How do we reduce mass-shootings?

[BrettM]

Let's say the U.S. government wants to reduce the number of guns in circulation by 80%. They don't know how to do this, and ask you for advice. What would you recommend?

Many of these guns do not appear on any up to date registers. Nobody knows who owns them or where they are. Would you conduct door-to-door searches to find these guns?

What incentives would you offer registered gun owners to hand in their guns? Would you offer them any compensation at all, or just confiscate the guns with the threat of heavy fines or imprisonment for non-compliance?

Once the wheels start turning, the government will be sitting on a mountain of guns and ammunition. What do they do with this stuff? Who do you trust to dispose of it?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by BrettM

Let's say the U.S. government wants to reduce the number of guns in circulation by 80%. They don't know how to do this, and ask you for advice. What would you recommend?

Many of these guns do not appear on any up to date registers. Nobody knows who owns them or where they are. Would you conduct door-to-door searches to find these guns?

No.

Originally Posted by BrettM

What incentives would you offer registered gun owners to hand in their guns? Would you offer them any compensation at all, or just confiscate the guns with the threat of heavy fines or imprisonment for non-compliance?

1) To be lawful citizens
2) Since the guns were lawfully purchased simply ask for the receipt for the gun and use that to make a payment. If no receipt is available, use the current price less a discount for the age and wear and tear.

Originally Posted by BrettM

Once the wheels start turning, the government will be sitting on a mountain of guns and ammunition. What do they do with this stuff? Who do you trust to dispose of it?

We already "trust" the government to destroy weapons and ammunition so not sure what you think would be different in this case.

[8enotto]

The current system is for the holder of a gun or ma y guns to commit a crime. The home is searched, records of registered firearms are checked, and they are taken. A friend lost more than 35 and the right to have any in one stupid act.

[BrettM]

Originally Posted by BrettM

Would you conduct door-to-door searches to find these guns?

Originally Posted by Darat

No.

You may not meet your 80% target unless you find at least some of these unregistered guns. Would you offer a bounty to anybody who betrays the owner or reveals the whereabouts of the gun? This might lead to even more killings in the short term!

Originally Posted by BrettM

What incentives would you offer registered gun owners to hand in their guns? Would you offer them any compensation at all, or just confiscate the guns with the threat of heavy fines or imprisonment for non-compliance?

Originally Posted by Darat

2) Since the guns were lawfully purchased simply ask for the receipt for the gun and use that to make a payment. If no receipt is available, use the current price less a discount for the age and wear and tear.

Fair comment. If this kind of drastic legislation was introduced in the USA, it would lead to a collapse of the gun industry, and a severe loss in resale value of guns. Can gun owners sell their guns at a better price to international gun dealers? Probably not - there would be insufficient demand.

Would the government step in to support the ailing gun industry? This would be an additional cost over and above that required to purchase the guns.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by BrettM

You may not meet your 80% target unless you find at least some of these unregistered guns. Would you offer a bounty to anybody who betrays the owner or reveals the whereabouts of the gun? This might lead to even more killings in the short term!







Fair comment. If this kind of drastic legislation was introduced in the USA, it would lead to a collapse of the gun industry, and a severe loss in resale value of guns. Can gun owners sell their guns at a better price to international gun dealers? Probably not - there would be insufficient demand.

Would the government step in to support the ailing gun industry? This would be an additional cost over and above that required to purchase the guns.

I think you're giving these "from my cold dead hands" people more credit than you should. The prospect of facing a open-and-shut felony possession charge will be scary enough to either convince them to surrender/dispose of these guns, or store them so deeply and secretly that it's, for all practical purposes, permanently off the street.

Despite all the tough talk, these people are not going to risk life and liberty to openly defy a gun law. An extremely small minority might, but that's what we have prisons for, right?

[Chanakya]

"How do we reduce mass shootings, when we have no desire to actually reduce mass shootings, and when we are indifferent to children getting shot down like dogs?"


