The efficacy (or lack thereof) of Gun Control

[ProphetOfTruth]

Personally, I think much of the problem owes to our nation's fetishization of guns.

I don't personally own one, but I've fired them on a number of occasions and I'm content to know that, should I feel the need to buy one, I can do so readily here in the States.

That said, I can attest anecdotally that within my family, friend, and peer group here in the South, there is a queer idolization of the firearm. On a good day, I find it generally perplexing; on a bad day, I find it deeply unsettling.

The bottom line for me is that if you own firearms, you're morally obligated (and legally obligated) to behave with an exceptional level of responsibility in both your physical handling of them and even your advocacy for their use and ownership.

They're a tool and no more worthy of glorification than a goddamn screwdriver or hammer are.

Personally, I'd like to see universal background checks, licensure, and registration. The state evaluates people's ability to drive cars, I genuinely don't see why we shouldn't consider doing the same for weapons explicitly designed to critically harm and take life.

Furthermore, while I respect and acknowledge that the Second Amendment exists, I don't regard it as some sort of sacred cow as some do; no right is absolute in the United States. Your right to speech, liberty, and even life are constrained under US law. Why on earth would your right to own firearms be any different? I support the state's right to impose reasonable restrictions on a citizen's right to own firearms.

That said, I will also say I saw an interesting clip on Bill Maher recently with Killer Mike, whom I'd never heard of previously but am deeply grateful for having discovered now:



Killer Mike, an outspoken and informed progressive, argues that red flag laws would likely have a deleterious effect on black citizens' right to own firearms.

It was a consideration I'd honestly never made before and has given me pause on that aspect of gun control.

 

[S'task]

Furthermore, while I respect and acknowledge that the Second Amendment exists, I don't regard it as some sort of sacred cow as some do; no right is absolute in the United States.

Firstly... the limits on the 1st Amendment Freedoms you're comparing the 2nd Amendment too are actually treated much more sacredly and broadly than the 2nd Amendment is. The 2nd is, arguably, already the most infringed Right in the Constitution as it stands, and comparing it to the other Rights both explicitly listed and implicitly listed in the Constitution is, frankly, somewhat offensive to anyone who's done a cursory study of the case law surrounding the issue.

Firstly, you need to understand why this is such a ridiculous comparison you must learn about two core components of Constitutional jurisprudence in the United States. The first is the Doctrine of Incorporation and the second is the Scrutiny levels.

Incorporation is the process by which a Right of the US Federal Constitution is made to bind the various States. By default the items in the Constitution do not automatically bind the States by them, this is abundantly clear by the simple wording of, say, the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Note the emphasis, the Amendment clearly only applies to the US Congress. So why is it that all the parts of the 1st Amendment are said to bind the States? Well, that's where Incorporation comes in, a doctrine that the Courts determined applied to the States due to the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment is quite long, so I'll only quote the relevant section:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The bolded sections are the parts which the US Supreme Court uses to Incorporate the various Rights protected in the Constitution to the States. This is an ongoing process from the time the doctrine of Incorporation was developed in 1925 and ongoing to this day, with the latest Incorporation case being Timbs v. Indiana in 2019 incorporating the Protection against Excess Fines from the 8th Amendment to the States.

This is the first issue with your attitude that somehow the 2nd is treated special. Well, rather, it IS treated special, it is treated especially badly. All of the 1st Amendment was Incorporated to the States by 1963, and the majority of the 1st Amendment had been incorporated by 1950. In comparison, the 2nd Amendment was not Incorporated to the States until 2010, fifty years LATER than those Rights which you are citing as having "limits". This is despite there being plenty of cases in those times of States passing laws restricting the 2nd Amendment. So in this, the 2nd has been treated much worse than those rights, with considerable more restrictions already allowed and much more time passing before the 2nd Amendment was incorporated to the States.

