Biden Admin/117th Congress Gun Control

[Au165]

(02-22-2021, 03:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dude, you know how rare it is for a parent to actually be charged due to a minor's chronic truancy?  That was before the wave of "progressive" DA's in CA.  



I love accountability. I also recognize that there's a line between holding people responsible for bad decisions and criminalizing non-criminal conduct.  You can have a police state with a high degree of personal accountability, in fact it's much easier. Freedom is messy and not everyone handles it well, but it's still preferable to the alternative.  Also, as stated, you're targeting a problem that only accounts for a small fraction of the overall problem, and doing so in a highly punitive and disruptive fashion.  Like I said earlier, I get that your heart's in the right place, but the idea is not a good one.

Along with truancy, they can be charged with child neglect and other crimes, and depending on the states the charges can be pretty wide-ranging. The point being, yes they can be criminally charged so the analogy still stands. 

It's "non-criminal" because the law doesn't exist. Everything is "non-criminal" until a law exists. What a horrible argument and I am not usually one to say something like that. Taking drugs isn't criminal conduct...except for the law-making it criminal conduct.  Again, you are letting great be the enemy of good. While your heart may be in the right place of fighting for freedoms, we also know that it simply doesn't work, and throwing up our hands and saying "it is what it is" is simply negligent to the country as a whole.

[Au165]

(02-22-2021, 03:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You are correct, we should be holding career criminals to account for illegal possession of firearms or using them in a crime.  Oddly enough violence hotspots like Chicago are doing the exact opposite.  How strange.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/investigations/ct-kim-foxx-felony-charges-cook-county-20200810-ldvrmqvv6bd3hpsuqha4duehmu-story.html

Interesting, how many school shootings were the result of a career criminal having a firearm?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-22-2021, 03:52 PM)Au165 Wrote: Along with truancy, they can be charged with child neglect and other crimes, and depending on the states the charges can be pretty wide-ranging. The point being, yes they can be criminally charged so the analogy still stands.

Ugh, there is a huge gap between being a good parent and one so negligent that they end up criminally prosecuted. 

Quote:It's "non-criminal" because the law doesn't exist. Everything is "non-criminal" until a law exists. What a horrible argument and I am not usually one to say something like that.

Ugh, it's not a horrible argument at all.  Say I was overlord and I made jaywalking a felony.  Did I just create a criminal conduct or was I addressing an actual need?  You're missing the crux of the point, you are advocating for creating a wide swathe of new criminals with your proposal that would otherwise never break any existing law.  You are creating criminals where there were none and would never be.  To use your own words, that's a horrible argument.  

Quote:Taking drugs isn't criminal conduct...except for the law-making it criminal conduct.  Again, you are letting great be the enemy of good. While your heart may be in the right place of fighting for freedoms, we also know that it simply doesn't work, and throwing up our hands and saying "it is what it is" is simply negligent to the country as a whole.

Actually we know for a fact that it does work, as violent crime has dropped every year for decades, without the implementation of draconian laws such as you are advocating for.  Put simply, you're in the wrong country for what you'd like to see occur.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-22-2021, 03:54 PM)Au165 Wrote: Interesting, how many school shootings were the result of a career criminal having a firearm?

That would depend on what definition of school shooting you use.   But regardless of which you use, school shootings represent a small fraction of gun related crime.  You're focused on this due to your profession, which I get.  It's also why I think your argument is more emotional than logical, at least in my opinion.

[Belsnickel]

(02-22-2021, 03:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I see that the pro-gun side are using the classic spin of just addressing "deaths" instead of looking at the real problem.  Three times as many people are shot each year as die from gunshot wounds.  Then there are hundreds of thousands of crimes committed with guns when they are never discharged.  Gun "deaths" are only a small fraction of gun "violence".

They accuse gun regulation advocates of being disingenuous for including suicides in gun death totals, but their spin on the facts is actually much more extreme.

(02-22-2021, 03:27 PM)Au165 Wrote: Did they explain why the root causes don't impact other similarly industrialized countries as they do us? I scanned it but didn't see that addressed. All the things they were calling out are present in other countries that don't see anything remotely similar to our issues with gun violence. 

I am serious, I scanned it quickly and have never really seen a good explanation when these things are brought up other than "it's complicated".

I'm going to address both of these with the same post because what I will lay out here applies to both in a similar way. There are some unique factors in the US that make us different than other countries, and one of those things is something on that page that they talk about a little in a more broad connection to gun violence. Socioeconomic inequality and a lack of socioeconomic mobility correlate stronger to gun violence than anything else. Gun violence includes crimes committed with firearms that are never even discharged, and it is something that separates us from other WEIRD nations because our Gini coefficient is closer to a developing nation than those nations that we think of as our peers.

