What will it take to make America want reasonable gun laws?

[Gravekeeper]

Again, "proper" according to who? You may think something is "proper" while others may not. And your definition of "proper" may differ from others' too.

So are you now moving goalposts and talking about "accidental" deaths?

Simple yes/no question for you: Would "proper" storage laws have prevented the Vegas shooting?

I didn't say it would prevent mass shootings and I didn't move the goal posts. I specifically responded to you saying, and I quote:

The responsible far outweigh the irresponsible. And again: How do you keep the firearms out of the hands of those who "shouldn't have them" to begin with?

You moved the topic to responsible / irresponsible gun owners and proper storage laws are quite obviously a related topic to that. Don't get on my case because you can't keep your argument straight.

As for your repeated attempts to turn gun storage laws into some sort of gotcha moment; I am referring to things such as gun safes, secured containers or trigger locks. Things that prevent weapons from being misused in a household or stolen from a household. The states with these laws have demonstrated lower rates of firearm injuries, deaths and suicides in children under the age of 15.

If a firearm in your house is readily accessible by children you are, by definition, an irresponsible gun owner.

[Canarr]

You would lose that bet. Men are more likely to be murdered by a stranger or acquaintance. Whereas women are far more likely to be murdered by an intimate partner. The depressingly sad fact of the matter is that men are empirically the single biggest threat to women. While its true that men mostly murder other men and most homicide victims are men; They're not being killed at an alarming rate by their wives/girlfriends.

I stand corrected.

The other sad fact of the matter is we simply do not do a great job of offering help and support to women in domestic violence situations. Sure, it can vary from place to place but overall even in 2017 our track record is still pretty shitty. There is most certainly room for improvement and intervention.

We certainly do a better job offering women assistance in cases of DV than men.

In Germany 2016, 18% of DV charges were filed by men. Meaning, if you go solely by official reports filed, one in five victims of DV was male. Germany has 400 publicly funded shelters for female victims of DV. For male victims? Three.

There is a toll-free helpline for women to call in cases of DV, there are specially trained counselors in hospitals, there are brochures and information programs, sponsored by the government. There are none of these things for men. Well, okay: there's a helpline for men to call if they are a perpetrator of DV, and want to seek help to stop. But if they're a victim? Shit out of luck.

When you look at it in the broader sense of violent crime against women ( which, again, is predominately perpetrated on them by intimate partners ) we don't need to suss out anything. There's a broader problem that can be addressed which will likewise address that 0.5% at the same time.

Honestly, I would prefer looking at the broader sense of violence against people of any gender.

By all indications, DV is a cycle. Children who suffered from violence are more likely to turn around and commit violence in turn when they establish their own families. Men are more likely than women to kill their partner; women are more likely than men to kill their children. In many cases, there is a strong link to poverty, mental health issues, and substance abuse. That is where the problem lies, not in retroactive fingerpointing.

If there had been a higher up authority that could have stepped in over the local small town boys club police it might have been different. I'm not entirely sure things would be that different in similar communities these days.

You might be right there; small towns are always a bit slower in changing than larger communities. Not to mention fewer options - can't just go to another precinct if there's only one police station in town.

[mjr]

Hence the term "proper" in that sentence.

Oh ffs, come off it. There's nothing wrong with proper storage laws. The States with them have empirically lower levels of accidental firearm injuries/deaths. Especially among children.

Again, "proper" according to who? You may think something is "proper" while others may not. And your definition of "proper" may differ from others' too.

So are you now moving goalposts and talking about "accidental" deaths?

Simple yes/no question for you: Would "proper" storage laws have prevented the Vegas shooting?

[Gravekeeper]

Considering that women make out only about 20% of homicide victims in the US (and worldwide, on average), you could spend quite some time reducing only the number of male victims before you'd be anywhere near approaching an equality between genders. And I'm willing to bet - although there doesn't seem to be any numbers here - that men are also predominantly murdered by people close to them, if you remove cases like random mass shootings or robberies from the equation. Murder tends to be a personal crime, because why kill someone you don't really give a crap about?

You would lose that bet. Men are more likely to be murdered by a stranger or acquaintance. Whereas women are far more likely to be murdered by an intimate partner. The depressingly sad fact of the matter is that men are empirically the single biggest threat to women. While its true that men mostly murder other men and most homicide victims are men; They're not being killed at an alarming rate by their wives/girlfriends.