Now let's get on to the much juicier one: Scrutiny levels. In Constitutional Law there's an idea about how much leeway the Courts should give the government on passing laws that restrict people's ability to exercise their rights. These are called "Scrutiny". There's three main levels: Strict Scrutiny, Intermediate Scrutiny, and Rational Basis.

Strict Scrutiny is the highest level, and features a test that is quite difficult for the government to pass, and yes, when testing under strict scrutiny it is the GOVERNMENT that has to show that the law is not overly infringing on the Rights of the plaintiffs involved. This is the basis everything in the 1st Amendment is considered under*. Intermediate Scrutiny also features the government having to show their law is not overly infringing, but they are granted considerably more leeway to the point where only the most egregious laws tend to violate it. And the less said about the "Rational Basis" test the better, as that one requires the plaintiff to show the law is infringing and is egregious and so basically is just the courts rubber stamping the government's actions.

Anyway, as noted, those rights you're saying "have restrictions" on them all fall under the purview of Strict Scrutiny when the courts are involved. The 2nd Amendment... well... who knows. The Courts have yet to make ANYTHING clear on what scrutiny the 2nd Amendment should be considered under and because of that the lower courts have pretty much defaulted to the Rational Basis standard. Which means that AGAIN, the 2nd is being treated with considerably less weight than the other Rights which you are citing. In fact, Rights which do not explicitly appear in the text of the Constitution, like the Right to Privacy, are granted MORE WEIGHT (Strict Scrutiny) than the 2nd Amendment, which is explicitly written.

Long and short, don't try and pretend that the 2nd Amendment is being treated as somehow more sacred than other parts of the Constitution. The case law is clear on this, it absolutely is not, and is, in fact, closer to being treated as the Red Headed Stepchild of the Constitution than it is to being held as somehow especially sacred.

----------------
* For the Federal Government, the Free Exercise Clause varies between Strict Scrutiny and Intermediate Scrutiny depending on certain State laws.

 

[Flintsteel]

The state evaluates people's ability to drive cars,

Common misconception. A driver's liscense is not for the operation of motor vehicles. It is for the operation of motor vehicles on State property. You can drive a vehicle on private property and the State has no say in it, only you and the property owner.

 

[ProphetOfTruth]

Common misconception. A driver's liscense is not for the operation of motor vehicles. It is for the operation of motor vehicles on State property. You can drive a vehicle on private property and the State has no say in it, only you and the property owner.

I'll concede that, but regard it as a relatively impotent distinction. My point is that the state finds cars dangerous enough to evaluate and license your right to operate one even though the harm they cause to others is, however frequent, ancillaryunrelated to their intended purpose as a mode of transportation.

Firstly... the limits on the 1st Amendment Freedoms you're comparing the 2nd Amendment too are actually treated much more sacredly and broadly than the 2nd Amendment is. The 2nd is, arguably, already the most infringed Right in the Constitution as it stands, and comparing it to the other Rights both explicitly listed and implicitly listed in the Constitution is, frankly, somewhat offensive to anyone who's done a cursory study of the case law surrounding the issue.

Firstly, you need to understand why this is such a ridiculous comparison you must learn about two core components of Constitutional jurisprudence in the United States. The first is the Doctrine of Incorporation and the second is the Scrutiny levels.

Incorporation is the process by which a Right of the US Federal Constitution is made to bind the various States. By default the items in the Constitution do not automatically bind the States by them, this is abundantly clear by the simple wording of, say, the 1st Amendment:


Note the emphasis, the Amendment clearly only applies to the US Congress. So why is it that all the parts of the 1st Amendment are said to bind the States? Well, that's where Incorporation comes in, a doctrine that the Courts determined applied to the States due to the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment is quite long, so I'll only quote the relevant section:

The bolded sections are the parts which the US Supreme Court uses to Incorporate the various Rights protected in the Constitution to the States. This is an ongoing process from the time the doctrine of Incorporation was developed in 1925 and ongoing to this day, with the latest Incorporation case being Timbs v. Indiana in 2019 incorporating the Protection against Excess Fines from the 8th Amendment to the States.