So, not only is gun control used to hold down marginalized communities, focusing on gun control rather than the socioeconomic inequality that drives gun violence keeps those marginalized communities in their place to keep being held down.

[Au165]

(02-22-2021, 04:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ugh, there is a huge gap between being a good parent and one so negligent that they end up criminally prosecuted. 



Ugh, it's not a horrible argument at all.  Say I was overlord and I made jaywalking a felony.  Did I just create a criminal conduct or was I addressing an actual need?  You're missing the crux of the point, you are advocating for creating a wide swathe of new criminals with your proposal that would otherwise never break any existing law.  You are creating criminals where there were none and would never be.  To use your own words, that's a horrible argument.  


Actually we know for a fact that it does work, as violent crime has dropped every year for decades, without the implementation of draconian laws such as you are advocating for.  Put simply, you're in the wrong country for what you'd like to see occur.

Jaywalking is a crime, enforcement of the crime is another issue but it is a crime...because it's a law. I am advocating for creating a law that people can choose to become criminals or not, no different than if you choose to for instance text and drive or not. Up until a few years ago, it wasn't illegal, but now you are a "criminal" if you do so. 

Where have you seen violent GUN crime drop every year for decades? I see you used the term "violent crime" and I am sure you are not intentionally reclassifying it as all violent crime. I know, for example, gun-related homicides shot up from 2014 to 2017 which would not quite fit what you are describing.

[GMDino]

If I'm reading all these posts correctly: Specific gun crimes are few, all violent crime is down, gun laws don't work, and any law that might work would be too harsh on the people breaking them.

So with all that...as an aside...why are we selling army surplus goods to the police in this increasingLY safe world?  Why would "defunding" them be so bad when crime is dropping and the vast majority of gun crimes are self-harm? (If we're just looking at deaths.)

Like I said any proposed rule or law will get shot down (pun intended) because it will lead the reader to ask well "what's next" and therefore we can't even reach a starting point...if there even needs to be one.

[Au165]

(02-22-2021, 04:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That would depend on what definition of school shooting you use.   But regardless of which you use, school shootings represent a small fraction of gun related crime.  You're focused on this due to your profession, which I get.  It's also why I think your argument is more emotional than logical, at least in my opinion.

A small fraction of overall gun-related crime, the majority of all school shootings that occur in the entire world. I am focused on it because it is a small segment we can work to fix with a direct link to a specific place where guns are obtained. Again, we KNOW where the guns come from school shootings, so we know exactly how to stop or greatly reduce their occurrence. Saying it's punitive to punish people and only save a couple of hundred kids from getting killed is where our thoughts differ.

[fredtoast]

(02-22-2021, 03:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   The real problem, is not Joe and Jane Smith gun owner.  Criminalizing them will do nothing to stop gun violence and will only ruin the lives of people who would otherwise be completely law abiding.  .

They won't be "criminalized" if they are responsible gun owners.

And at the same time making owners responsible for their guns will make it much harder for criminals to get guns.  That is the whole point of registering weapons.  It makes it easier for police to enforce gun laws that are already on the books and much harder for criminals to buy guns.

[fredtoast]

(02-22-2021, 04:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, not only is gun control used to hold down marginalized communities,

Stricter gun control would BENEFIT marginalized communities more than any other because they are the ones suffering the damage and consequences of lack of regulation of gun ownership.

[Belsnickel]

(02-22-2021, 04:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Stricter gun control would BENEFIT marginalized communities more than any other because they are the ones suffering the damage and consequences of lack of regulation of gun ownership.

Yep, disarming communities that have been disproportionately given the shaft by not only the government but by others outside their communities sure will benefit them.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-22-2021, 04:20 PM)Au165 Wrote: A small fraction of overall gun-related crime, the majority of all school shootings that occur in the entire world. I am focused on it because it is a small segment we can work to fix with a direct link to a specific place where guns are obtained. Again, we KNOW where the guns come from school shootings, so we know exactly how to stop or greatly reduce their occurrence. Saying it's punitive to punish people and only save a couple of hundred kids from getting killed is where our thoughts differ.

You can work to fix it, by addressing the cause of it.  Make mental health counseling more available.  Identify at risk youth in elementary school, when some significant work can be done to change behavior.  If any of that had been done, among myriad other areas of inaction, then the Parkland shooting would never have occurred.  All without throwing mom and dad in prison with your new laws.

(02-22-2021, 05:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yep, disarming communities that have been disproportionately given the shaft by not only the government but by others outside their communities sure will benefit them.

