So what's the US doing?

[wing2000]

Evidence? If I don't pass the check I don't get my gun.

One potential solution has to do with the data and technology used in background checks — specifically, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

Cassandra Crifasi, a professor and deputy director at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions tells Marketplace’s Kimberly Adams that the database only works well if the information going into it is accurate and timely. The following is an edited transcript of their conversation.

<excerpt>

"When you walk into a gun seller and you submit your information for a background check, one of three things happens. Either you’re alerted that the sale can immediately proceed, it might be immediately denied, or more information is needed, more time is needed to check the records. Under federal law, the FBI has three days to complete that check. Otherwise, the default is to proceed with the sale. And then if the information comes back that that person is prohibited, law enforcement has to go and take a gun away from someone who never should have had it in the first place. The Charleston church shooter, for example, was prohibited. He obtained his firearm because of a default proceed loophole, his records were not identified within that three-day period. And so we’re seeing really tragic incidents happening because of these default proceeds. And I think this is something that we can get people to come together on and try to close this loophole."

Improving the database behind gun sale background checks could help prevent mass shootings

 

[RDKirk]

I think I'm most annoyed at success/status/wealth love. Look who our society holds up as the standards - Jobs, Musk, multi-millionaire footballers. Anyone successful, rich, famous. You're either a "loser" or a "winner". And where does that leave the young observing these things and knowing they'll never achieve what society values? The public school system used to prep students for 2 paths: college and the trades. Why are the trades gone? Because our government shipped all those jobs overseas.

I have talked about that, maybe in this thread.

There is no respect in the American zeitgeist for the "ordinary, decent life" that is actually the best most people can achieve. In the US, a "modestly comfortable life" is a booby prize...it's for losers.

A college professor took a survey of an incoming freshman class, asking them what they thought was the income of the average American. Most of them specified six figures as "average."

That kind of national cognizant dissonance leads to depression, rage, addiction, and violence. "I'm not rich. It must be somebody's fault!"

 

[RDKirk]

I think the problem is that for all of the the talk on gun regulation, those who are gun advocates don't trust the powers that be to not run the Slippery Slope down into an "all or nothing" legislation.

While I think gun-control can be balanced out, we have a number of folks here who think any 'control' will result in ALL guns being banned and/or removed in society. I think that's a stretch but that's the fear.

It's not a stretch when prominent politicians state it as the desired goal.

The immature gun fetish is unhealthy, deadly, but probably indicative of deeper existential problems.

Indeed, we're talking about an existential fear. Stop and reflect on that word. Legislation does not resolve the fear of people who are worried about their very existence.

 

[RDKirk]

"When you walk into a gun seller and you submit your information for a background check, one of three things happens. Either you’re alerted that the sale can immediately proceed, it might be immediately denied, or more information is needed, more time is needed to check the records. Under federal law, the FBI has three days to complete that check. Otherwise, the default is to proceed with the sale. And then if the information comes back that that person is prohibited, law enforcement has to go and take a gun away from someone who never should have had it in the first place. The Charleston church shooter, for example, was prohibited. He obtained his firearm because of a default proceed loophole, his records were not identified within that three-day period. And so we’re seeing really tragic incidents happening because of these default proceeds. And I think this is something that we can get people to come together on and try to close this loophole."

Improving the database behind gun sale background checks could help prevent mass shootings

That does need to be closed, and it's based on mere technical problems that can be fixed.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's not a stretch when prominent politicians state it as the desired goal.

... yeah, but I always think back to the examples of the days of 'Prohibition' of alcohol and/or to the short stint of McCarthyism as models of how effective and extensive American bills and laws often are: here today, gone tomorrow.....back for repeal and mediation on Monday!

Of course, who knows? Things could go awry on a more permament scale I suppose where guns are concerned, but all it would then take (with the conjuring that any Mr. Fix It could apply) is a fear of being invaded by some foreign power and "voila!": guns are back on the family table!

But as of the moment, all those kinds of scenarios are fiction.

 

[RDKirk]

Of course, who knows? Things could go awry on a more permament scale I suppose where guns are concerned, but all it would then take (with the conjuring that any Mr. Fix It could apply) is a fear of being invaded by some foreign power and "voila!": guns are back on the family table!

