School shooting Florida

[MikeG]

No, Nessie, I think that is unduly negative. If a whole category of guns is removed from legal circulation but remains in the hands of criminals, every criminal arrested with such a gun will be one less gun in circulation. They'll be rounded up attritionally, rather than confrontationally en-masse.Further, you make possession of such weapons a criminal offense with serious punishment attached, and sooner or later the criminals will face a choice as to whether being caught with such a weapon is worth the risk.

 

[Lambchops]

If we took an AR-15, removed the gas system, and added a handle to the bolt, making it a manually operated bolt action rifle, it would undoubtedly fall under any assault weapons ban simply because it looks like an AR-15.

Not necessarily. I know that in the UK, where semi automatic rifles are banned, you can still legally buy and own straight pull bolt action and pump action rifles who look pretty much exactly like an AR-15.

 

[William Parcher]

and sooner or later the criminals will face a choice as to whether being caught with such a weapon is worth the risk.

When the stakes get ratcheted up there will be even more dead cops. I can't surrender with this highly illegal gun - I have to shoot that cop instead and after all that's what this gun is for.

 

[crescent]

I get the impression that a lot of criminal gangs cycle through a lot of their guns pretty quickly. Guns used in serious crimes are often discarded, people throw guns away when they are being pursued, all that. Some guns remain in possession of street gangs for a long time - but many don't.

Safe storage requirements could reduce thefts that move legal guns into the black market.
Universal background checks could reduce fraudulent or negligent purchases that move legal guns into the black market.
Reductions in the number of guns purchased at once could reduce straw purchasing that moves guns into the black market.
Regulations requiring dealers to refuse sales to people who are obviously impaired or that appear to be acting under orders of other people, or at least ensuring that such actions by the dealer would not be illegal could further reduce straw purchases.

None of this would have an immediate impact, but over time the supply of black market guns could be reduced without resorting to confiscation of guns held by people with the legal right to own guns whose guns were acquired legally.

 

[Nessie]

No, Nessie, I think that is unduly negative. If a whole category of guns is removed from legal circulation but remains in the hands of criminals, every criminal arrested with such a gun will be one less gun in circulation. They'll be rounded up attritionally, rather than confrontationally en-masse.Further, you make possession of such weapons a criminal offense with serious punishment attached, and sooner or later the criminals will face a choice as to whether being caught with such a weapon is worth the risk.

That is a different issue to removing guns (all guns, type does not matter) from criminals.

If you make possession of an AR15 illegal, you then criminalise many people until they hand over their guns. Many may well decide that if you want their AR15 it will be from their cold dead hands.

All you have done is turn non criminals into criminals.

 

[Nessie]

I get the impression that a lot of criminal gangs cycle through a lot of their guns pretty quickly. Guns used in serious crimes are often discarded, people throw guns away when they are being pursued, all that. Some guns remain in possession of street gangs for a long time - but many don't.

Safe storage requirements could reduce thefts that move legal guns into the black market.
Universal background checks could reduce fraudulent or negligent purchases that move legal guns into the black market.
Reductions in the number of guns purchased at once could reduce straw purchasing that moves guns into the black market.
Regulations requiring dealers to refuse sales to people who are obviously impaired or that appear to be acting under orders of other people, or at least ensuring that such actions by the dealer would not be illegal could further reduce straw purchases.

None of this would have an immediate impact, but over time the supply of black market guns could be reduced without resorting to confiscation of guns held by people with the legal right to own guns whose guns were acquired legally.

How long do you think it would take to have a noticeable effect? There are an estimated 88.8 guns per 100 people in the USA.

 

[3point14]

No, Nessie, I think that is unduly negative. If a whole category of guns is removed from legal circulation but remains in the hands of criminals, every criminal arrested with such a gun will be one less gun in circulation. They'll be rounded up attritionally, rather than confrontationally en-masse.Further, you make possession of such weapons a criminal offense with serious punishment attached, and sooner or later the criminals will face a choice as to whether being caught with such a weapon is worth the risk.

The bolded is tricky. The severe sentences for illegally possessing firearms in most countries just don't seem to fly in the US. There's a whole cultural thing going on that means that people just aren't as prepared to see someone locked up for a long time for illegally possessing a firearm.

 

[Bob001]

No, Nessie, I think that is unduly negative. If a whole category of guns is removed from legal circulation but remains in the hands of criminals, every criminal arrested with such a gun will be one less gun in circulation. They'll be rounded up attritionally, rather than confrontationally en-masse.Further, you make possession of such weapons a criminal offense with serious punishment attached, and sooner or later the criminals will face a choice as to whether being caught with such a weapon is worth the risk.

