[RD] Florida School Shooting

[Lexicus]

What I find dishonest is how you interact with those on the other side.

And I find the way you interact with "the other side" credulous and naive, so I suppose that between us we've just demonstrated the role perspective plays in human affairs, eh?

You seem to have missed the point with the "personally believe" part. For what you said to be true, that what he is in bad faith and equivalent to saying do nothing, it isn't enough that you believe the proposals are not feasible, or even that they truly are not feasible, you would have to show chijohnoak knows and believes they are not feasible, which there is not a single shred of evidence for that whatsoever.

Call it a hunch based on long experience arguing with intransigent pro-gun people. Actually I suppose that he may not be aware the "solutions" he proposes are infeasible, but being too ignorant to realize one is proposing non-solutions seems like only a small step up from arguing in bad faith.

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: If all people are interested in doing is bickering with each other, the thread will be closed and infractions will be levied. That is all.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Sommerswerd]

Yeah, we are. You are comparing data between countries, which is largely irrelevant to the gun control discussion in the US.

Why do you consider it irrelevant?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Just to be clear here, my comments (I have now lived in the State of Florida for 17+ years. Florida does not have a requirement to obtain a license/permit before purchasing a firearm. You still must undergo a background check. And if you wish to "conceal carry" your firearm, then you do have to apply for a permit for that (and undergo another background check, as well as go through a firearms training class).have nothing at all to do with gun sales or transfers of guns that I no longer want.

To restate/clarify my comments:
1) I want to purchase a firearm as a Florida resident, I first have to undergo the NICS background screening before I can purchase that firearm.
2) I decide that I want to be able to "conceal carry" (“Concealed firearm” means any firearm, as defined in subsection (6), which is carried on or about a person in such a manner as to conceal the firearm from the ordinary sight of another person.) that weapon, I have to apply to the State of Florida for a "concealed carry" license. I have to pass a state background check for this, complete a firearms safety course and pay an application fee. Once that license is approved then I may conceal carry that weapon when I am out (in a hidden holster, in a pocket, in a purse if you are female and/or carry one, etc).

My post had nothing to do with guns that I own and am no longer interested in having. .

So, are you intentionally missing the point?

Your "I have to undergo the background screening" is glaringly NOT the case, as long as *I*, or anyone else, has a gun to sell you on the "I don't want it any more" market. Sure, you can now say "well, but I'm a law abiding citizen so I would be sure to do that background check," but no one is actually going to make sure that you do.

 

[chijohnaok]

I suppose this line is what you think of as "realistic actions that could be taken," but to me this is just an obviously bad-faith non-suggestion. It is a way of saying nothing really needs to be done while pretending to care about the issue.

.

Any system (fixing the existing system, scrapping it and creating a new one, etc) that requires background checks as part of the process for someone legally obtaining a firearm is only going to be effective if the people/states/agencies that feed data into the system are properly and consistently doing so.

So the 'data input' process is going to have to be fixed one way or another.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Any system (fixing the existing system, scrapping it and creating a new one, etc) that requires background checks as part of the process for someone legally obtaining a firearm is only going to be effective if the people/states/agencies that feed data into the system are properly and consistently doing so.

So the 'data input' process is going to have to be fixed one way or another.

That's true enough. There is a time element in that. The gun lobby wants a "check fast, loosely if necessary, don't unduly delay the process of getting the sale completed" priority. I would prefer a "get it right" priority. Guess who designed the current system, and guess who didn't.

 

[Sommerswerd]

In fact, in my searching I found several articles that say gun ownership in Australia is actually on the rise again, yet violence remains low. Perhaps that may point to gun access not being the problem, but rather some cultural or societal difference between the US and Australia that leads to our higher rate of gun violence.

Pointing to the possible "cultural or societal difference between the US" and other countries isn't my favorite though, because its dancing so close to the "different races/religions can't live together peacefully" argument. I know that wasn't your intent at all, but can you see my concern?