This is the first issue with your attitude that somehow the 2nd is treated special. Well, rather, it IS treated special, it is treated especially badly. All of the 1st Amendment was Incorporated to the States by 1963, and the majority of the 1st Amendment had been incorporated by 1950. In comparison, the 2nd Amendment was not Incorporated to the States until 2010, fifty years LATER than those Rights which you are citing as having "limits". This is despite there being plenty of cases in those times of States passing laws restricting the 2nd Amendment. So in this, the 2nd has been treated much worse than those rights, with considerable more restrictions already allowed and much more time passing before the 2nd Amendment was incorporated to the States.

Now let's get on to the much juicier one: Scrutiny levels. In Constitutional Law there's an idea about how much leeway the Courts should give the government on passing laws that restrict people's ability to exercise their rights. These are called "Scrutiny". There's three main levels: Strict Scrutiny, Intermediate Scrutiny, and Rational Basis.

Strict Scrutiny is the highest level, and features a test that is quite difficult for the government to pass, and yes, when testing under strict scrutiny it is the GOVERNMENT that has to show that the law is not overly infringing on the Rights of the plaintiffs involved. This is the basis everything in the 1st Amendment is considered under*. Intermediate Scrutiny also features the government having to show their law is not overly infringing, but they are granted considerably more leeway to the point where only the most egregious laws tend to violate it. And the less said about the "Rational Basis" test the better, as that one requires the plaintiff to show the law is infringing and is egregious and so basically is just the courts rubber stamping the government's actions.

Anyway, as noted, those rights you're saying "have restrictions" on them all fall under the purview of Strict Scrutiny when the courts are involved. The 2nd Amendment... well... who knows. The Courts have yet to make ANYTHING clear on what scrutiny the 2nd Amendment should be considered under and because of that the lower courts have pretty much defaulted to the Rational Basis standard. Which means that AGAIN, the 2nd is being treated with considerably less weight than the other Rights which you are citing. In fact, Rights which do not explicitly appear in the text of the Constitution, like the Right to Privacy, are granted MORE WEIGHT (Strict Scrutiny) than the 2nd Amendment, which is explicitly written.

Long and short, don't try and pretend that the 2nd Amendment is being treated as somehow more sacred than other parts of the Constitution. The case law is clear on this, it absolutely is not, and is, in fact, closer to being treated as the Red Headed Stepchild of the Constitution than it is to being held as somehow especially sacred.

----------------
* For the Federal Government, the Free Exercise Clause varies between Strict Scrutiny and Intermediate Scrutiny depending on certain State laws.

While I genuinely appreciate this lengthy legal analysis, it's misplaced. I encourage you to back and reread the excerpt of my post you quoted:

Furthermore, while I respect and acknowledge that the Second Amendment exists, I don't regard it as some sort of sacred cow as some do; no right is absolute in the United States.

There are people in this world, in this country, and within my own family who believe and have openly admitted that literally any element of gun control, enforced or proposed, is not merely unconstitutional, but immoral.

The fact that you feel that Second Amendment rights have been shat upon by the public and courts is an interesting notion but completely irrelevant to what I posted.

My point was simply that all rights in the United States are constrained and can be abrogated, including your fundamental right to have a goddamn pulse, so anyone who thinks that that ethical line should be carefully gerrymandered around your right to hug your sawed-off shotgun is peddling a notion I find truly bewildering.

 

[Battlegrinder]

Personally, I think much of the problem owes to our nation's fetishization of guns.

Just so we're on the same page, what do you mean by "the problem"?

Personally, I'd like to see universal background checks, licensure, and registration. The state evaluates people's ability to drive cars, I genuinely don't see why we shouldn't consider doing the same for weapons explicitly designed to critically harm and take life.

I have no conceptual objection to universal background checks, it's basically already the law outside of private sales, and provided a reasonable mechanism exists to carry out said checks, I don't see any issue with it.

It's the other two that I have issues with, or at least questions about the necessity of.

