Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson and Aurora … yet nothing on gun control

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Way to completely ignore the rest of that post. Good call. Clearly something needs to be done about the fact that the sun is set 50% of the year. Someone needs to get on that. Maybe the USG can help them with that.

And while they're at it, force them to move into more populated areas too. That should help Alaskan's with their violence problem.....

Do you only read what you can twist into something negative about America and it's gun laws? Sure seems like it.

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

Yes. As long as it's something negative about the US Nessie supports it.

I am sorry I have upset you guys with some of my comments. Please be assured it is only some parts of US gun use, laws and control that I find objectionable.

[Kestrel]

Originally Posted by MortFurd

What crook is going to fill out the forms on the gun he stole or bought from some other crook? That's what I'm getting at.

Yes, some of the guns in the black market were stolen. But a lot more were simply diverted from the legitimate market. A diversion made easy and safe by the private seller exemption from registration and background checks.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by BStrong

Canada tried it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry

After $2 billion or so with -0- benefit, and four or so years of amnesty for registration, the government called it a day and scrapped the whole scheme.

........

ETA - I believe our foriegn posters are missing something else about about registration as a crime fighting tool - Felons are exempt from registration and perjury related to completing 4473 forms etc.

Fifth Amendent precludes self incrimination.

All the suggestions I listed before work in the UK. If it did not work in Canada then there is no chance it would work in the USA.

Regarding your comment about registration, I think you are not understanding how it does work as a crime fighting tool. If you find an unregistered gun, you seize it and charge the person in possession of it with an offence that carries a very stiff penalty. Hence it acts as a deterrent that in particular targets gang members.

In the UK Sec1 of the Firearms Act 1968 governs illegal possession of a firearm, the sentencing guidelines are here

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/s..._firearms_act/


"Possession of a firearm or ammunition without certificate is triable either way
Summary - 6 months/maximum fine. On indictment - when aggravated (see section 4(4)) 7 years, otherwise 5 years."

So in the UK if you stop a gang member and find a gun that is not registered or even ammunition whereby they do not have a licence for that type of gun, 5 years in prison, or 7 is there is an aggravation.

The police here rarely find gang members in possession of guns. When they do use them they come out of hiding, get used and dumped or back into hiding as quickly as possible.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by Nessie

"Possession of a firearm or ammunition without certificate is triable either way
Summary - 6 months/maximum fine. On indictment - when aggravated (see section 4(4)) 7 years, otherwise 5 years."

So in the UK if you stop a gang member and find a gun that is not registered or even ammunition whereby they do not have a licence for that type of gun, 5 years in prison, or 7 is there is an aggravation.

The police here rarely find gang members in possession of guns. When they do use them they come out of hiding, get used and dumped or back into hiding as quickly as possible.

If said "gang member" was a convicted felon then he'd be looking at doing time for simply possessing a firearm in the US. I'm not sure the sentence would be quite as harsh (it certainly would be in NY), but its the same concept. Even if he wasn't a convicted felon, being caught with a concealed firearm without a CCL is a pretty serious offence in most areas of the US (Vermont and Alaska being exceptions).

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

A murder rate of .004% is disaster? Wow, your standards for "disaster" are pretty low.

Alaska's homicide by firearm rate is 2.68 per 100,000. That is slightly under the US average of 2.97 per 100,000. Canada's is 0.51 per 100,000, England & Wales it is 0.7 per 100,000.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...-homicides-map

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...map-statistics

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by 000063

.....
2. You were not clear. You implied that the US was somehow responsible for what the domestic gun market does.
3. If they're trafficking internationally, then they are, by definition, an international market.

.....

I don't get your points 2 and 3. The US is responsible for the state of its domestic gun market and exporting and smuggling of its guns abroad. That is the US government and those responsible for dealing with guns, not every Tom, Dick and Harry in the US for those who think when I speak out about guns I am referring to and condemning the US as a whole.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by MortFurd

What crook is going to fill out the forms on the gun he stole or bought from some other crook? That's what I'm getting at.