It's more a fear of domestic boogeymen. But they can't really be dismissed as mere "boogeymen."

Spend some time on a gun forum. How can people there be assured that south Chicago can never come to their own neighborhood?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's more a fear of domestic boogeymen. But they can't really be dismissed as mere "boogeymen."

Yeah, I suppose your right on that.

Spend some time on a gun forum. How can people there be assured that south Chicago can never come to their own neighborhood?

That's an interesting point. I may have to take a look at one of those ...

 

[trophy33]

When people are being dragged off by the police in Australia and Canada for holding worship services or having a protest, being " scared" of tyranny is perfectly logical.

Its logical only if you ignore the pandemic or have some paranoid idea that some beast/antichrist system is lying to everybody about it.

Anyway, guns would not help at all.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Its logical only if you ignore the pandemic or have some paranoid idea that some beast/antichrist system is lying to everybody about it.

Either of which are highly illogical.

 

[renniks]

Its logical only if you ignore the pandemic or have some paranoid idea that some beast/antichrist system is lying to everybody about it.

Anyway, guns would not help at all.

They seem to be helping the people of Ukraine quite a lot as they fight against a tyrannical government.

 

[Tom 1]

They seem to be helping the people of Ukraine quite a lot as they fight against a tyrannical government.

Comparisons like this between military engagements and people having a few guns at home are just daft. The defence forces and other volunteers fighting alongside Ukrainian regular forces were armed and trained by their own government, and they are fighting the representatives of another state that has invaded their country, using high-powered modern weaponry, not just some collection of handguns and semi-automatic weapons. This notion that having a gun at home would somehow prevent a military takeover is ludicrous, not only because it would be not a lot different to bringing a knife to a gunfight, but because the inverse of the feared takeover scenario is a much greater threat - people frustrated or fearful that their way of life is under threat voting in a so-called ‘strongman’ (in reality a narcissist driven by inner weakness is more usual) who then gradually moves towards ever-increasing tyranny, as in interbellum Germany. Tyranny begins with fear, the kind of fear that fuels the delusional idea that having a gun is going to stop bad things happening.

 

[trophy33]

They seem to be helping the people of Ukraine quite a lot as they fight against a tyrannical government.

Wrong. They fight against a foreign military. And with a heavy help from the EU and USA. Just guns would be useless. They need a constant supply of tanks, long-range cannons, anti-aircraft missiles, anti-tank missiles, ammunition, navigation, satellite images etc from other countries. Without them they would be crashed by Russian forces in few days.

You do not need an automatic rifle under your bed or a tank in your garage to defend against a foreign military. You pay your own military for that job.

Unless you have some kind of the Swiss model - a light, purely defensive, small military and armed common people trained to defend the territory. But your military is not light in any sense of the word. Its practically the opposite of the Swiss model. And private gun owners in the USA are not trained in any way.

 

[wing2000]

They seem to be helping the people of Ukraine quite a lot as they fight against a tyrannical government.

Indeed...noting that Ukraine has stricter gun regulations than we do....and yet, they are managing to defeat the Russian army...

 

[wing2000]

Comparisons like this between military engagements and people having a few guns at home are just daft. The defence forces and other volunteers fighting alongside Ukrainian regular forces were armed and trained by their own government, and they are fighting the representatives of another state that has invaded their country, using high-powered modern weaponry, not just some collection of handguns and semi-automatic weapons. This notion that having a gun at home would somehow prevent a military takeover is ludicrous, not only because it would be not a lot different to bringing a knife to a gunfight, but because the inverse of the feared takeover scenario is a much greater threat - people frustrated or fearful that their way of life is under threat voting in a so-called ‘strongman’ (in reality a narcissist driven by inner weakness is more usual) who then gradually moves towards ever-increasing tyranny, as in interbellum Germany. Tyranny begins with fear, the kind of fear that fuels the delusional idea that having a gun is going to stop bad things happening.

I agree, the comparison is not valid on many levels.

One question I do have: If the American homeland was ever attacked by a foreign enemy, how many Americans would actually trust the information from our Federal Government? Would a significant portion of the population label it as fake news? I often wonder what would have happened during WW2 if today's apparent lack of trust existed during WW2. Would people comply with mandatory rationing? Would they cooperate with mandatory defensive measures such as black outs?