There might be room for intervention; but I don't see any realistic scope for doing so, considering the huge discrepancy between the number of domestic violence victims and the number of homicide victims. Yes, in hindsight it seems obvious, if you already know who the murder victims are going to be. But beforehand? How do you suggest to suss out the less than 0.5% of DV victims that will wind up dead?

The other sad fact of the matter is we simply do not do a great job of offering help and support to women in domestic violence situations. Sure, it can vary from place to place but overall even in 2017 our track record is still pretty shitty. There is most certainly room for improvement and intervention.

When you look at it in the broader sense of violent crime against women ( which, again, is predominately perpetrated on them by intimate partners ) we don't need to suss out anything. There's a broader problem that can be addressed which will likewise address that 0.5% at the same time.

Not to be insensitive, but if your father was never charged with, much less convicted of, anything, then no amount of laws would have helped your mother. And since the public perception of DV has changed quite a bit over the last 10-20 years, I would put forth the theory that things would be different today.

If there had been a higher up authority that could have stepped in over the local small town boys club police it might have been different. I'm not entirely sure things would be that different in similar communities these days.

Well, yeah. But that's just, "The gubernmint can't take mah gunz!" paranoia, isn't it?

Apparently, 3% of the US population owns 50% of the firearms in the country. So paranoia is most certainly a factor. Also, and I'm just throwing this out there, feelings of inadequacy with penis size. -.-

The survey, conducted by Harvard and Northeastern Universities and reported by The Guardian, found that 130 million guns are owned by 3% of American adults, who each own 17 guns on average. About 55 million Americans own guns, with most owning an average of three each and nearly half owning just one or two, the survey found. Among this group, an estimated 7.7 million Americans make up the country’s “gun super-owners,” who own between eight and 140 guns.

I don't know about you, but I think someone whose topping 17+ guns should be on some sort of law enforcement reference list. >.>

[Canarr]

I doubt it would identify mass shooters in advance by itself but it's not hard to see there's a link between someone with a history of violence against those closest to them and someone more likely to apply that violence when allowed to own lethal weapons.

I mean, firearm related homicides would go down but it would not equalize between genders. I can't speak for Germany but over here it's pretty well established that female homicide victims are predominately murdered by people they know. Chiefly, men they know. With the US specifically, the CDC indicated that 50% of female homicide victims are murdered by an intimate partner ( with an extra 5% if you include others killed in the process such as other family members or people who tried to step in ). The number is 38% globally according to WHO.

Now, out of those victims, half are killed with guns in the US. So there's definitely a lot of room for intervention if domestic violence is taken more seriously as a warning sign.

Considering that women make out only about 20% of homicide victims in the US (and worldwide, on average), you could spend quite some time reducing only the number of male victims before you'd be anywhere near approaching an equality between genders. And I'm willing to bet - although there doesn't seem to be any numbers here - that men are also predominantly murdered by people close to them, if you remove cases like random mass shootings or robberies from the equation. Murder tends to be a personal crime, because why kill someone you don't really give a crap about?

There might be room for intervention; but I don't see any realistic scope for doing so, considering the huge discrepancy between the number of domestic violence victims and the number of homicide victims. Yes, in hindsight it seems obvious, if you already know who the murder victims are going to be. But beforehand? How do you suggest to suss out the less than 0.5% of DV victims that will wind up dead?

I would tentatively agree but again, like I said, it's murky. You cited California as an example where a misdemeanor domestic violence charge had a fairly broad scope. But conversely, you have other states on the opposite end of the spectrum where you can beat your wife for years and get slaps on the wrist. Which is why there's all the more need for a unified Federal approach to all of this.

Drawing back on personal experience, my mom had a *lot* of problems getting any kind of adequate intervention or protection from the police from my father. Because they constantly excused him as "Oh, he's just had a few too much to drink." or "He just got a bit worked up because of x, y or z you did". No matter what he did or how often he did it they would just toss him in a cell overnight and shrug. Even the night in question when it took my grandfather and a couple of my uncles to stop him from choking my mom to death. ( After he had beat the shit out of her of course ).