"How go do callous ******** and cross-eyed loons, that have neither a functioning gray cell in their head, nor any capacity for empathy in their heart, reduce mass killings?"

[BrettM]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

The prospect of facing a open-and-shut felony possession charge will be scary enough to either convince them to surrender/dispose of these guns, or store them so deeply and secretly that it's, for all practical purposes, permanently off the street.

I don't think that will bother criminals, unless the penalty for unlawful possession of a firearm outweighs the penalty for committing the crime with the gun.

Judge: "You get 5 years imprisonment for shooting and killing the man you robbed. You also get 15 years for unlawful possession of a firearm".

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by BrettM

I don't think that will bother criminals, unless the penalty for unlawful possession of a firearm outweighs the penalty for committing the crime with the gun.

Judge: "You get 5 years imprisonment for shooting and killing the man you robbed. You also get 15 years for unlawful possession of a firearm".

Almost all violent crimes have enhancements based on the weapon used.

It also matters greatly if you were in legal possession of the gun.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

My understanding is that the types of gun on offer in Scotland vary quite a bit from the US.

Also, it's perfectly legal in Texas to request a carry permit for the explicit purposes of armed self defense. Somehow I doubt such reasons are acceptable in Scotland.

I think you're oversimplifying things a bit. These countries allow some sporting guns, but notably don't have the same culture of armed self defense or allowing weapons that are designed primarily for that purpose. Occasionally having shootings with shotguns is not the same of letting anybody with a clean record buy an AR or a Glock.

I was referring to the licensing process and how getting a CCW permit in Texas is the rough equivalent to what is needed to get a licence in Scotland.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by BrettM

Let's say the U.S. government wants to reduce the number of guns in circulation by 80%. They don't know how to do this, and ask you for advice. What would you recommend?

Ban and end all manufacturing, pretty much for ever more.

Quote:

Many of these guns do not appear on any up to date registers. Nobody knows who owns them or where they are. Would you conduct door-to-door searches to find these guns?

No. Make a law that all guns need to be registered with the local police and then the police to seize all unregistered gun, as and when found.

Quote:

What incentives would you offer registered gun owners to hand in their guns? Would you offer them any compensation at all, or just confiscate the guns with the threat of heavy fines or imprisonment for non-compliance?

Offer compensation and point out possessing a registered gun will mean a fine and conviction.

Quote:

Once the wheels start turning, the government will be sitting on a mountain of guns and ammunition. What do they do with this stuff? Who do you trust to dispose of it?

Licensed scrap yards.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Nessie

I was referring to the licensing process and how getting a CCW permit in Texas is the rough equivalent to what is needed to get a licence in Scotland.

It's not really a useful comparison because the #1 reason to get a permit in Texas is something that is explicitly forbidden in the UK. That's the elephant in the room.

You're comparing apples and oranges. I really doubt the UK has better results because their screening process is so great. It's more because the UK doesn't endorse the notion of armed self defense as a lawful reason to buy a firearm. There's simply no culture of gunslinging there, and a small exception so sportsmen can shoot clays or doves out in the country is hardly worth mentioning.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by BrettM

You may not meet your 80% target unless you find at least some of these unregistered guns. Would you offer a bounty to anybody who betrays the owner or reveals the whereabouts of the gun? This might lead to even more killings in the short term!

In your hypothetical question I have assumed the USA government must have been elected partly based on getting rid of 80% of guns, so I can't understand why as a whole the people who elected them wouldn't want to comply. A target is just that -something which you aim to reach, it might be 78% or 82% after a decade.

Is it common in the USA to offer bounties for all criminals?

Originally Posted by BrettM

Fair comment. If this kind of drastic legislation was introduced in the USA, it would lead to a collapse of the gun industry, and a severe loss in resale value of guns. Can gun owners sell their guns at a better price to international gun dealers? Probably not - there would be insufficient demand.

More than likely. Can't see any way of avoiding that.

Originally Posted by BrettM

Would the government step in to support the ailing gun industry? This would be an additional cost over and above that required to purchase the guns.