But that is the whole point, you then go after the guns and ammunition the crooks have. No license, gun not registered, off to prison you go.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

If said "gang member" was a convicted felon then he'd be looking at doing time for simply possessing a firearm in the US. I'm not sure the sentence would be quite as harsh (it certainly would be in NY), but its the same concept. Even if he wasn't a convicted felon, being caught with a concealed firearm without a CCL is a pretty serious offence in most areas of the US (Vermont and Alaska being exceptions).

Then toughen up your sentences and make it clear, that if you do not have a licence or a gun registered to you then even having one bullet in your pocket and off to prison you go. A previous conviction and you are looking at 7 years as that is an aggravation.

[Nessie]

The reactions to this news story are from people seriously ignorant about the UK's firearms law.

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/8805..._find_mystery/

A man found a bullet out side the back of his shop in York. He phoned the police who came and took it away. Reactions include;

"The police were called for this??", "Total over-reaction...", "Is this really newsworthy?" The answer is yes because if he had kept the bullet he is contravening Sec 1 of the Firearms Act 1968 and he could get up to 6 months in prison and a fine, if the prosecution decided to go in a lesser court, otherwise 5 years. The same is true for the person who had the bullet who then dropped it. Firearms licence holders are expected to account for their guns and ammunition and handle them safely. If it was a criminal prowling about with a gun and dropped the bullet, the police would want to know about that as well.

[Kestrel]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

If said "gang member" was a convicted felon then he'd be looking at doing time for simply possessing a firearm in the US. I'm not sure the sentence would be quite as harsh (it certainly would be in NY), but its the same concept. Even if he wasn't a convicted felon, being caught with a concealed firearm without a CCL is a pretty serious offence in most areas of the US (Vermont and Alaska being exceptions).

Oddly, many states make it difficult to check on the validity of a CCL. Here in Colorado, the state is prohibited from putting information about concealed carry licenses into the computer system used to verify drivers licenses. The only way law enforcement or the courts can check if a CCL is valid, or if a suspect has a CCL is to make a separate inquiry to each county sheriff where the suspect may have gotten a CCL. Yet again, gun lobby paranoia takes precedence over public safety.

[Nessie]

In the UK all that is needed is a Police National Computer (PNC) check. That lists everyone in the UK who has convictions, is a missing person, is a disqualified driver and/or who has a firearms certificate. It takes seconds to do.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Alaska's homicide by firearm rate is 2.68 per 100,000. That is slightly under the US average of 2.97 per 100,000. Canada's is 0.51 per 100,000, England & Wales it is 0.7 per 100,000.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...-homicides-map

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...map-statistics

Yet Canada has many times more guns per person than the UK. So, maybe gun control is less important on the homicide rate than you make it out to be. And until very recently Canada's gun control laws weren't much different than the USA's.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Then toughen up your sentences and make it clear, that if you do not have a licence or a gun registered to you then even having one bullet in your pocket and off to prison you go. A previous conviction and you are looking at 7 years as that is an aggravation.

So if I leave a single bullet in my pocket after visiting the range and am caught walking around with it I should face a lengthy prison term?! Yeah that seems logical.

[Kestrel]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

Yet Canada has many times more guns per person than the UK. So, maybe gun control is less important on the homicide rate than you make it out to be. And until very recently Canada's gun control laws weren't much different than the USA's.

There is a real difference in attitudes about firearms. According to the ICVS, few Canadians list "personal protection" as the reason they own a firearm. In the US it is one of the top reasons for owning a firearm. Also handguns, the most common weapon used for firearms homicide in the US, are seldom present in Canadian households.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

So if I leave a single bullet in my pocket after visiting the range and am caught walking around with it I should face a lengthy prison term?! Yeah that seems logical.

I presume since you have left a range you are a legal firearms holder, so you would not be breaking the law.

[Renaiconna]

Originally Posted by Kestrel

The Columbine shooters acquired two rifles and a shotgun from private sellers at a gun show while under the legal age for buying from a federally licensed dealer. The fourth weapon was the illegal sale of a handgun set up at the same gun show.

The Virginia Tech shooter was known to be mentally ill by the courts, but that information never made it into the database used for instant checks. The shooters in Tucson and Aurora were also known to have mental health issues, but these never came to the attention of the court system. At least one Denver area gun shop turned away the Aurora shooter because he was acting so flaky.

