The Post Navy Yard Gun Control Debate is on Our Terms

[Brooklyn]

Trying to get people to understand the poor quality and uniformity of the NICS system has always been one of my biggest pet crusades. This gets me into trouble with some pro-gun people, but I really think the system would be much more effective if reporting requirements were at least uniform across all states. As for what goes in and what doesn't? That gets complicated. I don't think anyone wants to open that can of worms, but at some point we're going to have to.

If you want licensing and universal registration keep going. If not stop.

I don't care either way. But don't think for one second it will make anyone safer ... its a red herring. Every time it does not work the noose will tighten on citizens, but curiously not on fellons and those mythical straw purchasers that no one can find or prosecute.

I used to believe as you do then I looked at the data.. we would be better served by background checks on car buyers, but alias they are considered citizens.

Now do as you will.

 

[kcbrown]

I disagree quite strongly, for a few reasons.

1) You're assuming that enough citizens would carry to deter/kill all criminals. I doubt this is the case. As long as there are unarmed prey, there will be criminals, and we can't force people to arm.

All criminals? No. There is no such thing as a total solution. Don't even bother to try. Tyranny of massive proportions has consistently resulted from attempts at "ultimate solutions" and such.

My claim isn't that violent crime will be eliminated, only that it'll be reduced to levels below that which is achievable with any other method.

2) Eliminating existing criminals from the gene pool doesn't address the fact that there are still broken urban neighborhoods than can pump them out at an astonishing rate. You're also assuming that they haven't already reproduced, which is highly unlikely.

This is actually a reasonable point. Evolutionarily speaking, the end result would be people who would reproduce first and then, only after having done so, become violent. But that presumes that there exists a genetically-controlled behavior pattern matching this. I'm a bit skeptical that such a thing exists, but evolution can produce some strange results, so I certainly can't dismiss it out of hand.

3) The source of most criminals is growing. Look at Detroit. The whole city is one big ghetto now and the murder rates are sky high. How long until that starts happening to other cities? We ignore this problem at our peril.

I'm not suggesting that we ignore the problem at all. Nothing that I speak of here conflicts with numerous other approaches that may also help address the problem, though it may conflict with the methods you might prefer. But in the end, it will be the method I speak of, and not those other methods (and, most especially, not other methods that conflict with this one), that yields the most effective result (unless your 2nd item becomes a dominant factor).

I totally get where you're coming from, but I don't think you're looking at this as a long term problem.

Oh, believe me, I am, far more than you know. The evolutionary argument is generally a longer-term argument than just about anything else. Even with artificial selection, we're talking about a problem that will take at least several generations to solve via the means I'm speaking of. But as long as the citizenry has the ability to respond with deadly force, it will be solved.

Regardless, experience shows that those who are prone to violence will always manage to get their hands on the tools they want to use to carry said violence out. Always. You must, therefore, propose methods that do not attempt to limit acquisition of those tools.

 

[Hopalong]

If you want licensing and universal registration keep going. If not stop.

Exactly how does wanting all 50 states to actually report to NICS all offenses that would cause someone to fail a NICS check have anything to do with licensing or universal registration?

I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, but I'm not seeing the mental leap you're making to draw that association.

EDIT:

Regardless, experience shows that those who are prone to violence will always manage to get their hands on the tools they want to use to carry said violence out. Always. You must, therefore, propose methods that do not attempt to limit acquisition of those tools.

I don't disagree with that conclusion. You can (and I say should) make it hard, but you can never make it impossible. To believe that you can is foolhardy, but that doesn't mean that having some safeguards is a bad idea.

Since I know that it is impossible to keep all guns from all criminally violent people, I want to reduce the pool of criminally violent people and make it possible for citizens to defend themselves from the few that are left.

Like I said, it's a complex problem. I don't think any one thing can make everything better. This is why I thing we need multiple courses of action (allowing citizens to arm effectively, cracking down on illegal sellers, fixing destitute urban neighborhoods, etc.) instead of just one.

 

[kcbrown]

I don't disagree with that conclusion. You can (and I say should) make it hard, but you can never make it impossible. To believe that you can is foolhardy, but that doesn't mean that having some safeguards is a bad idea.

It depends on the safeguards you speak of.