The state requires a driver's license to ensure that can competently operate a motor vehicle, because you'll be using it a lot around other people on crowded roads, and it's in everyone's best interest to try and reduce that number because everyone on the road is at risk. For guns....well, whatever you define "the problem" as being, based on the statea it's not a high accident rate, virtually all firearm fatalities are because someone wanted that person dead. There are other issues, but that seems to be the biggest one.

As for registration....well, actually I'd like to know why you want it first, because my objections might be entirely unrelated to your reason for wanting it.

 

[ProphetOfTruth]

Just so we're on the same page, what do you mean by "the problem"?

I think the USA, generally speaking, has a cultural problem that has manifested itself in the form of an inordinate number of firearm related crimes, including mass shootings.

[qupte]I have no conceptual objection to universal background checks, it's basically already the law outside of private sales, and provided a reasonable mechanism exists to carry out said checks, I don't see any issue with it.[/quote]

Excellent.

It's the other two that I have issues with, or at least questions about the necessity of.

Fair enough, let's see if I can answer your questions to your satisfaction or alleviate your concern.

The state requires a driver's license to ensure that can competently operate a motor vehicle, because you'll be using it a lot around other people on crowded roads, and it's in everyone's best interest to try and reduce that number because everyone on the road is at risk. For guns....well, whatever you define "the problem" as being, based on the statea it's not a high accident rate, virtually all firearm fatalities are because someone wanted that person dead. There are other issues, but that seems to be the biggest one.

Guns and cars have little in common beyond their high number in the United States and their ability to injure and take life. Motor vehicle licensure, to my knowledge, is less about reducing the sheer number of drivers than it is increasing the number of competent, responsible drivers. It's a subtle but important distinction. Likewise, I would argue that it's in everyone's best interest that gun owners are competent and responsible as well and the state has a vested interest in ensuring that.

As for registration....well, actually I'd like to know why you want it first, because my objections might be entirely unrelated to your reason for wanting it.

Our ability to conduct up-to-date research on this matter is rather stupidly impaired, but the most recent study from 2004 indicated that around 20% of gun related crimes involved legally acquired guns. I'd imagine law enforcement's enhanced ability to trace guns to their owners would help solve and perhaps reduce these sorts of crimes in the first place.

 

[FriedCFour]

I think the USA, generally speaking, has a cultural problem that has manifested itself in the form of an inordinate number of firearm related crimes, including mass shootings.

What do you think about our inordinate number of knife, hand, blunt object etc. Homicides, given that even if all gun related homicide disappeared today, we would still have an inordinate number of homicides?

Likewise, I would argue that it's in everyone's best interest that gun owners are competent and responsible as well and the state has a vested interest in ensuring that.

The problem is I dont trust my state in the fucking slightest not to make it as hard as possible just to be a legal firearm owner, given they keep fucking passing legislation doing just that.

 

[ProphetOfTruth]

What do you think about our inordinate number of knife, hand, blunt object etc. Homicides, given that even if all gun related homicide disappeared today, we would still have an inordinate number of homicides?

I think the state has a vested interest in reducing homicides regardless of the weapon employed, but this is a thread about guns.

 

[FriedCFour]

I think the state has a vested interest in reducing homicides regardless of the weapon employed, but this is a thread about guns.

But you made a claim that the firearm homicide rate is a reflection of a cultural issue in relation to firearms. Doesnt the fact that we kill loads more people that Europe each year even without firearms involved mean the problem is with crime and murder as a whole?

 

[ProphetOfTruth]

The problem is I dont trust my state in the fucking slightest not to make it as hard as possible just to be a legal firearm owner, given they keep fucking passing legislation doing just that.

Your skepticism is noted.

Likewise, do you think your state (and your fellow citizens) should trust every Tom, Dick & Harry to own firearms and use them responsibility in an age where we've experienced hundreds upon hundreds of mass shootings without any oversight or regulation?

