^meanwhile back in the real world, there's literally dozens, if not hundreds, of studies showing the correlation btetween stricter gun laws and reduction in gun-based fatalities overall, as well as even more overwhelming case for the number of firearms being dirctly correlated to firearm violence (guns still cause 100% of gun violence) - though it's a steadfast article of faith among the right wing/1-6ers, and their allies and their facebook stream of consciousness that no such thing has ever happened in human history based on a few contrarian data points. Of course I guess it's progress because you don't have quite as many idiots now claiming "More Guns = Less Crime" like John Lott - so, yay?
this has been set to music https://bbs.clutchfans.net/threads/best-reasonably-priced-home-security-system.311082/#post-13499421
This is the problem with cherry picking stats without more context. While yes Vermont has more permissive gun laws than CA, VT is very different than CA demographically. Or when people bring up Switzerland where every family has a gun as an argument that more guns make places safer. If that was the case then Afghanistan would be one of the safest countries in the World.
You like to say I am ignoring things that I am not ignoring. Those are the guns being purchased in Nevada and Arizona etc. that are then driven back to California and used in crime. They can track it because the last reported sale was when the gun was originally purchased by the guy that then did a private party transfer. They have a big database of guns that have been seized called IBIS. Every gun seized is test fired and ballistics and toolmarks and stuff are loaded into this database, as well as all the information about the history of the gun that can be gleaned from manufacture and sales records. The number 1 source of guns used in crime in California is legal sales in California that then somehow end up in the hands of criminals. Either they were previously reported stolen, or they are reported stolen after the fact, "oopsie, I didn't realize my gun was missing, how did that Crip end up with it?" Maybe gun control helps to a degree, maybe it doesn't. What is clear is that gun control is not the main determinant of gun violence, because gun friendly Utah is roughly like gun phobic Euro nations in gun homicides. The gun violence problem in the United States is largely limited to a few urban population centers and is driven by gang violence. Chances are, if you live in any other neighborhood in America, your gun violence problem will not be more severe than that of people in Europe. That is the point, not something being missed. It is the people in the locations with high levels of gun violence that are driving the numbers, not the guns. There are many people with a dozen or more guns that never commit a crime. The vast supermajority of gun owners are law abiding citizens that will never commit a crime with their gun. The criminals are going to be criminals whether they can get a gun or not, and certainly don't care about background checks, safety classes, and insurance. They steal a gun or buy it off the streets and use it as a tool, just as they would use a knife or a club or a chain. It isn't that the guns in Switzerland make it safer, or that the guns in Afghanistan make it more dangerous. The guns are irrelevant. Switzerland is a safe country, Afghanistan is a dangerous country, and the guns make a marginal difference.
True most legal gun owners are law abiding but given the severity of what can happen with that much firepower shows that there are still risks. Consider the shooters of V-tech, Las Vegas, Aurora, GA, and Boulder all got their weapons legally. The shooter of Sandy Hook got them from his mother who got them legally. Granted background checks wouldn't have stopped them all but given the mental health history and in some cases criminal histories of many recent mass shooters might've stopped or at least made it much more difficult for them. The argument that people will get them illegally yes that is true but that again goes to that there are many things like drunk driving that people do even though it's illegal but we don't decide to decriminalize DUI just because people still do it. While yes you can kill someone with a knife or a club it is much harder to have a mass casualty event with a knife or a club. For example on the same day that Sandy Hook happened in the PRC there was an attack by a deranged man with a knife. The difference is while 22 children were injured in the PRC none of them died while 26 died at Sandy Hook. To argue that guns make a marginal difference then why does anyone need a gun for self defense when you can use lethal force with a bat or kitchen knife? Further as both you and other posters have noted. Many weapons start out legally but are ending up being used for crime? You've already stated that private sales aren't subject to background checks so that means that while many private sellers never intend to their guns to be used for crimes aren't bothered to check out who they are selling them to because there is no legal reason. If we have background checks there is a legal liability for sellers at all levels. Further this also will allow a track on chain of ownership. A gun owner who's guns might end up in a crime that they are liable for will likely be far more careful with their firearms.
To add another followup regarding VT and Switzerland. While those states have a fair amount of firearms they are regulated. VT has put in a background check law for private sales, has a 21 year old age restriction for purchases and has banned high capacity magazines and bumpstocks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Vermont Switzerland requires that every able bodied adult male to serve in their national militia and undergo 18 weeks of training. They have to go to further training periodically. They are only allowed to keep 50 rounds of ammunition at home with the rest of the ammunition stored at national armories. The government does periodic audits of personal held ammunition to make sure it is accounted for. https://www.politifact.com/factchec...ok-posting-says-gun-rich-swiss-have-lowest-f/
H.R. 8 "dead on arrival" https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-shaw/2021/03/30/democrats-background-check-bill-already-tanking/ excerpt The main issue holding up the bill even among moderates who might have supported it is the requirement for licensed gun dealers to perform repetitive background checks every time a firearm is sold or potentially even loaned to someone. This effort to nibble away at the Second Amendment by making firearm purchases as inconvenient as possible just wasn’t going to fly. The Democrats are currently looking at what is likely a ceiling of 47 votes in favor of H.R. 8, and Chuck Schumer has been around the swamp long enough to know that he’s not going to bring a doomed bill to the floor, only to suffer an awkward defeat.
