KY school shooting

[GMDino]

I'll just leave this here.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/04/gun-violence-research-has-been-shut-down-for-20-years/?utm_term=.00699464781c

Quote:The political positions taken up after the Las Vegas massacre are too familiar.



Democratic leaders, such as U.S. senators Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), immediately called for new gun control measures. They say they want, at the very least, to close loopholes in the national firearm background check system.


And most Republicans, from statehouses right through to the White House, say they don't want new gun control laws. Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin seemed to distill this view with a tweet noting, “You can't regulate evil.”

Quote:[/url][url=https://twitter.com/GovMattBevin]Governor Matt Bevin

@GovMattBevin

To all those political opportunists who are seizing on the tragedy in Las Vegas to call for more gun regs...You can't regulate evil...
9:38 AM - Oct 2, 2017

This playing-out of political roles seems to happen after every mass shooting, like it's part of the program. It has occurred after incidents in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn., and San Bernardino, Calif., and Orlando. On and on.


But one reason the positions are so intractable is that no one really knows what works to prevent gun deaths. Gun-control research in the United States essentially came to a standstill in 1996.

After 21 years, the science is stale.


“In the area of what works to prevent shootings, we know almost nothing,” Mark Rosenberg, who, in the mid-1990s, led the CDC's gun-violence research efforts, said shortly after the San Bernardino shooting in 2015.


In 1996, the Republican-majority Congress threatened to strip funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention unless it stopped funding research into firearm injuries and deaths. The National Rifle Association accused the CDC of promoting gun control. As a result, the CDC stopped funding gun-control research — which had a chilling effect far beyond the agency, drying up money for almost all public health studies of the issue nationwide.


The National Institute of Justice, an arm of the U.S. Department of Justice, funded 32 gun-related studies from 1993 to 1999, but none from 2009 to 2012, according to Mayors Against Illegal Guns. The institute then resumed funding in 2013, in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting the year before. Researchers in search of private funding say they know to avoid the word “gun” or “firearm” in the titles of violence-prevention studies to avoid blowback.

That hasn't stopped the rallying cry for “common-sense gun control.” But, as Rosenberg pointed out, we don't know what that looks like. Maybe background checks are not the answer. Maybe allowing guns on college campuses makes those places safer. 
Maybe there is a way to stop a single gunman from killing and wounding hundreds of people at a concert in Las Vegas.


But, many advocates say, it's impossible to have an honest debate about preventing gun violence when we can't study the issue.

Everyone agrees the Las Vegas shooting was a tragedy. But no one knows what might work to prevent the next one.


“If we get better data, we could get a lot of traction on this,” said Jennifer Doleac, an assistant professor of public policy at the University of Virginia, who has used gunfire-detection technology deployed in many cities to study how often guns are fired. 
“It's just so political.”


Jay Dickey was a Republican congressman from Arkansas who, in the mid-1990s, led the effort to stop the CDC's gun violence research. The Dickey Amendment, as it's known, has been reauthorized every year by Congress. He and Rosenberg, the former CDC official, were once sworn enemies. But the two men later became friends. And Dickey, before he died earlier this year, changed his thinking. After the successive waves of mass shootings, he saw that something needed to be done. Dickey said he changed his mind: Gun violence needed to be studied by the CDC. He wanted solutions — ones that, he said, also protected gun rights. It might be possible.

“We need to turn this over to science and take it away from politics,” Dickey said.



All he wanted to do was find out.

[fredtoast]

(01-25-2018, 01:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll actually do you a favor and summarize here.

Most gun violence is perpetrated by hard core criminal recidivists.  The study you tried to use against me acknowledges that only 20% of gun related violence is committed by people who lawfully owned the gun.  We can therefore easily surmise that the vast majority of gun violence could be prevented by aggressively prosecuting criminals who illegally own firearms.  This is not done, and I can tell you this from first hand experience.  So, instead of rushing to write new laws every time something like this happens, try the novel approach of actual enforcing the ones on the books first.

Actually you don't "prevent" a crime by punishing someone AFTER the crime has already happened.

Right now we can not aggressively prosecute criminals who illegally own firearms because the police can not do anything to a criminal openly carrying his gun on the way to commit a crime.

We prevent people from being killed by bad drivers by making making them show proof of training and ownership BEFORE anyone is killed.  That is what we need to do with guns.  If a person wants to openly carry a gun in public then they should be required to be able to show some proof that they legally own that gun and have been trained and licensed to carry it.