They are businesses, either they survive, or they go bust, market forces, capitalism and all that good old "The American way".

[Darat]

Originally Posted by BrettM

I don't think that will bother criminals, unless the penalty for unlawful possession of a firearm outweighs the penalty for committing the crime with the gun.

Judge: "You get 5 years imprisonment for shooting and killing the man you robbed. You also get 15 years for unlawful possession of a firearm".

In the UK having an illegal firearm is pretty much an automatic 5 year sentence, crimes with and without the threat or use of a firearm are treated differently.

It really makes sense for any criminal in the UK to not use a gun, even a replica or otherwise non-functional gun that could be mistaken for a real gun.

[BrettM]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Almost all violent crimes have enhancements based on the weapon used.

It also matters greatly if you were in legal possession of the gun.

I was not aware of this. I expected it to be tried as two separate issues, i.e. the crime itself, and the possession of an unregistered weapon.

Why does it matter greatly if you were in legal possession of the gun? The person who is killed with a registered weapon is not less dead than the person killed with an unregistered gun.

Let's say someone walks down a street, and is robbed at knife point. The perpetrator is caught, and taken into custody.

A week later, the same person walks down the same street, and is robbed at gunpoint. The gun is a legally possessed firearm. The perpetrator is caught and taken into custody.

A week after this, the same person walks down the same street, and is robbed at gunpoint. This time, the gun used to commit the robbery was not legally registered. Once again, the perpetrator is caught and taken into custody.

All 3 perpetrators appear before the same judge and jury. How do their sentences differ, and why?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by BrettM

I was not aware of this. I expected it to be tried as two separate issues, i.e. the crime itself, and the possession of an unregistered weapon.

Why does it matter greatly if you were in legal possession of the gun? The person who is killed with a registered weapon is not less dead than the person killed with an unregistered gun. ...snip....

Because it is a different crime to have an illegal firearm. It would have been a crime to have that firearm even if it were never used to murder someone. Just because you are arrested for a more serious offence i.e. murder doesn't mean you won't also be charged with any other crimes you may have committed whilst committing the murder.

Did you really not know this?

[JoeMorgue]

"Evil people will always be evil, and if you try to stop them you're really the problem" has become really important to a lot of people recently.

[The Great Zaganza]

To be fair, seeing Trump for the last decade you would be forgiven for thinking that bigger crimes override smaller ones until your crime is so big that people are scared to indict you.

[BrettM]

Originally Posted by Darat

Because it is a different crime to have an illegal firearm. It would have been a crime to have that firearm even if it were never used to murder someone. Just because you are arrested for a more serious offence i.e. murder doesn't mean you won't also be charged with any other crimes you may have committed whilst committing the murder.

Did you really not know this?

Of course I knew it. I wanted some clarification on how the legal process works, hence the second part of my question. I will illustrate with another example:

Let's say a person is arrested for DUI while a) riding a motorcycle, b) driving a sedan, c) driving a bus full of children. The blood alcohol level in all 3 cases is exactly the same. The potential for doing harm, however, is different. How is the punishment structured? Do you get a set fine for having a blood alcohol between a lower and an upper level, as well as a variable fine (or variable imprisonment) for the potential harm you could cause?

Now back to the robbery example. I expect the sentences to be something like this.

Case 1, robbery at knife point:
2 years for robbery, 3 years for threatening someone with a knife.

Case 2, robbery at gun point, legally registered gun:
2 years for robbery, 5 years for threatening someone with a gun.

Case 3: robbery at gun point, unregistered gun:
2 years for robbery, 5 years for threatening someone with a gun, and 15 years for unlawful possession of a gun.

There should be well-defined punishments for each type of misdemeanor, and that is not made clear in TGZ's reply. He said "Almost all violent crimes have enhancements based on the weapon used". So if the same crime was performed with a small calibre .22 target pistol, or a large calibre .44 magnum revolver (both legally registered), does the judge hand out equal punishment?