That would also be true for non-criminals. If there was an actual ban on, say, AR15s, an ordinary guy could stash his legally purchased AR15 in his attic and keep it forever. But he could never use it for hunting or target shooting, and if he was ever caught transporting it in his car or even using it for self-defense, or if it was ever stolen and used by somebody else, he would be criminally liable. Most law-abiding citizens would give it up rather than have the risk hanging over their heads.

 

[Aridas]

The message is no guns. There won't be picket signs or spoken words saying "we must confiscate the guns". But later that "no guns" message is going to be about removing the guns. Because mass shootings are not going to stop. Onesies, twosies, threesies shot dead at schools and everywhere (not quite mass shootings) are not going to stop.

They will throw their hands up in frustration and say that tightened regulations here and there is not stopping the carnage. Dick's and Walmart and Kroger and even the State of Florida is not stopping the carnage.

The guns have got to go. It's coming. They would do it right now if they had a magic wand. But they don't. But it's coming.

It's quite possible. If it does happen, though, it will fairly certainly be driven by the backlash against the absurdities of the pro-gun crowd. Seriously, is there some actually good reason why gun laws have actually been getting looser by leaps and bounds at the same time as gun violence is on the rise?

I suspect much of the talk of banning guns is actually banning guns from the possession of unsuitable people. Even the NRA is against some groups of people from possessing guns.

When it comes to the NRA, especially, actions speak so much louder than words.




ETA: Separately, to borrow from a quick google find some discussion about reasonable regulations might focus on things like -

Guns Recovered from Crime

Only 1% of gun dealer account for almost 60% of crime guns recovered by police and later traced
In one year, at least 30,000 guns were “lost” out of gun dealers inventories
Guns with a short “time to crime” are disproportionately represented among crime guns. Guns manufactured and sold 3 years or less, prior to recovery by police in crime make up 34 % of recovered and traced crime guns, but only 14% of the US gun stock.
Guns sold as part of a multiple sale at a gun dealer were up to 64% more likely to be used in a crime than guns not part of such sales.
“No background check” sales account for an estimated 40% of gun sales in the U.S.

Sources: ATF (2000); Brady Center; National Institute of Justice (1993, 2007); Police Foundation (1997)

 

[Bob001]

How long do you think it would take to have a noticeable effect? There are an estimated 88.8 guns per 100 people in the USA.

But a majority of those guns are in the hands of around three percent of the population. Close to 80 percent of Americans don't own any guns at all. Focused enforcement could be effective pretty quickly.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...half-of-americas-guns/?utm_term=.cb108e8a7f84

 

[William Parcher]

How long do you think it would take to have a noticeable effect? There are an estimated 88.8 guns per 100 people in the USA.

We could give it a name like The 100 Year Plan. The nickname could be The Be Like Britain Plan.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Maybe there's something in this. Instead of banning them, how about recognising that a young man who wants that gun so he can pose as some powerful badass deadly special forces ninja killer from a movie or video game is a great big alarm bell and warrants a much more thorough check into how well-balanced he is. Any mention of the words "tactical black" should set the alarms jangling.

I think there is something in this, I've mentioned that I'm currently involved in a situation where a member of my extended family with severe mental health issues threatened to kill someone, they have no access to firearms so they threatenec to stab this person. I think it's telling that they then went on line and started looking at combat/survival knives rather than going downstairs and grabbing something sharp from the kitchen. A kitchen knife wouldn't match the fantasy that they've built up.

 

[crescent]

To have successful gun control you need to make sure those not suitable to have a gun do not have a gun. There are many many people in the USA who are unsuitable to have a gun, but have one, in particular criminals and gangs. Many of them are extremely well armed and will not give up their guns without a fight.

To get those guns would result in a civil war, which would likely cause thousands of deaths, from the criminals to those tasked with getting the guns.

That is another reason why the USA will never solve the problem.

I get the impression that a lot of criminal gangs cycle through a lot of their guns pretty quickly. Guns used in serious crimes are often discarded, people throw guns away when they are being pursued, all that. Some guns remain in possession of street gangs for a long time - but many don't.

Safe storage requirements could reduce thefts that move legal guns into the black market.
Universal background checks could reduce fraudulent or negligent purchases that move legal guns into the black market.
Reductions in the number of guns purchased at once could reduce straw purchasing that moves guns into the black market.
Regulations requiring dealers to refuse sales to people who are obviously impaired or that appear to be acting under orders of other people, or at least ensuring that such actions by the dealer would not be illegal could further reduce straw purchases.

None of this would have an immediate impact, but over time the supply of black market guns could be reduced without resorting to confiscation of guns held by people with the legal right to own guns whose guns were acquired legally.

How long do you think it would take to have a noticeable effect? There are an estimated 88.8 guns per 100 people in the USA.