If that's really what you want to see, I have no disagreement with this. The only thing I probably wouldn't like about it is the inevitable fees that would come with such a registration process. That's not too big of a deal though as I'd treat that fee like I treat my car registration fee: something I roll my eyes at, but still do because I see the need for it. Registration of weapons has never been something I have contested. It's only outright bans and confiscations that don't sit well with me.

I think I have raised the possibility of strict liability (or any liability) for the manufacturers with you in the past and you were vehemently opposed... Am I misremembering?

 

[chijohnaok]

So, are you intentionally missing the point?

Your "I have to undergo the background screening" is glaringly NOT the case, as long as *I*, or anyone else, has a gun to sell you on the "I don't want it any more" market. Sure, you can now say "well, but I'm a law abiding citizen so I would be sure to do that background check," but no one is actually going to make sure that you do.

So you are talking about the "private gun sale" part of this.That was entirely separate from what I was talking about.

But, to your point, if I wanted to 'no longer have my gun' and then sell it, gift it, etc to someone else, should there be some sort of background check requirement for that?
I would not be opposed to that. You could make it a requirement that private gun sales must be "facilitated' through a licensed gun dealer. The purchaser would have to fill out the ATF Form 4473 (background check form) at the licensed gun dealer's store. The form would be submitted through the NICS background check process. Only after that background check is (successfully) completed would I be able to consummate the transaction of selling my firearm to the purchaser (and that would be done in the store). The gun dealer would be able to charge a fee for his services.

 

[chijohnaok]

That's true enough. There is a time element in that. The gun lobby wants a "check fast, loosely if necessary, don't unduly delay the process of getting the sale completed" priority. I would prefer a "get it right" priority. Guess who designed the current system, and guess who didn't.

The NICS system was part of the Brandy Handgun Violence Prevention Act.
That bill was introduced by Rep. Chuck Schumer February 22, 1993 and the final version was passed on November 11, 1993. It was signed into law by President Clinton November 30, 1993.

The Democratic party held a majority in both houses at the time.

Are you saying that Schumer, Clinton and the Democrats are tools of the NRA?

 

[Sommerswerd]

More likely than what to be shot?

Excellent question... the appropriate comparison being "than cops who do not carry guns"... UK cops versus US cops for example.

 

[Berzerker]

More likely than what to be shot?

I was responding to this:

"individuals in possession of a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession."

are cops more likely to be shot than people without guns?

 

[Marla_Singer]

Reading more about the French gun laws, I came to that rather interesting Historical facts.

In the old regime, hunting and military service were restricted to the aristocracy. After the French revolution, the society divided in orders was disbanded and the right for any citizen to keep an arm was considered a symbol of his emancipation in a freed state.

It's only after world war 2 that the country established a heavy gun control, immediately at the liberation in 1944: the French resistance has been disarmed and the civilians were called to voluntarily bring their guns in police stations so that they could be neutralized. Something which has largely been done.

Since then, the legislation has been further clarified and now weapons are classifed in 4 categories. The main criteria to differenciate weapons seem to be their rounds capacity.
- Category D can be bought by anyone over 18 but has no round capacity (pepper spray, black powder guns, blank or deactivitated guns).
- Category C (manual operation long guns with a capacity of 11 rounds or less, or semi-automatic weapons with a capacity of 3 rounds or less) requires a hunting licence and a medical certificate.
- Category B (handguns with a capacity of 20 rounds or less, manual or semi-automatic long guns with a capacity of 31 rounds or less) requires a shooting sport licence, an affiliation to a certified shooting range, at least 3 training sessions with an instructor, and a medical certificate. The shooting licence is only available for a period of 5 years (renewable under the same conditions).
- Category A are all weapons with a superior firepower as well as firearms disguised as another object. They are prohibited to all civilians.

Interestingly, it seems the only two purposes allowing people to own a gun in France are hunting and sport. There's no mention at all about self-defense.