In the real world, the distinction between "hard" and "impossible" is much smaller than you imagine. Making something hard creates disincentive. In particular, it creates disincentive on the part of those who otherwise don't have a strong interest in (in this case) acquiring firearms. But violent criminals automatically have a strong interest in acquiring firearms, because they have a strong interest in initiating use of force. This is precisely why they manage to acquire firearms regardless of the roadblocks that you attempt to put in their way. The end result is that the very people you want to be armed will remain unarmed, precisely because you've made it harder for them to arm themselves.

That is the opposite of the effect you want.

If you acknowledge that violent criminals are going to get their hands on firearms no matter what, then efforts to prevent them from doing so are wasted, and can only affect the rest of the people. Again, the end result is the opposite of what you want. As such, there's no point in going down that road and every reason to avoid it.

If you want to arm the citizenry, then remove the roadblocks, rather than creating more.

Since I know that it is impossible to keep all guns from all criminally violent people, I want to reduce the pool of criminally violent people and make it possible for citizens to defend themselves from the few that are left.

You can't address the problem in that order. Not without turning the entire place into an oppressive police state. Is that what you're suggesting here?

Like I said, it's a complex problem. I don't think any one thing can make everything better. This is why I thing we need multiple courses of action (allowing citizens to arm effectively, cracking down on illegal sellers, fixing destitute urban neighborhoods, etc.) instead of just one.

That's certainly true, but there are classes of solutions that can be eliminated out of hand. Solutions which make it more difficult and/or even more inconvenient for the general citizenry to acquire firearms are solutions that can be eliminated out of hand for the reasons stated above.

 

[dgapilot]

Make no mistake about it though, letting more good people carry guns is a reactive solution. We need to look at proactive solutions that get at the socioeconomic and mental health causes of gun-related violence. Letting the people defend themselves will not eradicate gun-related violence. It's only part of the solution.

Never forget that.

And by looking at the socioeconomic and mental health issues we not only work on gun violance, but all violence. Why should this dialog be limited to only gun violance when we can do better as a society!

 

[Hopalong]

If you want to arm the citizenry, then remove the roadblocks, rather than creating more.

I think you may misunderstand what I'm getting at here. I don't think that we need any more roadblocks to arming the citizenry. I'm talking about things like fixing/streaminling existing systems, and tweaking criminal laws to prosecute people who knowingly supply guns to criminals in violation of existing laws. I don't want to expand background checks, ban any guns, etc.

If you see these things as roadblocks to arming the citizenry, then we have nothing else to discuss.

You can't address the problem in that order. Not without turning the entire place into an oppressive police state. Is that what you're suggesting here?

I don't understand how reducing the pool of violent criminals requires an oppressive police state. There is a very clear connection between certain socioeconomic conditions and crime. You can reduce those conditions (and therefore crime) without the need for any kind of police state.


This discussion has gone very far beyond the bounds of what I intended in my original post. If you'd like to continue it, I request that you do so in a different venue.

Thanks.

 

[Hopalong]

And by looking at the socioeconomic and mental health issues we not only work on gun violance, but all violence. Why should this dialog be limited to only gun violance when we can do better as a society!

Exactly. Violent crime is the issue. Violence carried out with a gun is only one subset of that. Reduce violence, and "gun violence" goes down with it.

 

[dgapilot]

I think the one thing you will see come out of this is an attempt by the antis to open counseling records well beyond what the government has access to now. They know if they can get a blanket release requirement it will affect probably around 40% of the population, and will deter many of those people who have seen a doctor for non-threatening issues in the past from ever trying to buy a firearm. Even if they're not written out for whatever they were treated for, the mere stigma of exposure will be a huge deterrent. That will be a huge blow to the numbers of the gun owning community, and will also grow the ranks of the antis.

All the press has done all day is talk about this *******'s self-proclaimed "PTSD" and his "anger issues." I can guess where this is going.

The unintended consequence of this is that people that need treatment will avoid it and in so doing become more of a threat to themselves and others. Simple marriage counseling will be a possible stigma that will be avoided. All the gains that have been made in mental health will be lost. Once they get in for guns, how long will it be before you need a check off from a shrink to drive a car, or buy gasoline, or who knows what.