In three of these four cases the background check system was not aware that the buyers had severe mental problems. Clearly there is room for improvement in this system.

Please tell me that "improvement" isn't requiring persons with mental illnesses to self-declare their medical status to the government in order to obtain a firearm.

[Nessie]

UK firearms licence holders are required to declare any illnesses that may affect their ability to have a gun safely. They sign part of the application/renewal form to allow the police to contact their GP and ask about any health condition.

It sounds daft, but it is backed up by questions asked of the two referees that the person must provide. So to get round any illness, the person and both their referees have to lie to or mislead the police.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by Nessie

I presume since you have left a range you are a legal firearms holder, so you would not be breaking the law.

... and what if I was only shooting a friends gun? Or does this new set of hypothetical draconian laws require a license to even touch a gun?

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

... and what if I was only shooting a friends gun? Or does this new set of hypothetical draconian laws require a license to even touch a gun?

You can shoot another's gun on private property under their supervision so long you are over a certain age, depending on the type of gun. If you then walk away outwith that land with a bullet, or gun, or even a part of a gun and you are no longer under supervision, you have committed a crime.

This is not a hypothetical draconian law, it is the law in the UK, primarily the Firearms Act 1968.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/contents

So in the UK check your pockets if you have been shooting with a friend or at a range where you borrowed a gun.

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

Yet Canada has many times more guns per person than the UK. So, maybe gun control is less important on the homicide rate than you make it out to be. And until very recently Canada's gun control laws weren't much different than the USA's.

Maybe the police in Canada aren't wasting time and resources by trying to account for every stray cartridge found.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Kestrel

Oddly, many states make it difficult to check on the validity of a CCL. Here in Colorado, the state is prohibited from putting information about concealed carry licenses into the computer system used to verify drivers licenses. The only way law enforcement or the courts can check if a CCL is valid, or if a suspect has a CCL is to make a separate inquiry to each county sheriff where the suspect may have gotten a CCL. Yet again, gun lobby paranoia takes precedence over public safety.

Colorado must be behind the times.

Most states with "shall-issue" carry permit scemes have computerized searchable databases available for LEO's encountering civilians with carry permits.

Even California, which is a "may-issue" state, has a database that can be accessed by individual officers on the street for carry license and registered firearm verification - handguns and named assault weapons along with assault weapons by feature must be registered.

Long guns will be registered at point of sale in 2013.

[Renaiconna]

Originally Posted by Nessie

UK firearms licence holders are required to declare any illnesses that may affect their ability to have a gun safely. They sign part of the application/renewal form to allow the police to contact their GP and ask about any health condition.

It sounds daft, but it is backed up by questions asked of the two referees that the person must provide. So to get round any illness, the person and both their referees have to lie to or mislead the police.

Any illnesses that MAY affect their ability? Are mental illnesses specifically included in that law? Does the law make a distinction between chronic and acute illnesses?

Something about that just smells wrong to me; maybe it's the part where the government/authorities are requiring knowledge of sensitive medical information in order for me to enjoy my Constitutional right.

[Nessie]

Mental illnesses and addictions are two matters that would greatly impact on a persons ability to safely possess a gun.

Regarding chronic and acute illnesses, for example if someone was to have a bout of serious depression and the police were to find out they can and have had their guns seized from them. If they recover they can and have had their guns returned to them. If they don't they don't get their guns back. I know of guns being seized from someone who was found to be an alcoholic, having turned to drink after his wife died.

I think that is perfectly reasonable. If someone was found to be mentally ill in the USA, would they be allowed to keep their guns?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Then toughen up your sentences and make it clear, that if you do not have a licence or a gun registered to you then even having one bullet in your pocket and off to prison you go. A previous conviction and you are looking at 7 years as that is an aggravation.

We have that here too.

Doesn't seem to have the same effect as it does in the UK.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by WildCat

We have that here too.

Doesn't seem to have the same effect as it does in the UK.

Give it time and with a concerted effort to stop and search all gang members and it should start to make a difference. We have seen knife crime fall with increased targeted stop searches and mandatory sentences.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/c...crime.19134633

Since Chicago's gang and crime problems are on a pretty monumental scale, I would imagine there is a lot of work to be done compared to in Glasgow and its knife crime and gangs.

