worthwhile.

 

[OK Jeff]

The reason for the firearms debate in the US is the vast numbers of people who die on a regular basis because we can't agree on reasonable limits on whom should have access to them.

If the focus was more on the “whom” and not a much the “what”, we’d have a much better chance at consensus.

 

[Belk]

And I'm one of those Australians that lives with strict gun laws.

But for a law to be sensible it has to be both effective and constitutional. Some of the proposals I've heard from the US are neither (given the second amendment).

What's worse, some of the more extreme proposals (like eliminating all semiautomatic handguns, which would be unconstitutional)

According to what legal scholar? I know most consider banning a class of gun extreme but I have never heard anyone credible claim it unconstitutional. Especially since there have been examples of bans that passed muster.

create a not entirely unjustified fear among gun owners that people want to take their existing guns away. That creates a climate where compromise becomes very difficult. In that sense, the more extreme proposals are definitely counter-productive.

There are extreme positions on both sides and they seem to be the only ones getting talked about. The idea of actually studying the issue and using data driven solutions has been blocked by the extremists on the other side. This constant back and forth exacerbates the extremism on both sides as no one can get a sensible idea moved forward people tend more towards the extremes.

 

[Belk]

If the focus was more on the “whom” and not a much the “what”, we’d have a much better chance at consensus.

Possibly. Though we would need bipartisan input. While I agree with the scuttling of the mental health bill that limited gun ownership (It had to many flaws) there has been nothing to replace it. This seems like a no brainier for a compromise bill.

 

[Radagast]

According to what legal scholar? I know most consider banning a class of gun extreme but I have never heard anyone credible claim it unconstitutional.

It's explicitly stated in the Heller decision: "The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of 'arms' that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home 'the most preferred firearm in the nation to "keep" and use for protection of one’s home and family,' would fail constitutional muster."

My personal opinion (which is worth very little) is that this would also apply to the most preferred firearms used for hunting. And according to Brett Kavanaugh, "there is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semiautomatic handguns and semiautomatic rifles." So the present SCOTUS is likely to overturn any wide-ranging ban on semiautomatic rifles.

The idea of actually studying the issue and using data driven solutions has been blocked by the extremists on the other side. This constant back and forth exacerbates the extremism on both sides as no one can get a sensible idea moved forward people tend more towards the extremes.

That's more or less what I've been saying.

 

[expos4ever]

You and I and anybody reading this will be aware that, within the context of the post, I was obviously referring to gun laws and gun deaths in the last sentence.

I agree, of course.

 

[expos4ever]

To put it in simple terms, if I want to murder you and I can't get a gun, I will use a knife.

Are you speculating, or do you have evidence to support this claim. If the data you have presented supports you, I confess I don’t see it.

 

[Radagast]

Are you speculating, or do you have evidence to support this claim. If the data you have presented supports you, I confess I don’t see it.

I presented a chart showing that there is no correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates.

I don't fully understand your question, though. Did you not realise that knives are used to murder people? Here in Australia, knives are used in 42% of homicides (up from 32%), which means that our national weapons control debate, as in the UK, is mostly about knife control.

 

[expos4ever]

I presented a chart showing that there is no correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates.

Even if you are right, how does it follow that if denied a gun someone would use another type of weapon?

 

[Radagast]

Even if you are right, how does it follow that if denied a gun someone would use another type of weapon?

It's proven by the fact that gun laws don't influence total homicide rates.

 

[expos4ever]

Here's a graph of gun ownership vs homicide rate, btw. Among US states, there is no correlation.

Please cite your source for this chart.

 

[expos4ever]

It's proven by the fact that gun laws don't influence total homicide rates.

From the Harvard Injury Control Research Center (emphasis mine):

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the U.S., where there are more guns, both men and women are at a higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Note: I concede that this study characterizes the correlation between gun availability and homicide, not gun laws and homicide.

 

[expos4ever]

It's proven by the fact that gun laws don't influence total homicide rates.