But that's drawing back to the issue of domestic violence not being taken seriously enough and the more of a good ol' boys type community it is the worse it is.

Not to be insensitive, but if your father was never charged with, much less convicted of, anything, then no amount of laws would have helped your mother. And since the public perception of DV has changed quite a bit over the last 10-20 years, I would put forth the theory that things would be different today.

It gets more surreal when you remember they literally have laws that prevent the creation of such a database or even the digitization of sales records.

Well, yeah. But that's just, "The gubernmint can't take mah gunz!" paranoia, isn't it?

[Canarr]

OK, Do the German people have a right to own firearms?
If so can this right be revoked by the government?

There is no basic right to own firearms in Germany, no. You can acquire that right, by proving that you have a legitimate need to own firearms - the most common being either sports shooters or hunters - and by passing the associated tests and background checks.

Once you have acquired that right, you can lose it again by not following the relevant laws, mainly concerned with storage, transport and use of the guns. The guy a few pages back, who shot a woman at 200 yards with a pistol, because he thought she was a deer? He'd lose his guns quickly.

But other than that, the government can't just decide to take away that right, no more than they could take any other right - at least, not without passing a law first. And that, you can go to court against.

[Tanasi]

The same recourse anyone living in a democracy has: going through the courts.

OK, Do the German people have a right to own firearms?
If so can this right be revoked by the government?

[Gravekeeper]

The shooter in Texas passed background checks. You're aware of that, right? He passed them because his transgressions weren't entered into a database.

Hence the term "proper" in that sentence.

Proper according to who? You?

Oh ffs, come off it. There's nothing wrong with proper storage laws. The States with them have empirically lower levels of accidental firearm injuries/deaths. Especially among children.

Of course it's easy to look at the mass shooters in hindsight and notice the high number of domestic violence offenders among them. But that doesn't mean that it is a useful tool to identify mass shooters in advance.

I'm still of the opinion that the number of female victims of gun homicide would go down together with the number of male homicide victims once the US actually implemented sensible gun laws.

I doubt it would identify mass shooters in advance by itself but it's not hard to see there's a link between someone with a history of violence against those closest to them and someone more likely to apply that violence when allowed to own lethal weapons.

I mean, firearm related homicides would go down but it would not equalize between genders. I can't speak for Germany but over here it's pretty well established that female homicide victims are predominately murdered by people they know. Chiefly, men they know. With the US specifically, the CDC indicated that 50% of female homicide victims are murdered by an intimate partner ( with an extra 5% if you include others killed in the process such as other family members or people who tried to step in ). The number is 38% globally according to WHO.

Now, out of those victims, half are killed with guns in the US. So there's definitely a lot of room for intervention if domestic violence is taken more seriously as a warning sign.

Beating someone half to death wouldn't be a misdemeanor, I guess; so, someone with that felony conviction on record would already be barred from owning guns. Then we agree that the article's suggestion to ban people with misdemeanor domestic violence convictions from owning guns is over the top?

I would tentatively agree but again, like I said, it's murky. You cited California as an example where a misdemeanor domestic violence charge had a fairly broad scope. But conversely, you have other states on the opposite end of the spectrum where you can beat your wife for years and get slaps on the wrist. Which is why there's all the more need for a unified Federal approach to all of this.

Drawing back on personal experience, my mom had a *lot* of problems getting any kind of adequate intervention or protection from the police from my father. Because they constantly excused him as "Oh, he's just had a few too much to drink." or "He just got a bit worked up because of x, y or z you did". No matter what he did or how often he did it they would just toss him in a cell overnight and shrug. Even the night in question when it took my grandfather and a couple of my uncles to stop him from choking my mom to death. ( After he had beat the shit out of her of course ).

But that's drawing back to the issue of domestic violence not being taken seriously enough and the more of a good ol' boys type community it is the worse it is.

The whole issue of this discussion is the fact that current gun laws in the US are inadequate. The lack of a comprehensible, country-wide database is just one issue.

It gets more surreal when you remember they literally have laws that prevent the creation of such a database or even the digitization of sales records.

[Canarr]

The same recourse anyone living in a democracy has: going through the courts.

[Tanasi]

Yes? We have been talking about that the US system is flawed, and needs to be improved. It's not just about passing a new law or two, then just let everything stumble on as it is right now.