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

It's not really a useful comparison because the #1 reason to get a permit in Texas is something that is explicitly forbidden in the UK. That's the elephant in the room.

You're comparing apples and oranges. I really doubt the UK has better results because their screening process is so great. It's more because the UK doesn't endorse the notion of armed self defense as a lawful reason to buy a firearm. There's simply no culture of gunslinging there, and a small exception so sportsmen can shoot clays or doves out in the country is hardly worth mentioning.

What is the mass shooting rate by Texas CCW licence holders? If, like the UK, it is very occasional, then that makes it a useful comparison.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

There are lots of laws and programs we could pass that would reduce mass shootings and other violent crime. Saying we have to ban all guns or do nothing, is pretty silly and extremist.

Nobody is saying you have to ban all guns or do nothing.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by BrettM

I don't think that will bother criminals, unless the penalty for unlawful possession of a firearm outweighs the penalty for committing the crime with the gun.

Judge: "You get 5 years imprisonment for shooting and killing the man you robbed. You also get 15 years for unlawful possession of a firearm".

Isn't there at least some USAian jurisdiction where felonies with illegal possession carries a minimum sentence of the same tariff as the baseline felony?

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by Nessie

I was referring to the licensing process and how getting a CCW permit in Texas is the rough equivalent to what is needed to get a licence in Scotland.

Please stop with this. It's not true.

I am a UK civilian with no criminal record and no history of mental illness. What is the probability I could get a license to own an AR-15 style rifle?

The answer is zero.

What about the probability of getting a licence for a Glock 17? Again zero.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

Please stop with this. It's not true.

I am a UK civilian with no criminal record and no history of mental illness. What is the probability I could get a license to own an AR-15 style rifle?

The answer is zero.

What about the probability of getting a licence for a Glock 17? Again zero.

The original comment I replied to was "Heck here in the UK after Dunblane we didn't ban all guns. It is possible to legally own guns still, just a damn sight harder to do." It was a general comment on gun licensing, not about specific types of gun.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by Nessie

The original comment I replied to was "Heck here in the UK after Dunblane we didn't ban all guns. It is possible to legally own guns still, just a damn sight harder to do." It was a general comment on gun licensing, not about specific types of gun.

Yeah, well the comment I replied to said that "getting a CCW permit in Texas is the rough equivalent to what is needed to get a licence in Scotland". That's clearly false. Most people who apply for a CCW permit are probably intending to carry around a semi automatic handgun. Such weapons are prohibited in the UK since we decided, in 1996, that one school massacre was one too many.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

Yeah, well the comment I replied to said that "getting a CCW permit in Texas is the rough equivalent to what is needed to get a licence in Scotland". That's clearly false. Most people who apply for a CCW permit are probably intending to carry around a semi automatic handgun. Such weapons are prohibited in the UK since we decided, in 1996, that one school massacre was one too many.

Getting the CCW permit and a firearms licence is roughly equivalent, in terms of the process. That is different from what types of gun and the reasons, the CCW permit and licence allow, which is very different.

The UK has one process, with slight variations depending on what police force the application is made to. The US has multiple, very different processes, some of which are similar to the UK.

Therefore, it is wrong to claim it is much harder to get a gun in the UK than in the USA, as it depends on circumstances. In some circumstances it is, in others it is not.

[Hercules56]

Hmmm, Senator Chris Murphy says there may be a popular revolt (aka uprising) if the Supreme Court strikes down existing assault weapons bans and age restrictions for handguns. Funny who is now threatening violence, huh?

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/0...urphy-00096827

He also called the Supreme Court "pretty illegitimate".

Very dangerous comments.