But you made a claim that the firearm homicide rate is a reflection of a cultural issue in relation to firearms. Doesnt the fact that we kill loads more people that Europe each year even without firearms involved mean the problem is with crime and murder as a whole?

I made the claim that the USA has a cultural problem that has manifested itself in a swell of firearm related crimes in a firearm related thread. I'm not claiming that it is the only manifestation of this problem.

But "dude we use more than just guns to harm and kill people" isn't a credible counterargument against the idea of increased gun control.

 

[FriedCFour]

Your skepticism is noted.

Likewise, do you think your state (and your fellow citizens) should trust every Tom, Dick & Harry to own firearms and use them responsibility in an age where we've experienced hundreds upon hundreds of mass shootings without any oversight or regulation?

I dont believe the actions of a scant few individuals should be used to punish and restrict millions, and we have many regulations already in place and oversight as well. I absolutely trust Tom Dick and Harry, much more than I do the fed and the peoples republic of California. Frankly mass shootings are scary and public, but you are more likely to drown in your own pool as a child than be killed by a school shooter, and guns are not the only means of killing a lot of people at one time nor do they cause that desire.

I made the claim that the USA has a cultural problem that has manifested itself in a swell of firearm related crimes in a firearm related thread. I'm not claiming that it is the only manifestation of this problem.

What is the cultural problem then?

But "dude we use more than just guns to harm and kill people" isn't a credible counterargument against the idea of increased gun control.

Of course it is. If guns are not the cause of murder and murderous intentions it means scant few people will be saved by restrictions.

 

[ProphetOfTruth]

I dont believe the actions of a scant few individuals should be used to punish and restrict millions, and we have many regulations already in place and oversight as well. I absolutely trust Tom Dick and Harry, much more than I do the fed and the peoples republic of California. Frankly mass shootings are scary and public, but you are more likely to drown in your own pool as a child than be killed by a school shooter, and guns are not the only means of killing a lot of people at one time nor do they cause that desire.

In 2019 alone, the US has had more than 250+ mass shootings That is a disproportionate amount of injury and fatality. The fact that the shooters themselves comprise a relative minority of the population is irrelevant. Offenders don't need to comprise 30% of the population for their crimes to warrant action by lawmakers and law enforcement.

The crimes are frequent enough and the bodies are numerous enough to warrant additional restrictions. Now if you wanna make the argument that the restrictions won't work, that's a viable position to take and a valid argument can spawn from it.

I can entertain arguments about effectiveness. Mild inconvenience, on the other hand, I couldn't give fewer fucks about.

What is the cultural problem then?

That's a great question. Haven't a clue; but we can recognize its symptoms.

Of course it is. If guns are not the cause of murder and murderous intentions it means scant few people will be saved by restrictions.

Citation fucking needed. The lowest common denominator in all gun related crimes? Guns. The fact that people also use other tools to harm and kill others in no way, shape, or form invalidates the argument against increased gun control unless people are claiming increased gun control will eliminate homicide.

 

[FriedCFour]

In 2019 alone, the US has had more than 250+ mass shootings That is a disproportionate amount of injury and fatality. The fact that the shooters themselves comprise a relative minority of the population is irrelevant. Offenders don't need to comprise 30% of the population for their crimes to warrant action by lawmakers and law enforcement.

The crimes are frequent enough and the bodies are numerous enough to warrant additional restrictions. Now if you wanna make the argument that the restrictions won't work, that's a viable position to take and a valid argument can spawn from it.

I can entertain arguments about effectiveness. Mild inconvenience, on the other hand, I couldn't give fewer fucks about

By what definition of mass shooting? The definition I am guessing you are using, number shot, probably 3+, means the vast majority of mass shootings are gang bangers duking it out which gun control is highly unlikely to affect given the sheer and increasing ease at which illegal weapons can be acquired.

Citation fucking needed. The lowest common denominator in all gun related crimes? Guns. The fact that people also use other tools to harm and kill others in no way, shape, or form invalidates the argument against increased gun control unless people are claiming increased gun control will eliminate homicide.