I live in Germany. Here, it is very difficult to buy a gun - I'd need to be active in sports shooting for several years first, then pass a police background check and a written test before I may buy a handgun or two. Those I could use solely for sports purposes, inside approved gun ranges, and would need to keep under lock and key when not using them, with ammunition stored separately. Or I would need to get a hunting license, which also takes years, and requires a background check and a written test, with the same rules applying for storage.

So, following that whole "if owning guns is a crime, only criminals will have guns!" shtick, I shoud be terribly unsafe, right? Yet the number of deaths by a gun is only one tenth of what it is in the US - 1.01 vs. 10.54 per 100,000 inhabitants.

If you exclude accidents and suicides, the discrepancy grows even larger: 0.12 vs. 3.85 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants. Thirty times as many people are murdered with guns in your county than in mine.

Does that seem reasonable to you?

Should your government decide that it no longer wants civilians to have firearms, what recourse do the German citizens have?

[Canarr]

While true, that's more a failure of the system than the law that's already in place.

Yes? We have been talking about that the US system is flawed, and needs to be improved. It's not just about passing a new law or two, then just let everything stumble on as it is right now.

I live in Germany. Here, it is very difficult to buy a gun - I'd need to be active in sports shooting for several years first, then pass a police background check and a written test before I may buy a handgun or two. Those I could use solely for sports purposes, inside approved gun ranges, and would need to keep under lock and key when not using them, with ammunition stored separately. Or I would need to get a hunting license, which also takes years, and requires a background check and a written test, with the same rules applying for storage.

So, following that whole "if owning guns is a crime, only criminals will have guns!" shtick, I shoud be terribly unsafe, right? Yet the number of deaths by a gun is only one tenth of what it is in the US - 1.01 vs. 10.54 per 100,000 inhabitants.

If you exclude accidents and suicides, the discrepancy grows even larger: 0.12 vs. 3.85 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants. Thirty times as many people are murdered with guns in your county than in mine.

Does that seem reasonable to you?

[mjr]

Humans make mistakes. Sometimes they fail at implementing a law. That does not invalidate the law.

While true, that's more a failure of the system than the law that's already in place.

[Canarr]

Even so, that would not have stopped the guy in Texas from shooting up the church. Why? Someone, somewhere failed to enter his info into a database, where it would likely have been caught.

Humans make mistakes. Sometimes they fail at implementing a law. That does not invalidate the law.

[mjr]

The whole issue of this discussion is the fact that current gun laws in the US are inadequate. The lack of a comprehensible, country-wide database is just one issue.

Even so, that would not have stopped the guy in Texas from shooting up the church. Why? Someone, somewhere failed to enter his info into a database, where it would likely have been caught.

[Canarr]

I'm not saying its a common thread among homicide victims. I'm saying its a common thread with gun violence and mass shooters.

I'm quoting statistics from the article which sources them if you want to look them up.

I would say that the ratio of domestic violence victims to mass shooters is even larger than to "regular" homicide victims, but the discrepancy is already so vast that the effective difference is negligible.

Of course it's easy to look at the mass shooters in hindsight and notice the high number of domestic violence offenders among them. But that doesn't mean that it is a useful tool to identify mass shooters in advance.

I'm still of the opinion that the number of female victims of gun homicide would go down together with the number of male homicide victims once the US actually implemented sensible gun laws.

We're in the exact murky legal territory that is kind of the problem we're talking about. The disconnect between federal and state law is what's causing the loopholes in question. The loophole is federal and 35 states have a patch of one sort or another over it. The states shouldn't need to be patching the system in the first place.

As for when your property is confiscated I am completely okay with people who are charged with violent crimes ( not mere battery ) losing access to lethal weapons. Shoving your room mate during an argument, no. Beating him half to death during an argument, yes.

Beating someone half to death wouldn't be a misdemeanor, I guess; so, someone with that felony conviction on record would already be barred from owning guns. Then we agree that the article's suggestion to ban people with misdemeanor domestic violence convictions from owning guns is over the top?

The shooter in Texas passed background checks. You're aware of that, right? He passed them because his transgressions weren't entered into a database.

The whole issue of this discussion is the fact that current gun laws in the US are inadequate. The lack of a comprehensible, country-wide database is just one issue.