Black market guns have an average "Time To Crime" rate (TTC) of about 10 years. That's measured from the time of initial sale by a licensed dealer to recovery at a crime scene. Page 8 of The Link Between Gun Laws and Interstate Gun Trafficking. About 1/5 of all guns used in crimes are used with two years of initial sale (same link, same page). So if one could strongly restrict movement of guns from legal hands into criminal hands, the impact could be felt within a few years and be very pronounced with a few decades.

Mind you, I am not talking about banning a certain type of gun and then seizing them from people who bought them when they were legal; people who would otherwise still be able to legally own guns. I am still replying to the first of the two posts from you that I quoted above, not the ones that follow it.

ETA: The report cites "Initial sale" by a licensed dealer. I've been interpreting that to mean first sale, that the gun is new, not resales of used guns. I am not sure if that is correct, or it if even makes a difference. At a minimum TTC would be an estimate how long the average gun used in a crime was in circulation since last being in the hands of a dealer. If it really is from the first sale of a new gun, then it really isn't a very long time frame at all.

 

[Kestrel]

The bolded is tricky. The severe sentences for illegally possessing firearms in most countries just don't seem to fly in the US. There's a whole cultural thing going on that means that people just aren't as prepared to see someone locked up for a long time for illegally possessing a firearm.

Our society doesn't have a problem locking people up for an illegal machine gun, a sawed off shotgun or a firearm with a removed or altered serial number.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Not necessarily. I know that in the UK, where semi automatic rifles are banned, you can still legally buy and own straight pull bolt action and pump action rifles who look pretty much exactly like an AR-15.

Semi - Auto rifles aren't 'banned' A 22 rimfire semi - auto is allowed. I used to own one that looked just like an AR - 15.

 

[quadraginta]

I suspect much of the talk of banning guns is actually banning guns from the possession of unsuitable people. Even the NRA is against some groups of people from possessing guns.

They say they are. They talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk.

All sides talk passed each other, refuse to compromise and will not work together.

No.

The NRA and their cronies have never seen a gun law they didn't hate. When the time rolls around for an actual law to be passed they are against it, no matter what they may have said when someone was lying on the ground bleeding and they wanted to try to dodge some of the heat.

There is no "compromise" coming from their camp. Only objections. And lots and lots of money to make sure that their well-chastened, tame, right-wingnut Congresscretins stay in line and do nothing.

It is one of the reasons why the USA will never solve the problem.

Yes. The NRA is one of the reasons the U.S. can't solve this problem. The primary reason.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That is a different issue to removing guns (all guns, type does not matter) from criminals.

If you make possession of an AR15 illegal, you then criminalise many people until they hand over their guns. Many may well decide that if you want their AR15 it will be from their cold dead hands.

All you have done is turn non criminals into criminals.

But that is what passing any law does.

 

[3point14]

Our society doesn't have a problem locking people up for an illegal machine gun, a sawed off shotgun or a firearm with a removed or altered serial number.

It may be a false impression I have, but it seems that way. I might try and find statistics. If there are any.


Part of the reason gun control works is the size and the (apparent) inevitability of the punishment for illegal possession. Legislation that doesn't mandate and enforce such penalties isn't, I think, likely to work.

 

[johnny karate]

This is one of the things that makes me resist any gun control and frustrates me no end. The people who want to take my firearms away appear to know absolutely nothing about them. And they appear to never have bothered to learn, because they have been saying the same things for decades.

Thus they propose arbitrary laws and restrictions that make no sense to me, and cause me to believe they just want to ban all firearms.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...cans-wrong-dianne-feinstein-column/420144002/

Gun enthusiasts who feel this way should maybe consider coming to the table and offering their own common sense solutions instead of being obstinate and obstructionist.

Because eventually you might have that option taken away from you by the growing number of people who have increasingly less sympathy for the sentiment expressed above.

 

[Nessie]

But a majority of those guns are in the hands of around three percent of the population. Close to 80 percent of Americans don't own any guns at all. Focused enforcement could be effective pretty quickly.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...half-of-americas-guns/?utm_term=.cb108e8a7f84

"The study found that 22 percent of American adults say they personally own a firearm. This is lower than the percentages reported in some other recent surveys, such as those by the Pew Research Center (31 percent) and Gallup (28 percent)."

Take that as 27% of adults Americans own a gun, there are 245.3 million adults and that is 66.23 million adults own a gun.

"Based on the percentage of people owning guns and the number of guns that respondents reported owning, the survey estimates that 265 million guns are in circulation, or more than one for every adult. This is lower than other estimates, which put the number of guns in circulation at 300 million or more."

Take that as 282.5 million guns in the USA. The survey did not say if they spoke to known gang members or people who are likely to be illegally in possession of a gun or who would not admit to having one. So the numbers are likely to be too low rather than too high.

So, at least 66,230,000 people own at least 282,500,000 guns.