[Renaiconna]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Mental illnesses and addictions are two matters that would greatly impact on a persons ability to safely possess a gun.

Regarding chronic and acute illnesses, for example if someone was to have a bout of serious depression and the police were to find out they can and have had their guns seized from them. If they recover they can and have had their guns returned to them. If they don't they don't get their guns back. I know of guns being seized from someone who was found to be an alcoholic, having turned to drink after his wife died.

I think that is perfectly reasonable. If someone was found to be mentally ill in the USA, would they be allowed to keep their guns?

That is absolutely terrible and only further stigmatizes those with a mental illness as inherently dangerous (not to mention possibly puts a permanent label on someone who may have simply had a single episode).

In the US, if one is mentally ill, but in no danger to oneself or others (which is most mentally ill people most of the the time), then that person (like all American citizens) has a right to be secure in their personal belongings, weapons included.

Just because I was hospitalized when I was 18 for depression shouldn't mean that I don't have the right to defend myself/hunt/target shoot with guns, 10 years of therapy later.

Also, how on earth would the police find out someone's mental state before they began an episode without seriously invading the privacy of an otherwise law-abiding citizen?

[Nessie]

It does depend on the mental illness and severity, as I showed with my example.

I also explained that the police ask for the applicant to declare anything and to provide two referees who are asked if they know of any issues. That is made clear to the applicant and they sign to show they approve of such checks taking place.

I take it the US police would seize a gun off a person found to be paranoid schizophrenic?

[stokes234]

Originally Posted by Giz

Fully autos used illegaly are vanishingly rare. Homicide using rifles (including scary looking semi-auto assualt rifles) is pretty rare. Talk of banning AR-15's and the like is purely an exercise in pandering for votes based on emotion (unfounded fear). They simply aren't being used in crimes in any number… despite millions being in circulation.

Yes, I know. I'd ban them in case criminals used them when handguns stopped being available. Maybe they wouldn't, or maybe they aren't even as good at killing people as rifles and shotguns anyway. This isn't a large part of my argument, more of an addendum, but your point won't dissuade me because it deals only with a scenario where handguns are legal.

Originally Posted by Giz

The problem is, your method - on your assumptions - might lower the murder rate in 30 or 40 years. (I think some studies place it in the centuries given the amount of guns out there). So there is potentially no real impact for a lifetime… Given that - shouldn't the focus be instead on tackling the societal issues of the high crime areas, rather than penalizing law-abiding gun owners in a "this feels like we are doing something (but actually we aren't helping)"?

I recognise that problem. Society would basically have to make a decision that wouldn't benefit society at that time, which i'll admit is unlikely. I don't think that makes it a bad idea though, just an idea with a delayed payoff.

[stokes234]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

That right there pretty much blows your entire silly plan out of the water....

That entire post was horrific.

[Renaiconna]

Originally Posted by Nessie

It does depend on the mental illness and severity, as I showed with my example.

I also explained that the police ask for the applicant to declare anything and to provide two referees who are asked if they know of any issues. That is made clear to the applicant and they sign to show they approve of such checks taking place.

So, you have to volunteer the information? And if you didn't volunteer it and your referees weren't aware, you could still get a gun? I'm confused as to how that makes any sense, unless they require you to receive a psychiatric evaluation in order to obtain a gun license.

Originally Posted by Nessie

I take it the US police would seize a gun off a person found to be paranoid schizophrenic?

As long as the person is licensed to carry in that jurisdiction and isn't brandishing or threatening anyone, probably not.

Most of those with a mental illness aren't constantly in crisis-mode or flipping out or whathaveyou. If they abide by the law, we shouldn't curtail their rights. And, frankly, the government has ZERO business in one's medical history unless one volunteers the information oneself.

Do they not have HIPAA-type legislation in the UK?

[stokes234]

Originally Posted by BStrong

Better read this first.

Imagining Gun Control in America, understanding the remainder problem, Wake Forest Law Review

http://wakeforestlawreview.com/imagi...ainder-problem

Best case scenario based on registration/surrender number experiences in jurisdictions and countries that have banned firearms, a 400 year supply of firearms and ammo would be retained by civilians in the US, regardless of law.