And finally your anecdotal evidence about criminals in possession of fire arms doesn't carry any weight with me.  Here where I live gun possession by a criminal is prosecuted to the fullest.  What do they do with a convicted felon in possession of a firearm where you work?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-25-2018, 01:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually you don't "prevent" a crime by punishing someone AFTER the crime has already happened.

You absolutely do, you prevent the next crime that criminal will commit.  As someone who works in the field you should know the facts that the vast majority of crime, much less gun related crime, is committed by a small percentage of hardcore recidivists.  Maybe you don't know that, it would explain why you would make such a statement.

Quote:Right now we can not aggressively prosecute criminals who illegally own firearms because the police can not do anything to a criminal openly carrying his gun on the way to commit a crime.

That would be dependent on open carry laws, which vary state by state.  I have already made my opposition to open carry well known as it serves no logical purpose as I have explained in the past.

Quote:We prevent people from being killed by bad drivers by making making them show proof of training and ownership BEFORE anyone is killed.  That is what we need to do with guns.  If a person wants to openly carry a gun in public then they should be required to be able to show some proof that they legally own that gun and have been trained and licensed to carry it.

Once again, ignoring that owning a firearm is a constitutional right.  You don't just get to ignore this fact because it inconveniences you.  Do we need training and licensing to exercise our right to free speech?

Quote:And finally your anecdotal evidence about criminals in possession of fire arms doesn't carry any weight with me.  Here where I live gun possession by a criminal is prosecuted to the fullest.  What do they do with a convicted felon in possession of a firearm where you work?

CA is slap on the wrist central.  I've seen people arrested for illegal gun possession/concealed carry several times with no custodial sentence issued.  Plea bargain after plea bargain.

[fredtoast]

(01-25-2018, 02:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You absolutely do, you prevent the next crime that criminal will commit.  As someone who works in the field you should know the facts that the vast majority of crime, much less gun related crime, is committed by a small percentage of hardcore recidivists.  Maybe you don't know that, it would explain why you would make such a statement.

I know that every single criminal was at one point a "first time offender". 

[fredtoast]

(01-25-2018, 02:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That would be dependent on open carry laws, which vary state by state.  I have already made my opposition to open carry well known as it serves no logical purpose as I have explained in the past.

But even if there were no "open carry" the lack of registration requirement and licensing prevents a lot of criminals from being prosecuted for illegal possession of weapons.

As a police officer you should know how many times a person is caught with illegal drugs just because those drugs were in the persons vehicle or on his person when he came in contact with the police for an unrelated issue.  Or how many times a person get charged with "driving without a license" because they are stopped for something else.

[fredtoast]

(01-25-2018, 02:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Once again, ignoring that owning a firearm is a constitutional right.  You don't just get to ignore this fact because it inconveniences you.  Do we need training and licensing to exercise our right to free speech?

How am I "ignoring it" by explaining how it can be limited based on public safety?  It seems that you are the one ignoring my answer.  Here it is for the second time.

Constitutional protections of "free speech" can be limited in the name of public safety.  For example you need a license or permit to speak if it is going to be a parade or a large gathering on public property.

I can probably list multiple exceptions to every right based on protecting public safety.  The fact that it is a Constitutional right does not mean it can not be limited.  We already have some of those laws in place.

[fredtoast]

(01-25-2018, 02:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: CA is slap on the wrist central.  I've seen people arrested for illegal gun possession/concealed carry several times with no custodial sentence issued.  Plea bargain after plea bargain.

There is a difference between "illegal gun possession" and "possession of a gun by a convicted criminal".

Are you saying that convicted felons caught in possession of firearms are let go or are you just talking about "illegal possession" cases? 

[*PhilHos*]

(01-25-2018, 01:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: We prevent people from being killed by bad drivers by making making them show proof of training and ownership BEFORE anyone is killed.  

No, we don't. People drive without licenses all the time. Sure, in order to BUY a car, one needs to show a license but to DRIVE a car, one only needs access to a vehicle.

I'd also wager that more people are killed by licensed drivers than unlicensed ones.

[fredtoast]

(01-25-2018, 04:35 PM)PhilHos Wrote: No, we don't. People drive without licenses all the time. Sure, in order to BUY a car, one needs to show a license but to DRIVE a car, one only needs access to a vehicle.

But we have the authority to stop them if we catch them.  And lots of people don't drive because they can't get/don't have a license.

No law will prevent all crime, but having a law in place does prevent crime.

(01-25-2018, 04:35 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I'd also wager that more people are killed by licensed drivers than unlicensed ones.

And I'd wager a good amount that a lot more people would die if there was no requirement for a drivers license at all. 

[*PhilHos*]

(01-25-2018, 07:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But we have the authority to stop them if we catch them.  And lots of people don't drive because they can't get/don't have a license.