Most of those people probably went through background checks when they bought their guns. We don't ban beer because it is possible someone will drink and drive though, or make someone prove they have never had a DUI and that they have taken a drinking safety course, we criminalize DUI. It is already illegal for criminals to possess guns. It is already illegal to shoot people. It is already illegal to import guns across state lines in many cases without using an FFL. No one is saying to allow criminals to be stopped by a cop and say, "sorry officer, you can't have my gun". Mass casualty events are statistically insignificant. Gun violence is largely done one victim at a time. That is where the numbers all come from. They are one banger shooting one or two others with a cheap 9mm pistol. Making laws around people with AR-15s killing a crowd of people is like the terrible laws we made after 9/11. 1. If you are just going about your daily life, it is tough to tote around a baseball bat or a kitchen knife or a halberd. 2. If you are physically at a disadvantage to your opponent, a fight with a melee weapon is likely to still favor the bigger/stronger/better trained adversary. A housewife can keep a .380 in her purse and defend herself against a mugger with a knife. Not going to work out so well for her if she has a pocket knife. Depends on the jurisdiction. California doesn't allow private sales. All transfers must go through a licensed gun dealer. That was my original point responding to FB. California already has the things the gun control advocates want, and it doesn't work, because they just sell on the black market or the bangers break into people's houses or cars and steal guns.
Good luck getting that approved.... I also have long called for a requirement of insurance renewed yearly that would cover all of the negative costs associated with gun violence. I do not think that licensing and a fee for the administrative costs is unreasonable either. Having said that, it would cause a major uproar. For example 3% of the USA population owns a combined 140 million firearms in the USA. The insurance and renewal of licensing for these guns owners would be extremely high (as it should be) but these people would also fight like hell to not have to follow the law.
I'll never understand the leap from "ill kill myself" to "ill kill myself and my entire family". It seems like a pretty big logical jump.
The issue is that the people with 40 guns generally speaking are law abiding citizens whose guns never hurt anybody, the insurance costs for them would be astronomical. The people causing all the harm with guns generally have them illegally. They would never pay a dime of this insurance. So you would be punishing people that do nothing wrong and not doing anything to the people who are the problem. Seems like a poor solution to gun violence.
Taking illegal guns and illegal gun owners out of circulation is not that complicated. Will it be done overnight? No. Can it be done? Yes. Do the gun fetishists care? No. I own 40+ guns, and use about 10. I'd happily pay insurance for those, and take the firing pins out of the sentimental ones.
I am doing my best, but it sure isn't easy. I had a case a couple of weeks back where there were three guys in a car, all brothers/cousins. There was a loaded magazine in the bag. One of the three guys was a felon, and thus not allowed to have ammunition. A citizen reported one of the people in the car pointed a gun at her, but no gun was found when the cops stopped them a few minutes later about five blocks away. The judge said there was not sufficient evidence that the felon in the car was aware of the presence of the ammunition or that he had custody or control of the alleged gun that could not be located. So no trial he is free to go. BTW, three weeks earlier, the police raided the house where all three were staying and they found 4 firearms, but the non-felon brother had them in his room and said no one else knew he had them and no one else had access to them. No charges based on that search. It can be tougher than you might think to get the illegal firearms and illegal gun owners out of circulation. This is in California, where the state HATES guns and you cannot legally have a normal AR-15.
There are various opinions on this and different view points. I will say this, if we required people that owned guns to have insurance every year and to get a license renewed every 5 years and cut off the gun seller loophole, we would start seeing far less stolen guns and we would see less citizens selling their guns on the streets..... who is going to sell a gun illegally when they have to then pay a fee indefinitely? It would also make people that have guns be more serious, and discourage some casual from one day deciding to buy one because the requirements would be more stringent.
Likewise. I have cut back the number of guns I have, but 10 years ago I had even more than you have now. At this point I have around a half dozen. The insurance costs would hurt me as a gun owner, but I support it and think that it is quite fair and reasonable. It also would motivate me to decide do I really need or want to keep all 6 if I am going to be paying a tax on them. Many Americans are very casual with guns, they buy one or a few and stick it in their closet. They end up stolen or in some cases just given to someone else and they are out of circulation. If the cost of a gun is going to be yearly insurance and required registration every 5 years, we will see fewer casual purchases and we will see people deciding that they don't want their gun based on a cost based analysis.