[The Atheist]

Relevant: Mass killings leave Americans fearful, numb and wondering: Am I next?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ma...xt/ar-AA1b8rgj

Quote:

Researchers at Boston University concluded that over the course of an American’s lifetime, the likelihood of knowing someone killed or injured by gunfire is nearly 100 percent.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Relevant: Mass killings leave Americans fearful, numb and wondering: Am I next?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ma...xt/ar-AA1b8rgj

Yeah, that includes people who served in a war.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by BrettM

Of course I knew it. I wanted some clarification on how the legal process works, hence the second part of my question. I will illustrate with another example:

Let's say a person is arrested for DUI while a) riding a motorcycle, b) driving a sedan, c) driving a bus full of children. The blood alcohol level in all 3 cases is exactly the same. The potential for doing harm, however, is different. How is the punishment structured? Do you get a set fine for having a blood alcohol between a lower and an upper level, as well as a variable fine (or variable imprisonment) for the potential harm you could cause?

Now back to the robbery example. I expect the sentences to be something like this.

Case 1, robbery at knife point:
2 years for robbery, 3 years for threatening someone with a knife.

Case 2, robbery at gun point, legally registered gun:
2 years for robbery, 5 years for threatening someone with a gun.

Case 3: robbery at gun point, unregistered gun:
2 years for robbery, 5 years for threatening someone with a gun, and 15 years for unlawful possession of a gun.

There should be well-defined punishments for each type of misdemeanor, and that is not made clear in TGZ's reply. He said "Almost all violent crimes have enhancements based on the weapon used". So if the same crime was performed with a small calibre .22 target pistol, or a large calibre .44 magnum revolver (both legally registered), does the judge hand out equal punishment?

Keep in mind that in the States, there is a lot of variety with laws going from State to State. In NJ, it matters a lot what kind of weapon was used and how. For instance, if you carried a concealed illegally bought handgun, you've added years of felonies to whatever you ended up doing with it. Also, having an illegally bought gun, then illegally concealing it, then using it in any kind of crime indicates malice aforethought to be a criminal, rather than spontaneously getting your Billy the Kid freak on.

You mentioned unregistered guns as being illegal. In the broad brush, we don't have much by way of registering firearms in the States. What makes a gun illegal is usually a felon, minor, or other unauthorized person carrying it, and concealed carry without a permit where applicable. In NJ, carrying a concealed weapon is broad, too. Whether it is a Sig Sauer or a slingshot or a Swiss Army knife in your pocket, it runs afoul of the same concealed weapon law.

The short version is that it's not just the crime you did, but your choice of tools and what you went through to get them that TGZ was likely referring to in saying the charges would be enhanced.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Yeah, that includes people who served in a war.

No. Read it and follow the link to the study.

[BrettM]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Keep in mind that in the States, there is a lot of variety with laws going from State to State. In NJ, it matters a lot what kind of weapon was used and how. For instance, if you carried a concealed illegally bought handgun, you've added years of felonies to whatever you ended up doing with it. Also, having an illegally bought gun, then illegally concealing it, then using it in any kind of crime indicates malice aforethought to be a criminal, rather than spontaneously getting your Billy the Kid freak on.

You mentioned unregistered guns as being illegal. In the broad brush, we don't have much by way of registering firearms in the States. What makes a gun illegal is usually a felon, minor, or other unauthorized person carrying it, and concealed carry without a permit where applicable. In NJ, carrying a concealed weapon is broad, too. Whether it is a Sig Sauer or a slingshot or a Swiss Army knife in your pocket, it runs afoul of the same concealed weapon law.

The short version is that it's not just the crime you did, but your choice of tools and what you went through to get them that TGZ was likely referring to in saying the charges would be enhanced.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. It is more complicated than I expected it to be!

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Keep in mind that in the States, there is a lot of variety with laws going from State to State...

There is hardly any in the UK, where the laws and regulations are broadly similar. The biggest differences are that it is possible to get a gun for self-defence purposes in NI and that airguns have to be registered in Scotland.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by BrettM

Let's say the U.S. government wants to reduce the number of guns in circulation by 80%. They don't know how to do this, and ask you for advice. What would you recommend?

Many of these guns do not appear on any up to date registers. Nobody knows who owns them or where they are. Would you conduct door-to-door searches to find these guns?

What incentives would you offer registered gun owners to hand in their guns? Would you offer them any compensation at all, or just confiscate the guns with the threat of heavy fines or imprisonment for non-compliance?