No law will prevent all crime, but having a law in place does prevent crime.


And I'd wager a good amount that a lot more people would die if there was no requirement for a drivers license at all. 

Aren't there already gun laws in place, though? So, wouldn't the argument for MORE gun laws (not that I'm opposed to some of the suggested ideas, BTW) be akin to saying we need MORE traffic/driver's license laws to prevent innocent people from being killed by bad drivers?

You're right that no law will prevent all crime, but why do so many still suggest creating more laws? I could see if there were no gun control laws at all, but there are. How many of them are regularly enforced?

[fredtoast]

(01-25-2018, 07:11 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Aren't there already gun laws in place, though? So, wouldn't the argument for MORE gun laws (not that I'm opposed to some of the suggested ideas, BTW) be akin to saying we need MORE traffic/driver's license laws to prevent innocent people from being killed by bad drivers?

You're right that no law will prevent all crime, but why do so many still suggest creating more laws? I could see if there were no gun control laws at all, but there are. How many of them are regularly enforced?

We are lacking the most basic laws that are needed.

Every gun needs to be registered to an owner and every gun owner needs a license to own a gun.  We will never be able to control gun traffic, hold owners responsible, or keep guns out of the hands of criminals without these two very basic requirements.  Right now if a police officer pulls over a car and finds a dozen guns in the trunk he has no way of knowing of they are stolen or if the person possessing them obtained them legally.  We have laws that say a convicted criminal or an insane person can not own a gun, but if a police officer encounters a person openly carrying a gun he has no way to know if that person is prohibited from possessing that gun.

Every driver is required to carry proof that he has a drivers license and that the car he is driving is registered to a specific owner, but there is no such requirement for a person walking down the street carrying a gun.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-25-2018, 02:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I know that every single criminal was at one point a "first time offender". 

With pithy arguments like that you must blow away a jury.

(01-25-2018, 02:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But even if there were no "open carry" the lack of registration requirement and licensing prevents a lot of criminals from being prosecuted for illegal possession of weapons.

How could you not be prosecuted for doing something illegal?  By definition you've broken the law.

Quote:As a police officer you should know how many times a person is caught with illegal drugs just because those drugs were in the persons vehicle or on his person when he came in contact with the police for an unrelated issue.  Or how many times a person get charged with "driving without a license" because they are stopped for something else.

I'm not a police officer, I've stated this many times.  Yes, many crimes are discovered during otherwise routine encounters such as traffic stops.  Given the ineptitude of your first statement in this post I can't really determine what point you think you're making here.

(01-25-2018, 02:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How am I "ignoring it" by explaining how it can be limited based on public safety?  It seems that you are the one ignoring my answer.  Here it is for the second time.

It already is limited based on public safety.  I'm asking you to show how your proposed limits would be worth the infringement on the rights of US citizens.

Quote:Constitutional protections of "free speech" can be limited in the name of public safety.  For example you need a license or permit to speak if it is going to be a parade or a large gathering on public property.

No, you need a permit for the event, not to be able to speak at said event.

Quote:I can probably list multiple exceptions to every right based on protecting public safety.  The fact that it is a Constitutional right does not mean it can not be limited.  We already have some of those laws in place.

Exactly, now kindly show how your proposed additional limitations will justify the further infringement of that right.

(01-25-2018, 03:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is a difference between "illegal gun possession" and "possession of a gun by a convicted criminal".

Yes and no.  All possession of a gun by a convicted criminal is illegal gun possession.  Not all illegal gun possession is possession of a gun by a convicted criminal.

Quote:Are you saying that convicted felons caught in possession of firearms are let go or are you just talking about "illegal possession" cases? 

I'm talking about people on probation being caught with a firearm.  I'm talking about people on parole being caught with a firearm.  I'm talking about people with lengthy criminal records being caught with a firearm.  CA has become so pro-criminal and anti-incarceration it's obscene.  The legislature also lies to the public.  Do some research on AB109.  It's billed as early release of non-violent offenders.  Except the way "non-violent" is determined is based on the offense that landed them in prison.  So a guy with attempted murder and ADW convictions who is in prison for burglary is eligible for early release as a non-violent felon.  Research Prop 57.  I can't tell you how many times in the past two or so years I've heard criminals say some variation of, "we know you guys can't do shit to us anymore".  I interact with multiple agencies.  I have friends in law enforcement, probation and parole.  There is zero variance in their experiences of late.