Indeed.  I've referenced her before, but one of my former officers is a very militant black woman.  We used to discuss all the time how gun control laws target ethnic minorities.  As you have correctly pointed out in the past, most measures, such as taxes, fees and mandatory classes severely impact on the ability of a poor person to purchase a firearm, all the while proving no obstacle at all for middle class and wealthier people.  Oddly enough proponents of such things, such as the person you responded to, are also quick to attack law enforcement.  Yet for some reason those are the only people they simultaneously trust with firearms.  An odd contradiction to say the least.

[fredtoast]

(02-22-2021, 05:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yep, disarming communities that have been disproportionately given the shaft by not only the government but by others outside their communities sure will benefit them.

Considering that they are killing each other at a much higher rate than people in other communities then it will ABSOLUTELY benefit them more.

How exactly do you suggest they shoot their way out of poverty?  Was the Civil Rights Act passed at gunpoint?  How about Social Security, or the creation of HUD, or student loan programs?  Please give me some precise examples of how marginalized communities benefit from having tons of unregistered guns flooding their streets.  Because the only result I see is murder and violence at a rate much higher than other communities.

[fredtoast]

(02-22-2021, 05:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oddly enough proponents of such things, such as the person you responded to, are also quick to attack law enforcement.  Yet for some reason those are the only people they simultaneously trust with firearms.  An odd contradiction to say the least.

The person he was responding to was me, and I have no problem with law abiding citizens owning guns.

The only odd contradictions I see in this thread are 

1.  A law enforcement officer opposing regulation that would make it easier to enforce our current gun laws and help keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

2.  A person who claims to honor the US Constitution saying that he would not comply with a law passed under the rules of our Constitution.

[Belsnickel]

(02-22-2021, 05:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The person he was responding to was me, and I have no problem with law abiding citizens owning guns.

The only odd contradictions I see in this thread are 

1.  A law enforcement officer opposing regulation that would make it easier to enforce our current gun laws and help keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

2.  A person who claims to honor the US Constitution saying that he would not comply with a law passed under the rules of our Constitution.

Who has said they would not comply with a constitutional law?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-22-2021, 05:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Who has said they would not comply with a constitutional law?

No one.  It's just his way of introducing irrelevancies and labeling others.  In other words, par for the course.

[Belsnickel]

(02-22-2021, 05:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Considering that they are killing each other at a much higher rate than people in other communities then it will ABSOLUTELY benefit them more.

How exactly do you suggest they shoot their way out of poverty?  Was the Civil Rights Act passed at gunpoint?  How about Social Security, or the creation of HUD, or student loan programs?  Please give me some precise examples of how marginalized communities benefit from having tons of unregistered guns flooding their streets.  Because the only result I see is murder and violence at a rate much higher than other communities.

You know what would benefit them more AND cause decreased rates of gun violence? Meaningful reforms to improve their socioeconomic situations. Gun violence correlates to these socioeconomic issues. But because affecting real change is difficult and, let's be honest here, those in power don't want to help those marginalized communities when it really comes down to it, they like to focus on guns which will not solve anything. Gun will still be obtained because that box is wide open and even if you could magically confiscate all of them, there would still be violence in other forms.

[fredtoast]

(02-22-2021, 05:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Who has said they would not comply with a constitutional law?

Everyone who says they will not cooperate with a law to confiscate weapons if one is passed.

[fredtoast]

(02-22-2021, 05:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No one.  It's just his way of introducing irrelevancies and labeling others.  In other words, par for the course.

If there is a gun confiscation law passed and upheld by the courts will you comply with it?

[Au165]

(02-22-2021, 05:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You know what would benefit them more AND cause decreased rates of gun violence? Meaningful reforms to improve their socioeconomic situations. Gun violence correlates to these socioeconomic issues. But because affecting real change is difficult and, let's be honest here, those in power don't want to help those marginalized communities when it really comes down to it, they like to focus on guns which will not solve anything. Gun will still be obtained because that box is wide open and even if you could magically confiscate all of them, there would still be violence in other forms.

You keep saying it correlates to socioeconomic issues, but it much more closely correlates to access to guns. There are roughly 300k guns stolen each year, imagine if there wasn't a constant influx of stolen guns into these communities? Stolen guns are often ditched at the crime scene because there is no tie to them and it's riskier to keep it than leave them. That means there is still a really high demand for more inventory, which means you can over time stifle the use of stolen guns in crimes by requiring people to be accountable for their own firearms. That or people will keep them over ditching them which will lead to a higher solved crime rate. 

Simply requiring people to report a gun that is stolen in a timely manner seems like common sense, but apparently, that is asking too much. Quickly reporting a gun stolen can lead to the police being able to attempt to find it before it is lost into the black market. In one study they found that states with mandatory reporting laws resulted in a 30% decrease in stolen guns being recovered at the scene of a crime in another state. Essentially those guns became less desirable because it was more likely they were being actively looked for.