Once the wheels start turning, the government will be sitting on a mountain of guns and ammunition. What do they do with this stuff? Who do you trust to dispose of it?

Give them five years to hand in their weapons in exchancefor the current market value for a new gun of that model or equivalent. After the five years declare that anybody found in posssession of an unlicensed weapon is in open insurrection against the United States unless they immediately surrender said weapon.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Yeah, that includes people who served in a war.

Actually it doesn't. The researchers did a probability calculation based on the number of gun deaths and gun injuries in the USA in 2013.

[Parsman]

Originally Posted by Nessie

It is not harder to get a gun in Scotland, than it is for many Americans to get guns, as the licensing rules here are very similar to the licensing rules for carrying a gun in many US states. An example is the licensing for a concealed carry gun in Texas. If that licence applied to all types of gun, for all people in every state across the USA, then the USA would take a huge step towards proper, effective gun control.

As you know you even need a license for owning an air rifle (BB gun) in Scotland. It is harder and requires more steps and a good reason to own one, you can't buy it to shoot intruders, which is good because we really don't need to

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Parsman

As you know you even need a license for owning an air rifle (BB gun) in Scotland. It is harder and requires more steps and a good reason to own one, you can't buy it to shoot intruders, which is good because we really don't need to

Fun fact: in NJ, you need a firearms purchaser ID card, for which you have to be over 18 and are subjected to a State police background check and fingerprinting, to buy a BB gun. If you want a BB or pellet pistol, you must be over 21 and have to acquire a handgun purchasing permit, valid for one purchase in a 90 day window, which also requires two non-family character references of good standing in the community. Keep in mind that these are often sold in the toy department of some stores.

[JoeMorgue]

I'm hesitant to go down this road because I know how certain agents in this discourse well take it and run with it and I'll just go ahead and apologize for that now, but honestly and openness are important.

But, cards on the table, I do sometimes alternatively wonder/get bemused by how crime "works" in other countries were "random criminal with gun" is a statistically nil extreme outlier and not "the norm."

Like you guys still have crime. Right? You still have robberies and muggings and smash and grabs and carjackings and... yeah part (PART. I SAID PART) of the American in me legit does go "How?" How do you have crime with no weapons? How do criminals make you do something?" If I'm walking in the proverbial back alley and some ruffian comes up to me and demands my wallet he better point a gun at me. Not to go all Alexander the Great and his kidnappers here Jesus dude show me a little respect. A knife? I have a knife. What are you threatening me with a sock full off doorknobs?

Like my wife had on this random "Caught on Camera" show the other day and they were showing a dashcam video of somewhere in Europe where one driver cut another driver off and in retaliation the driver started a brandishing a hand ax out the window.

That's not threatening. That's adorable. You're brandishing a weapon that is like 1/30th the threat level of the vehicle you're driving. What are you going to do get ahead of me and chop down a tree to block to road? And the other driver legit acted like the dude pulled a bazooka on him. I'm like "It's an ax. You're a car. I see a way out of this is all I'm saying."

You do that in Florida and goddamn church vans would run you off the road to laugh at your ass.

I do not want this to come across as some tryhard backhanded chest puffing about Americans being "tougher" because Americans comfortableness with gun violence is not tough it's a psychosis, but yeah in general it is weird to this American that you guys still have measurable levels of many of the same kinds of crime without the treat of a gun being a part of it being as high as it is in America.

[dirtywick]

i don't think you should try and fight guys with knives and axes

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

i don't think you should try and fight guys with knives and axes

And yeah but there's not a LOT (not none but not a lot) of space between that and the Simpson's "HE'S GOT A BOARD WITH A NAIL IN IT!" meme.

[Thermal]

Unless you get super lucky, you are going to get badly hurt or killed in a knife fight. There is nothing in my wallet that is even worth the stitches. Some coffee money and easily replaced cards, even my cheap ass cel phone that he won't be able to open, are just not worth a blade hanging out of my abdomen.