From Fortune magazine (again, emphasis mine):

The effect of gun laws on shootings in America has long been a source of heated debate. Part of the reason: new laws have largely been implemented piecemeal across the country, meaning it’s difficult to measure their impact. The country has enacted almost no new restrictions on gun ownership at the federal level in more than a decade. It has mostly fallen to states to police the spread of firearms—or not.

However, the data we do have is still illuminating. In attempt to gauge the impact of such laws, Fortune plotted the number of gun provisions in each state, using research by the State Firearm Laws project, against each state’s gun homicides, using Gun Violence Archive statistics. Correlation does not equal causation, but the revealed trend is striking: States with more gun provisions consistently see fewer gun deaths.

 

[expos4ever]

It's proven by the fact that gun laws don't influence total homicide rates.

From the American Journal of Public Health (emphasis mine):

We found no robust, statistically significant correlation between gun ownership and stranger firearm homicide rates. However, we found a positive and significant association between gun ownership and nonstranger firearm homicide rates.

So according to this study, gun ownership does not correlate to murders where the perpetrator and the victim are strangers, but more guns correlate with more murders where the perpetrator and the victim know one another.

Note: I concede that this study characterizes the correlation between gun ownership and homicide, not gun laws and homicide.

 

[Fantine]

Expos4ever, I am so disappointed that you are Canadian. But your experience is similar to mine as an older American living much of my life in the suburbs of NYC.

As a PTA president in NY in the early 1980's, I saw the state convention launch a proposal to ban the sale of TOY guns because it encouraged violence in children.

Now I live in the South, where parents give REAL guns to little kids for Christmas.

But I notice something all the time. You are gentle, Expos4ever, as am I. Aggression is not part of my skill set, and I believe it's because we are gun-free. If I mention my position on guns in a gentle but firm way, the response I often get from gun owners often borders on savagery. They use hostility and intimidation to try to browbeat those of us who believe in communications and discussions into silence. It almost borders on psychological abuse.

Is it nurture? Or lack of it? If the gun owners I know could act with more civility I would perhaps be more accepting, but it seems as if their gun rights posture brings out the worst in their behavior.

Please note that this is about my experience. I know there are gun owners out there who don't display this aggression---and I feel a lot safer about their gun ownership.

 

[Sketcher]

As with scripture, people will always interpret the constitution to mean what they want. Even constitutional scholars can’t agree on one interpretation. And fetishizing the intention of the founders is silly. They weren’t gods and they lived in another time. They were ignorant compared to modern scholars. Their judgement was wrong on race and women’s rights (in keeping with the time,) so I see no reason to assume all of their other judgements were correct.,Wisdom evolves with science, travel, and exposure to other cultures and ideas.

First you were talking about amending the Constitution, now you're just talking about reinterpreting it in whatever way seems convenient to you. Which if valid, would defeat the purpose of requiring Amendments. That doesn't fly. Furthermore, I have not been given a valid reason to think that they were wrong about the nature of man and how power both corrupts and attracts the corruptible.

O come on. I could use this same logic to say that I am more free if I am allowed to run nekkid in the streets.

Please don’t pretend you don’t get my point: in many countries, citizens enjoy all the really important freedoms that Americans enjoy.

Yet without the spector of violent death by gun.

You would be more free if you were allowed to run nekkid in the streets, no debate there.

The freedom to keep and bear arms is a "really important freedom." I can walk to at least one store where I could purchase a gun, and several more to where I could purchase ammunition, and I feel safe where I live as well. I'm normally not one for protests, but I went to a Second Amendment rally this year, there were hundreds of people with guns there from concealed pistols to AR-15s, and I felt very safe.

 

[Radagast]

In attempt to gauge the impact of such laws, Fortune plotted the number of gun provisions in each state, using research by the State Firearm Laws project, against each state’s gun homicides, using Gun Violence Archive statistics.

Clearly debate with you is pointless. This does not contradict what I said: gun laws and gun ownership have no effect on total homicide rates.

 

[Radagast]

Aggression is not part of my skill set, and I believe it's because we are gun-free.

If that was true, there would be no aggression here in Australia.