Well the fact that homicide rarely drops in the face of gun bans seems to speak to that. That our only state with a homicide rate as low as europe allows unlicensed concealed carry of handguns and has the least restrictions on firearms pretty much in the world shows me you can have highly unrestricted access to firearms and an incredibly safe state.

 

[Battlegrinder]

I think the USA, generally speaking, has a cultural problem that has manifested itself in the form of an inordinate number of firearm related crimes, including mass shootings.

Well, that's hard to say. Looking at US homcide by motive, about 40% of the time it's because of an argument, and 23% of the time it's related to some kind of felony. In the UK, it's broadly similar as far as motive, but they have a somewhat higher rate caused by arguments and a lower rate caused by crime, and a slightly smaller number of murders with unknown motive. It seems difficult to pin that on a cultural issue given that despite the difference in culture between the US and UK, the actual causes of murder, aside from crime related, are so very similar. The per capita figure is different, but when you factor in population density (pretty much every US city of note is either far more densely populated than the UK, or about the same)..it seems plausibly to me that much of that per capita rate is because people in the US are packed so much closer to one another.

As for mass shootings, or more generally mass murder of innocent people, while that's certainly a problem the US is more prone to than most counties, I'm not really seeing how that relates to gun culture specifically, given that most mass shooters are not the gun collecting, second amendment obsessed types that you seem to be referring to. It is certainly a culturally issue, but I'm not really seeing it as a gun culture issue specifically. It's also an issue that, if we look at from a leglislative point of view, will not be solved or helped by licensing and registration.

Guns and cars have little in common beyond their high number in the United States and their ability to injure and take life. Motor vehicle licensure, to my knowledge, is less about reducing the sheer number of drivers than it is increasing the number of competent, responsible drivers. It's a subtle but important distinction. Likewise, I would argue that it's in everyone's best interest that gun owners are competent and responsible as well and the state has a vested interest in ensuring that.

Sure, but given that very few people are mistakenly shot and killed, it seems to be that we don't really have an issue with incompetent firearm owners, and I'm not sure what else a license will check for that a background check won't.

Our ability to conduct up-to-date research on this matter is rather stupidly impaired, but the most recent study from 2004 indicated that around 20% of gun related crimes involved legally acquired guns. I'd imagine law enforcement's enhanced ability to trace guns to their owners would help solve and perhaps reduce these sorts of crimes in the first place.

With all due respect, shouldn't you have better reasoning than "I imagine this will work" before you propose legislation and policies that will impose a significant burden on law abiding citizens, and that (as shown by a number of past incidents, including the ATF's infamous "let's use federal gun registries to trick innocent people into unknowingly committing minor technical offenses so we can pad our arrest statistics" stunt) carries a tremdous potentional for abuse? I actually have looked into this a fair bit, and as far as I can tell, even in states that have gun registration, it's useless as a crime solving tool. Or at least, when law enforcement officials and leaders have been asked about it, they have been unable to demonstrate that it is useful, and even gun control sites are extremely short on evidence of it being effective (no studies, not links, nada).

 

[ProphetOfTruth]

Well, that's hard to say. Looking at US homcide by motive, about 40% of the time it's because of an argument, and 23% of the time it's related to some kind of felony. In the UK, it's broadly similar as far as motive, but they have a somewhat higher rate caused by arguments and a lower rate caused by crime, and a slightly smaller number of murders with unknown motive. It seems difficult to pin that on a cultural issue given that despite the difference in culture between the US and UK, the actual causes of murder, aside from crime related, are so very similar. The per capita figure is different, but when you factor in population density (pretty much every US city of note is either far more densely populated than the UK, or about the same)..it seems plausibly to me that much of that per capita rate is because people in the US are packed so much closer to one another.

That may very well be the case. But assuming exorbitant gun crime is attributable entirely or primarily due to population density, wouldn't it stand to reason that nations more population dense than the US also have inordinately high rates of gun violence?