 

[Lexicus]

I was responding to this:

"individuals in possession of a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession."

are cops more likely to be shot than people without guns?

This question isn't, like, relevant to that assertion though. The analogous question would be whether cops who are assaulted while carrying a gun are more or less likely to be shot than cops who are assaulted while not carrying a gun.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I was responding to this:

"individuals in possession of a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession."

are cops more likely to be shot than people without guns?

But "cops" in this context are not the best comparison. The better comparison is "cops with guns" versus "cops without guns"...

 

[FriendlyFire]

Yeah, we are. You are comparing data between countries, which is largely irrelevant to the gun control discussion in the US. Sure, we have higher crime rates than other developed countries, but the crime rate is declining, including the number of violent crimes in which a firearm is used. That is the important statistic because the claim made by gun control advocates is that gun violence is on the rise. This claim is patently false according to the statistics.

And while the percentage of violent crimes committed in the US is increasingly dominated by gun violence, the overall number of violent crimes is still going down, which means gun violence is decreasing as well. For example: if 100 violent crimes are committed in one year with 30% of them being gun-related, and the next year 40% of all violent crimes are gun-related, but there were only 50 total violent crimes, then gun violence still decreased despite taking up a larger percentage of violent crimes.

So it's not that either one of us is using "alternative facts", it's just we are using two different sets of facts that are both accurate, but one set of facts is just not relevant to the discussion. And I'm not trying to insult you by saying that, I'm just saying that the stats you are using may point to another issue worth discussing, but it doesn't really address the specific claims made by gun control advocates in the US.

I was being sarcastic with the Alternative facts

The amount of crime as well as violence in the US is very high compared with all other modern western countries, the US can pat itself on the back for overall decline in crime but it seems rather dishonest to say that the current laws are working when you have a much higher gun crime, homicide rate and violent crime rate. It feels rather like self delusional given that you (as in the US) keep having mass shootings monthly to celebrate the success of existing gun laws. I dont mind if the US crime rate being at 50 year lows isnt something that is positive, its just not really that low and you have to accept that the US is a violent place overall.

You can have a reasonable laws so that Rual America can have guns, enjoy guns but at the same time have safe guards to reduce violent gun crime and mass shootings.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So you are talking about the "private gun sale" part of this.That was entirely separate from what I was talking about.

But, to your point, if I wanted to 'no longer have my gun' and then sell it, gift it, etc to someone else, should there be some sort of background check requirement for that?
I would not be opposed to that. You could make it a requirement that private gun sales must be "facilitated' through a licensed gun dealer. The purchaser would have to fill out the ATF Form 4473 (background check form) at the licensed gun dealer's store. The form would be submitted through the NICS background check process. Only after that background check is (successfully) completed would I be able to consummate the transaction of selling my firearm to the purchaser (and that would be done in the store). The gun dealer would be able to charge a fee for his services.

The NICS system was part of the Brandy Handgun Violence Prevention Act.
That bill was introduced by Rep. Chuck Schumer February 22, 1993 and the final version was passed on November 11, 1993. It was signed into law by President Clinton November 30, 1993.

The Democratic party held a majority in both houses at the time.

Are you saying that Schumer, Clinton and the Democrats are tools of the NRA?

Administration of the system can be pushed towards "do it fast" or pushed towards "get it right." The perfect example of how the administration of the system has had priorities set is that the military was told "provide input" without any further oversight. In a bureaucracy when you say "do this" and don't add "here's a deadline, and here's the penalty for not complying" you are whistling in the dark. Democrats aren't perfect, by any means, but they have been undercut at every turn by manipulation in the administration of the program...all while the real problem gets continuously pushed aside under cover of "but the checks don't work so who cares if they can be just ignored anyway."