Please note: not an NRA or pro-gun publication or author.

I'd need to see the methodology there to understand how they calculated that (seems like it would have far too many variables to be calculated, though i'm willing to conside their argument) - but I can't open the article for some reason.

To add though, you wouldn't have to remove all guns to see a decrease in gun crime; you'd just have to make it risky enough and/or expensive enough to gang members that they feel less inclined to carry them, and this should achieve the aim of reducing gun crime.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Renaiconna

As long as the person is licensed to carry in that jurisdiction and isn't brandishing or threatening anyone, probably not.

Most of those with a mental illness aren't constantly in crisis-mode or flipping out or whathaveyou. If they abide by the law, we shouldn't curtail their rights. And, frankly, the government has ZERO business in one's medical history unless one volunteers the information oneself.

Do they not have HIPAA-type legislation in the UK?

Huh? In what state is it legal for a paranoid schizophrenic to possess firearms?

[Renaiconna]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Huh? In what state is it legal for a paranoid schizophrenic to possess firearms?

IIRC, any of them, as long as that person is properly licensed for their gun and jurisdiction and as long as that person has not committed any felonies.

Just because someone has a mental illness, even a "scary" one, does not preclude that person from enjoying the same rights and liberties as every other American citizen.

BTW, a person has an illness; that person is not his/her illness (i.e. "person with paranoid schizophrenia" vs "paranoid schizophrenic").

ETA: I conferred with my State's Attorney friend, and he concurred with the addition that if that person is declared by the COURTS as mentally unfit and a danger to society, then, no, that person cannot own a gun. And, for clarity mentally ill != mentally unfit.

[Courier]

Originally Posted by Kestrel

The Columbine shooters acquired two rifles and a shotgun from private sellers at a gun show while under the legal age for buying from a federally licensed dealer. The fourth weapon was the illegal sale of a handgun set up at the same gun show.

The Virginia Tech shooter was known to be mentally ill by the courts, but that information never made it into the database used for instant checks. The shooters in Tucson and Aurora were also known to have mental health issues, but these never came to the attention of the court system. At least one Denver area gun shop turned away the Aurora shooter because he was acting so flaky.

In three of these four cases the background check system was not aware that the buyers had severe mental problems. Clearly there is room for improvement in this system.

Requiring mental health checks in order to buy a firearm, would open up a smelly can of worms and probably be found unConstitutional.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Give it time and with a concerted effort to stop and search all gang members and it should start to make a difference. We have seen knife crime fall with increased targeted stop searches and mandatory sentences.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/c...crime.19134633

Since Chicago's gang and crime problems are on a pretty monumental scale, I would imagine there is a lot of work to be done compared to in Glasgow and its knife crime and gangs.

California has penalty enhancement for firearms possession or use in the commission of a crime across the board, and it doesn't seem to interfer in gang violence in the least

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms

California Bureau of firearms, a division of the DOJ.

Read and be amazed.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Huh? In what state is it legal for a paranoid schizophrenic to possess firearms?

You need to have been involuntarily commited or held under a 5150 hold (ca. code number for a mentally disturbed individual) or adjudicated to be mentally incompetent to trigger the mental disabilty clause.

Individuals with PTSD, BP etc. aren't restricted from owning firearms, but many people would probably want them to fall into the restricted category.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Renaiconna

Any illnesses that MAY affect their ability? Are mental illnesses specifically included in that law? Does the law make a distinction between chronic and acute illnesses?

Something about that just smells wrong to me; maybe it's the part where the government/authorities are requiring knowledge of sensitive medical information in order for me to enjoy my Constitutional right.

What constitutional right?

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Nessie

I can see a good justification for being armed against bears. I am not so sure about the argument for those who are frail to be armed.

All life on Earth is related. How many generations to the last common ancestor is enough that we can morally deploy lethal force in defense of ourselves or close relatives against our more-distant cousins?

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by 3point14

What constitutional right?

The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights as the SC cases Heller and MacDonald have defined it - an individual not otherwise prohibited has a right to possess a firearm in common use for self defense purposes.

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by 3point14

What constitutional right?

In the US, the Second Amendment. The right of "the people" to "keep (own and have at hand) and bear (carry) arms".