As for mass shootings, or more generally mass murder of innocent people, while that's certainly a problem the US is more prone to than most counties, I'm not really seeing how that relates to gun culture specifically, given that most mass shooters are not the gun collecting, second amendment obsessed types that you seem to be referring to. It is certainly a culturally issue, but I'm not really seeing it as a gun culture issue specifically. It's also an issue that, if we look at from a leglislative point of view, will not be solved or helped by licensing and registration.

To clarify: I think that our culture's relative fetishization of firearms contributes to (a) increased gun violence and (b) a sociopolitical climate where any attempt legislatively curtail gun violence is met with opprobrium from Second Amendment enthusiasts.

Sure, but given that very few people are mistakenly shot and killed, it seems to be that we don't really have an issue with incompetent firearm owners, and I'm not sure what else a license will check for that a background check won't.

I said competent and responsible for a reason. Requiring regular licensure would also allow for updated background checks, updated psyche evaluations, and other interactions between citizens and law enforcement pertaining to firearm ownership.

With all due respect, shouldn't you have better reasoning than "I imagine this will work" before you propose legislation and policies that will impose a significant burden on law abiding citizens, and that (as shown by a number of past incidents, including the ATF's infamous "let's use federal gun registries to trick innocent people into unknowingly committing minor technical offenses so we can pad our arrest statistics" stunt) carries a tremdous potentional for abuse? I actually have looked into this a fair bit, and as far as I can tell, even in states that have gun registration, it's useless as a crime solving tool. Or at least, when law enforcement officials and leaders have been asked about it, they have been unable to demonstrate that it is useful, and even gun control sites are extremely short on evidence of it being effective (no studies, not links, nada).

As I mentioned earlier, there are some political roadblocks to extensive research into gun violence, so I'm not at all surprised we don't have a more robust body of peer reviewed literature for this shit.

With respect to the potential inconvenience it may cause law-abiding gun owners, I'll be very blunt: if mildly inconveniencing you will save lives, I'm not only willing to do it, I'm outright eager.

Questions of effectiveness are fair game. Convenience isn't something I have much regard for.

 

[prinCZess]

With respect to the potential inconvenience it may cause law-abiding gun owners, I'll be very blunt: if mildly inconveniencing you will save lives, I'm not only willing to do it, I'm outright eager.

I would contend that the 'mild inconveniences' which would generally be the result of registries (wait times and cost increases at the least) would cost lives themselves--or do so by the additional stigma and difficulty it places for those who'd have most potential use for a firearm in self-defense. If a new system saves ~1,000 lives from gun-violence per year but simultaneously eliminates ~10,000 cases of self-defense with a firearm (yes, these numbers are ass-pulls, speaking hypothetically), there's a much bigger question of its effectiveness.

That can be worked around to some extent by designing a system that doesn't inconvenience purchasers or owners monetarily or in terms of their time or need to travel (a phone app that can access NICS and offer a 'go'/'no go' is a popular idea), with the added benefit that if such a system is convenient you can be more assured of individuals using it instead of blowing it off as 'Big Brother' and carrying on as-before in a brand-new underground market. The convenience of the system very much plays into how effective it could possibly be--even accepting its effectiveness from the outset.

 

[ProphetOfTruth]

I would contend that the 'mild inconveniences' which would generally be the result of registries (wait times and cost increases at the least) would cost lives themselves--or do so by the additional stigma and difficulty it places for those who'd have most potential use for a firearm in self-defense. If a new system saves ~1,000 lives from gun-violence per year but simultaneously eliminates ~10,000 cases of self-defense with a firearm (yes, these numbers are ass-pulls, speaking hypothetically), there's a much bigger question of its effectiveness.

That can be worked around to some extent by designing a system that doesn't inconvenience purchasers or owners monetarily or in terms of their time or need to travel (a phone app that can access NICS and offer a 'go'/'no go' is a popular idea), with the added benefit that if such a system is convenient you can be more assured of individuals using it instead of blowing it off as 'Big Brother' and carrying on as-before in a brand-new underground market. The convenience of the system very much plays into how effective it could possibly be--even accepting its effectiveness from the outset.