Meanwhile, the continued "well, let's just pretend that there won't be any private sales to make it true when I say that I have to have a background check," while amusingly disingenuous, is pretty old by this point. Maybe if you had gone straight to "private sales need to be regulated too" I'd take you seriously, but as it stands I suspect that the next time you address the issue you will be more than happy to promote the Florida system as adequate if only the background check system worked, and ignore the reality that the system is designed to make sure that anyone who wants the gun maker's products will be able to buy one.

 

[Arwon]

I reckon the fastest way to get effective gun control in the USA is for some rich person to buy every black American an assault rifle

 

[Berzerker]

This question isn't, like, relevant to that assertion though. The analogous question would be whether cops who are assaulted while carrying a gun are more or less likely to be shot than cops who are assaulted while not carrying a gun.

But "cops" in this context are not the best comparison. The better comparison is "cops with guns" versus "cops without guns"...

The stat I'm responding to compared people (Pennsylvanians) with guns to people without them, the former are 4.5 times more likely to be shot than the latter. So I asked if it was more likely armed cops are shot than people without guns. I'm assuming the answer is yes. But why? Because they have dangerous jobs confronting criminals. Well, many people with guns have dangerous jobs. Security personnel, drug dealers, robbers, clerking a store in a high crime area, etc...

So I'd expect people with guns to be shot more often than people without them, but owning a gun doesn't mean you're 4.5 times more likely to be shot - other factors are involved. Somebody living out in the boonies with a gun isn't 4.5 times more likely to be shot than unarmed city dwellers in the midst of a drug war.

Your question compares cops with guns to unarmed cops. Where do cops police without guns? Not Pennsylvania. Why can cops get away with policing without guns? Because guns are banned? Because crime rates are low? Because the risk they'll be shot is much lower than cops policing a society loaded for bear.

 

[chijohnaok]

Administration of the system can be pushed towards "do it fast" or pushed towards "get it right." The perfect example of how the administration of the system has had priorities set is that the military was told "provide input" without any further oversight. In a bureaucracy when you say "do this" and don't add "here's a deadline, and here's the penalty for not complying" you are whistling in the dark. Democrats aren't perfect, by any means, but they have been undercut at every turn by manipulation in the administration of the program...all while the real problem gets continuously pushed aside under cover of "but the checks don't work so who cares if they can be just ignored anyway."

Meanwhile, the continued "well, let's just pretend that there won't be any private sales to make it true when I say that I have to have a background check," while amusingly disingenuous, is pretty old by this point. Maybe if you had gone straight to "private sales need to be regulated too" I'd take you seriously, but as it stands I suspect that the next time you address the issue you will be more than happy to promote the Florida system as adequate if only the background check system worked, and ignore the reality that the system is designed to make sure that anyone who wants the gun maker's products will be able to buy one.

So those administering the program are to blame?
Administration of the NICS background check program is the responsibility of the Executive Branch of government.
Columbine happened in 1999.
Fort Hood in 2009.
Sandy Hook and Aurora in 2012
San Bernardino in 2015
Orlando 2016.

Who was administering the program when these shootings occurred? Where they manipulating the system?

I didn't go "straight to private sales" because that was outside of what I was talking about earlier. When you clarified that you were in fact referring to private sales I responded with an answer. I was sincere in my answer. Whether you take my response "seriously" or not.......

The overwhelming majority of gun sales in the United States involve a background check.
Politifact addressed the issue in 2017:

How often are guns sold without background checks?
The answer: 22 percent obtained their gun without a background check.
http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...gun-sales-lack-background-checks-new-data-sa/

I was not promoting the Florida system as adequate. I simply explained the Florida system as it exists.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I was not promoting the Florida system as adequate. I simply explained the Florida system as it exists.

While conveniently leaving out the gigantic flaw designed into the system. "Just" one in five gun sales go off without a background check. I'll bet those are the one in five who are just unaware of the requirements and really really mean well, so let's continue to drive the discussion as much as possible into the minutia of the background check system.

Wasn't someone around here talking about "good faith"?