 

[Brooklyn]

When you try to solve a problem that has no solution you fail. When you fail you will be compelled to try again. This to will fail. Go to loop top.

The problem is not NICs. And it was not even the problem in the security clearance system.. direct reports were made to the Navy by police and they borked it.

The justice department has studied the issue of mass shootings and found that they are below the level of statistical noise. That means they do not exist. They will never go lower than that,in a provable way. This means the problem can never be solved. And yet anomalies will continue and each one will justify an attempt to solve a problem which does not exist and thus can never be solved.

When I hear our side taking about the problem wish I played for the opposing side... selling snake oil is very profitable.

Esp for non problems that are all in our heads.

 

[BondJamesBond]

Don't kid yourself...it is NEVER on our terms because THEY control the message.

 

[kcbrown]

I think you may misunderstand what I'm getting at here. I don't think that we need any more roadblocks to arming the citizenry. I'm talking about things like fixing/streaminling existing systems, and tweaking criminal laws to prosecute people who knowingly supply guns to criminals in violation of existing laws.

To what end? You've already acknowledged that criminals are going to get their hands on firearms no matter what. What exactly is the point of doing anything with respect to firearm acquisition other than making it easier and more convenient for the citizenry to obtain firearms?

I don't want to expand background checks, ban any guns, etc.

No?

Any change that would cause inclusion of additional data into the system, which would increase the chance of someone being denied by the system, is an expansion of background checks.

From what I've seen, your comments about NICS have been limited to how it has failed to prevent those with ill intent from getting their hands on firearms, while you've left out the fact that it also improperly denies law-abiding citizens from same. It is the latter, and not the former, that is the real problem here, precisely because those with ill intent will always manage to get their hands on a firearm if they wish.

A system that by its nature fails to actually address the problem, while making the other side of the problem worse, is a system that must be dismantled, not expanded.

If you see these things as roadblocks to arming the citizenry, then we have nothing else to discuss.

Some are, some aren't. Most of the laws (e.g., the 1968 GCA) which impose restrictions on the ability of the citizenry to acquire firearms are roadblocks by definition.

If that leaves us with nothing to discuss, then so be it, but remember that you have to be able to disprove the logic of the above first before going further, and your viewpoint (to whatever degree it conflicts with the logic above) will not be valid until you do so.

I don't understand how reducing the pool of violent criminals requires an oppressive police state. There is a very clear connection between certain socioeconomic conditions and crime. You can reduce those conditions (and therefore crime) without the need for any kind of police state.

That's true. However, your statement implied not mere reduction of the pool, but near-elimination of it, inasmuch as you referred to "the few that are left" as those that the armed citizenry would have to deal with.

This discussion has gone very far beyond the bounds of what I intended in my original post. If you'd like to continue it, I request that you do so in a different venue.

We can do that, and I'm amenable to that, but we'd lose the attention of other participants. If they agree, then we can start a new thread.

 

[Hopalong]

You know what? You guys are even harder to talk to than most antis I get into it with.

Seriously. You are.

Mods, please lock. This is going nowhere.

 

[kcbrown]

You know what? You guys are even harder to talk to than most antis I get into it with.

Seriously. You are.

Mods, please lock. This is going nowhere.

Where would you like it to go?

Proposed solutions to the problem have to meet the standards of evidence and logic that the real world imposes. If they do not, then they cannot be solutions.

 

[Les Gawlik]

We, the 2A community, are going to have to reach a consensus on psychotropics, mental illness and firearm ownership. There are two opposite, but valid, views. The first is that we cannot tolerate firearms in the hands of mentally ill people who view the murder of innocents as the final expiation of their sins. Since we cannot predict this behavior, we have no choice but to look at medication use and submitting to treatment as potential bases for imposing restrictions on firearm ownership. We do this now in a half-hearted way with the state and federal questionnaires. The other argument is that if we restrict firearm ownership based on these factors, we will discourage people from seeking treatment and thereby cause needless harm.

This same issue exists in aviation. It used to be that if you used SSRIs at any time in your life it was extremely difficult to get a medical certificate, which is necessary to get and maintain your license. I understand flying is not an enumerated right, but the public health concerns are similar.

 

[Brooklyn]

Make no mistake about it though, letting more good people carry guns is a reactive solution. We need to look at proactive solutions that get at the socioeconomic and mental health causes of gun-related violence. Letting the people defend themselves will not eradicate gun-related violence. It's only part of the solution.