If it is ever credibly demonstrated that the inconvenience in gun registration would directly exacerbate rates of gun violence by disarming victims that would otherwise be armed if not for the inconvenience of firearm registry, I'll graciously concede the point.

 

[Battlegrinder]

That may very well be the case. But assuming exorbitant gun crime is attributable entirely or primarily due to population density, wouldn't it stand to reason that nations more population dense than the US also have inordinately high rates of gun violence?

Gun violence, probably not, most countries don't have access to guns. But overall violence, I'd say that's plausible. The issue would be in checking. Beijing, for example, is fairly close in size, but Chinese crime reporting is not reliable. Other countries might have a similar population, but a vastly differant level of development or economic background that makes drawing a comparison difficult.

To clarify: I think that our culture's relative fetishization of firearms contributes to (a) increased gun violence and (b) a sociopolitical climate where any attempt legislatively curtail gun violence is met with opprobrium from Second Amendment enthusiasts.

The US just has more violence than a lot of other countries, period, I'm not sure how much of that you can pin on guns specifically. People here kill each other with thier bare hands more than people in the UK kill each other at all...is that because of gun culture?

As for point B, that's fair, but I think the larger reason is more because most of those attempts won't work or are proposed in bad faith, or that people believe they won't work or are in bad faith (the go to example being the various attempts at an assault weapon ban). Knowing other gun owners, I feel like that's the bigger concern than "muh 2nd amenderment rights".

I said competent and responsible for a reason. Requiring regular licensure would also allow for updated background checks, updated psyche evaluations, and other interactions between citizens and law enforcement pertaining to firearm ownership.

You already need a background check every time you buy a gun, and for most things that would cause you to fail that check in between purchases, the cops will just take your old guns.

A psych eval for firearm licensing, or any kind of licensing, is illegal, health data like that is private and virtually inaccessible.

As for regular renewal, most states that have lincenses have then renew in 5 or sometimes even 10 years.Even in IL, the archetypal crazy gun control state only requires 5 year renewals.

As I mentioned earlier, there are some political roadblocks to extensive research into gun violence, so I'm not at all surprised we don't have a more robust body of peer reviewed literature for this shit.

This isn't a lack of peer reviewed evidence. This is multiple cases of law enforcement officials standing before congress and failing to point to any case where firearm registration was actually helpful to a case. And, even if we assume that we don't have that evidence because the CDC is in charge of verifying the effectivess of law enforcement tools, we're not the only country in the world where this has been proposed or done. Canada has firearm registration, where are the stories from Canadian officers pointing to the great success of their registry as a crime fighting tool. Quite the opposite, in fact.

With respect to the potential inconvenience it may cause law-abiding gun owners, I'll be very blunt: if mildly inconveniencing you will save lives, I'm not only willing to do it, I'm outright eager.

But even if you're right and registration is a powerful crime fighting tool, this won't save lives, it will just make it easier to catch the people who took them, and given that very few people commit multiple murders before being caught (it's usually either just one or several at once), it won't even help to catch people before they kill again.

And that's assuming it's actually a useful tool, which remains unproven.

Questions of effectiveness are fair game. Convenience isn't something I have much regard for.

Shouldn't the onus be on you to demonstrate or at least argue why your proposed policy is a good idea, instead of us having to prove it's not?

 

[DarthOne]

SALTY NEWSWEEK ISAAC BAILEY IS ACTUALLY RIGHT ABOUT GUNS!

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

Fast Facts: Firearm Violence and Injury Prevention |Violence Prevention|Injury Center|CDC

What is a firearm injury? Learn fast facts of firearm violence from the CDC Injury Center.

www.cdc.gov

CDC says "At least 50% more defensive uses of firearms than firearm deaths of all sorts, potentially several orders of magnitude more defensive uses than firearm deaths".