You want to reduce gun related crime, the answer is simple.  Go after hard core recidivist criminals who use firearms in the commission of crimes or illegally carry firearms.  The numbers will drop.  They've been dropping for a quarter century until the new pro criminal agenda took hold and they rose for the first time since the early 90's.  LA is seeing a huge increase in crime and agencies are forbidden to speak about the known cause publicly.  They're even being made to cook the books on these numbers by diverting criminals, "pre booking" which means the arrest is never even recorded.  Bury your head in the sand and go after law abiding citizens while ignoring criminals.  It doesn't work and it never will.

[fredtoast]

(01-26-2018, 12:32 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Bury your head in the sand and go after law abiding citizens while ignoring criminals.  It doesn't work and it never will.

Regulation has been successful in many areas.  Requiring people to have prescriptions for narcotics.  Requiring people to have permits to use powerful explosives or toxic chemicals.  Requiring people to have drivers licenses and vehicle registrations.

I could go on and on, but to claim that no government regulation has ever protected public safety is ridiculous.

Wouldn't you agree that with drug enforcement policy it is just as important to go after the trafficking and source of illegal drugs than to just keep arresting people for possessing the drugs?  Then why not do the same thing when addressing gun violence?

[fredtoast]

(01-25-2018, 02:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But even if there were no "open carry" the lack of registration requirement and licensing prevents a lot of criminals from being prosecuted for illegal possession of weapons.

As a police officer you should know how many times a person is caught with illegal drugs just because those drugs were in the persons vehicle or on his person when he came in contact with the police for an unrelated issue.  Or how many times a person get charged with "driving without a license" because they are stopped for something else.

(01-26-2018, 12:32 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm not a police officer, I've stated this many times.  Yes, many crimes are discovered during otherwise routine encounters such as traffic stops.  Given the ineptitude of your first statement in this post I can't really determine what point you think you're making here.

Sorry for thinking you were a police officer, but my point is so simple i think most non-police officers would still get it.

If gun registration was required then the police would be able to get a lot more illegal guns off the streets other than just waiting for them to commit a violent crime before acting.

Everytime a person was stopped by the police for any reason and found to be in possession of a gun that gun could be seized and the person charged for illegal possession.  As it is now it would be practically impossible, or at least very inefficient, for them to go to all of the steps in the field to determine if the person was in lawful possession of the gun.  Instead of just demanding to see the gun license and registration like they do with a driver or a prescription if they find narcotics the officer would have to run the persons entire criminal history and then run the guns serial numbers to see if it has been stolen.  And as the study you cited shows the guns in the hands of criminals often belong to other people who have refused to report them as stolen.

If you are a lawful gun owner would you rather be able to just flash a license and registration or wait around for a half hour while the officer runs your entire criminal history and enters all serial numbers from every gun through a data base?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-26-2018, 01:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Regulation has been successful in many areas.  Requiring people to have prescriptions for narcotics.

You literally just typed that requiring a prescription for narcotics has been successful.  I don't think I've ever seen someone step in that deep.  

Quote: I could go on and on, but to claim that no government regulation has ever protected public safety is ridiculous.

I see your time on the bant list did you no good at all.  Still claiming people made claims they never made.  Do you really not get that everyone but you and your triumvirate are completely wise to this?

Quote:Wouldn't you agree that with drug enforcement policy it is just as important to go after the trafficking and source of illegal drugs than to just keep arresting people for possessing the drugs?

 
Aside from the fact that this comparison does you no favors at all, as drug enforcement policy has been an abject failure by any measure, it's also an apples and oranges comparison.  Drug policy limits the sale of substances that are illegal.  Firearms are not only legal, but owning them is a right built into our Constitution.  Also, in your example, the person possessing the drugs intends to use them.  Unless you're talking about dealers, but as a lawyer you would realize that such an implication would require different wording so clearly that wasn't your intended implication.  So, in regards to drugs, going after the importers and distributors of illegal substances makes much more sense than going after individual users.  But then, no one ever robbed someone using a joint or a bag of meth as a weapon.

Quote:Then why not do the same thing when addressing gun violence?

Because, as I illustrated above, they are completely incomparable in this fashion.  Fireams manufacturers create a perfectly legal product.  Firearms dealers, who have to undergo a rigorous licensing process (ooohhh look, it's those government regulations you were asking for!), sell a completely legal product.  Firearms purchasers, who have to undergo a NICS background check (ooohhh look, it's those government regulations you were asking for!), are purchasing a completely legal product.

The only black market for firearms is for firearms that are illegal under federal law, or stolen firearms sold to people who could not legally purchase them or prefer not to in order to avoid being a known gun purchaser.

[fredtoast]

(01-26-2018, 01:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I see your time on the bant list did you no good at all.  Still claiming people made claims they never made.  Do you really not get that everyone but you and your triumvirate are completely wise to this?