Never forget that.

You really should read the justice Dept report.. if I find it again I will post.

 

[Les Gawlik]

This is just too good for words. Former Colorado legislator, Angela Giron, said the the Navy Yard personnel were so heavily armed, you couldn't get any more armed than that.

The people of Colorado just did a wonderful thing, which made up for the stupid thing they did when they elected her.

http://twitchy.com/2013/09/18/gun-grabber-angela-giron-embarrasses-herself-again/

 

[Straightshooter]

Yet more proof that you can't fix "STUPID".

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Thank you Hopalong and others for this thought provoking thread. Debate is always so interesting around here. Glad it didn't get locked.

I like the way you highlighted the items that frame the heavy hitting facts in the Navy Yard shooting. There is much to discuss, and I have been avoiding the TV like the plague since Monday, since I can already predict the lines. The droning on and on about guns and how they are the problem.

It's not the guns, it's the imperfect people that get them. How do we know when they are so imperfect that they shouldn't have one? There are too many shades of grey and no one really wants to have an honest conversation on the news. They just polarize on and on.

Then everytime they talk about guns, they show a lot of them in cases and point the barrel at the camera... It subliminally creates fear.

As someone else pointed out, the issue of mental health and firearms is an extremely difficult topic. Who is Person A to say Person B is crazy? How crazy? Crazy enough not to own a gun? This opens a door to results no gun owner wants to be subjected to.

One thing I want to point out is, what have they been talking about for 3 days?

 

[kcbrown]

We, the 2A community, are going to have to reach a consensus on psychotropics, mental illness and firearm ownership. There are two opposite, but valid, views. The first is that we cannot tolerate firearms in the hands of mentally ill people who view the murder of innocents as the final expiation of their sins. Since we cannot predict this behavior, we have no choice but to look at medication use and submitting to treatment as potential bases for imposing restrictions on firearm ownership. We do this now in a half-hearted way with the state and federal questionnaires. The other argument is that if we restrict firearm ownership based on these factors, we will discourage people from seeking treatment and thereby cause needless harm.

The mentally ill are the only class of people in which there are some against whom it would be reasonable to enact a firearms restriction. But the subset involved is rather specific, to wit: those who are sufficiently mentally unstable that they lack the ability to attempt to acquire a firearm for the purpose of doing harm to others. Which is to say, those who lack premeditation capability associated with their violent impulses. These are people who, when they turn violent, would already have to have the firearm in their possession for the firearm to matter.

Any person who is capable of formulating and executing a plan that derives from their violent impulses is someone that cannot be stopped from acquiring a firearm. Violent criminals fall into that category, but so too do many mentally ill people. These are the people against whom restrictions will have no effect. We know this from experience.

This same issue exists in aviation. It used to be that if you used SSRIs at any time in your life it was extremely difficult to get a medical certificate, which is necessary to get and maintain your license. I understand flying is not an enumerated right, but the public health concerns are similar.

The concern with aircraft is that someone who is flying the aircraft will suddenly "go berserk" and endanger a bunch of other people. Certainly, there is that same concern on the part of someone who acquires a firearm. The difference, though, is that in the case of the aircraft, the person generally would not be able to acquire the aircraft or the training for it without considerable effort, expense, planning, and time, while the same is not true of the firearm regardless of what restrictions the government puts into place. This is due to the nature of the firearm versus the nature of the aircraft. As such, it is much easier for someone who has determination to acquire and use a firearm to cause harm -- enough so that anyone who really wants a firearm can get one -- than to acquire and use an aircraft, so a restriction on aircraft can be effective whilst a similar restriction on firearms simply cannot.

And when a restriction cannot be effective, then it should not be implemented, period. That's why I say that the restriction must be limited to that subset of people against whom it will actually work: those who would need to already have a firearm in order to carry out what violent impulses they might have with one. If the person in question is capable of going out and getting a firearm while under the influence of his violent impulses, then a restriction on him won't work. He'll find a way to get one regardless.

 

[Les Gawlik]

That's a good argument, but the logical conclusion is that any examination of mental health is ineffective, and therefore unsupportable. I don't think that will survive in a national debate.