I think we know the answer.....

 

[trophy33]

I agree, the comparison is not valid on many levels.

One question I do have: If the American homeland was ever attacked by a foreign enemy, how many Americans would actually trust the information from our Federal Government? Would a significant portion of the population label it as fake news? I often wonder what would have happened during WW2 if today's apparent lack of trust existed during WW2. Would people comply with mandatory rationing? Would they cooperate with mandatory defensive measures such as black outs?

I think we know the answer.....

Also, are today's Americans in a shape to be effective fighters? Half of them is obese and most of them is on some kind of psychiatric medication. Not to mention the current oversensitivity to even just words or dislikes on the internet.

Its one thing to shoot from one's gun in a shooting range drinking cola and eating burgers, its a totally different thing in the horror of falling bombs, dead bodies and blood everywhere. The idea is just naive.

 

[Tom 1]

I agree, the comparison is not valid on many levels.

One question I do have: If the American homeland was ever attacked by a foreign enemy, how many Americans would actually trust the information from our Federal Government? Would a significant portion of the population label it as fake news? I often wonder what would have happened during WW2 if today's apparent lack of trust existed during WW2. Would people comply with mandatory rationing? Would they cooperate with mandatory defensive measures such as black outs?

I think we know the answer.....

Rather than fighting an invading force, a more likely outcome might be some hunkering down to defend their own space, in the delusional belief that they can hold out indefinitely, and others using the opportunity to take out whatever other group in society they have a beef with. That's how it looks given the current political climate anyway. Perhaps that would change if there was one common enemy.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Yeah, well, we could handle the responsibility then, I guess. We are no longer capable of owning guns responsibly. Either we regulate responsibly or just take them all away.

taking them all away is very unreasonable.

I find it funny as as the violence has gone up so has the access to guns. More violence came first in other words.

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/re...ry-licensurepermitting-policies/unrestricted/

Above you will see a list of states who have dropped the need for concealed carry permits (one on the list will do so the first of next year, but is already on the list because the law has already been signed.

There are 25 of them. Yet, 11 of those states joined that list since 15 and I know at least four or five has had their names added to the list less than 12 months ago.

 

[trophy33]

Rather than fighting an invading force, a more likely outcome might be some hunkering down to defend their own space, in the delusional belief that they can hold out indefinitely

They grew up on action movies in which one hero with a gun can shoot dozens of enemies, because they, from some mysterious reason, use only blanks, always miss or are blind.

Not understanding that its a fiction.

 

[rturner76]

So what’s the US doing?..........

Giving guns to teachers I guess is one proposal. Certainly, there is no danger in that.

 

[SimplyMe]

What those countries have done first is to maintain societies that don't make people crazy. The US has created a social Darwinist society that is practically designed to create mental health problems, rage, addiction, suicides, and homicides.

The gun lobby says, "It's not the guns, it's the people," and they're right. US society manufactures a lot of defective people.

I don't think this post received enough attention in this thread. We literally have politicians (from both sides) telling their constituents with "how bad things are" and how we aren't safe. It's the "South Side of Chicago," or "Antifa," or "the Proud Boys," etc. Unfortunately, fear and negative campaigning has proven to be effective for politicians. The other side is always "Communists" or "Fascists," depending on which side is talking.

We've gotten to a point where many people don't think they're paranoid, thinking "you aren't paranoid if they are really out to get you," and they believe that some on the other side (if not all of them) are "out to get them," to take away their freedoms.

Unfortunately, many churches aren't even helping with this, with the "they are trying to outlaw Christianity..." claims that some promote, including that a "secular America" will destroy your ability to be Christian. On top of this, you have a small number of pastors, very vocal pastors, who appear to believe QAnon or are heavy Trump supporters, who talk of how Biden is a demon, that Democrats "stole" the election and are anti-American, etc. (Pastors such as Greg Locke, Johnny Enlow, Robin Bullock, Kat Kerr, Joe Pedick, Mario Murillo, Ken Peters, and Joshua Feuerstein). In fact, QAnon has a lot of ties to the Evangelical community, with Evangelicals being more likely to be QAnon believers.

Unfortunately, I don't see this improving, particularly since both sides use the "fear tactics" and have conspiracy theorists.