Sorry for the misunderstanding but all throughout this discussion the only issue I have been talking about are government regulations.

So what exactly did you mean by "go after law abiding citizens".  I don't recall suggesting anything other than government regulations.

[fredtoast]

(01-26-2018, 01:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Because, as I illustrated above, they are completely incomparable in this fashion.  Fireams manufacturers create a perfectly legal product.  Firearms dealers, who have to undergo a rigorous licensing process (ooohhh look, it's those government regulations you were asking for!), sell a completely legal product.

The companies that make cars, explosives, narcotic pain killers, alcohol, and toxic chemicals also make perfectly legal products but that does not mean there is no public safety issue in regulating them.

(01-26-2018, 01:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Firearms purchasers, who have to undergo a NICS background check (ooohhh look, it's those government regulations you were asking for!), are purchasing a completely legal product.

The only black market for firearms is for firearms that are illegal under federal law, or stolen firearms sold to people who could not legally purchase them or prefer not to in order to avoid being a known gun purchaser.

Again the study you cited indicated that 50% of gun dealers agree to "straw" purchases where they know the gun is not for the person making the purchase.

And lots of individuals sell guns to strangers with no background check at all.

If 80% of violent gun crimes are committed by people who were not the lawful owner doesn't that indicate that there is a problem with criminals having easy access to guns?

[fredtoast]

(01-26-2018, 01:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You literally just typed that requiring a prescription for narcotics has been successful.  I don't think I've ever seen someone step in that deep. 

I feel that the narcotic problems in this country would be even worse if there was no regulation on access to them.

Over the years I have sent multiple clients to drug rehab treatment based only on the fact that they were arrested for illegal possession of these drugs.  Rehab does not cure everyone but I also know of examples where it has worked.

Just because we have a problem with narcotics it does not mean that it would not be worse without the regulations.  That is like saying doctors and medical research are meaningless because we still have people getting sick.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-26-2018, 01:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sorry for thinking you were a police officer, but my point is so simple i think most non-police officers would still get it.

If gun registration was required then the police would be able to get a lot more illegal guns off the streets other than just waiting for them to commit a violent crime before acting.

Sure, and if we eliminated the 4th amendment protections law enforcement could really clamp down on crime.  I'll use street gangs as an example.  Law enforcement knows who the gang members are.  They know where the gang members largely hang out.  If law enforcement were freed from the shackles (used ironically btw) of the 4th amendment then street gangs could be eliminated nationwide within two weeks time.  They would be obliterated.  As criminal street gangs account for well over half of firearms related homicides would not doing so promote "public safety"?

Quote:Everytime a person was stopped by the police for any reason and found to be in possession of a gun that gun could be seized and the person charged for illegal possession.  As it is now it would be practically impossible, or at least very inefficient, for them to go to all of the steps in the field to determine if the person was in lawful possession of the gun.

 
See above.  In any event, to carry a concealed weapon requires a permit (in most/all? states).  Trust me, determining whether someone you stopped has an illegal weapon is not that difficult under the current system.

Quote:Instead of just demanding to see the gun license and registration like they do with a driver or a prescription if they find narcotics the officer would have to run the persons entire criminal history and then run the guns serial numbers to see if it has been stolen.

 
Yes, and this takes all of two to three minutes.  It's arduous I tell you!

Quote:And as the study you cited shows the guns in the hands of criminals often belong to other people who have refused to report them as stolen.

I believe the term used was "unaware" they were stolen.  Remember counselor, a lawyer should be precise with their wording.

Quote:If you are a lawful gun owner would you rather be able to just flash a license and registration or wait around for a half hour while the officer runs your entire criminal history and enters all serial numbers from every gun through a data base?

A legal gun owner won't generally have to worry about either.  As stated above it takes minutes, nothing close to half an hour, to run a Clets check.  Also, yes, I have zero problem waiting for law enforcement to do their job.  Three minutes out of my day means a criminal will be caught down the road.  A small sacrifice I'd think any law abiding citizen would be happy to make.

(01-26-2018, 01:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sorry for the misunderstanding but all throughout this discussion the only issue I have been talking about are government regulations.

So what exactly did you mean by "go after law abiding citizens".  I don't recall suggesting anything other than government regulations.

You stated I made an argument I did not make.  You do this routinely and you get called out on it routinely.

[fredtoast]

(01-26-2018, 02:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You stated I made an argument I did not make.  You do this routinely and you get called out on it routinely.

And I apologized for the misunderstanding and asked if you would like to clear it up.

So what exactly did you mean by "going after law abiding citizens" if you were not refering to government regulations.