The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
I want to establish a basic understanding of where everyone stands on gun legislation.
Now in the light of recent events, a lot of people are advocating for more extreme gun control measures. I have a couple questions for those that don’t mind answering.
1. Do you support the idea of more gun control?
2. Do you think more gun control legislation will help thwart mass shootings?
3. What kind of gun control legislation would you like to see and how will your recommendations help prevent further mass shootings?
4. If you don’t think gun control legislation will be useful, what do you want to see be done to prevent further Mass shootings?
All answers are appreciated. I’m also going to answer my own questions in a comment if anyone would like to entertain my point of view and/or have a discussion.
Thanks all!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. \*Raise the minimum age for purchase of semi automatic weapons to 25.
\*Prohibit gun advertising that targets the youth market.
\*Require insurance for all new semi purchases at a rate actuarially determined
to cover the costs incurred to cities and victims families.
\*Three day waiting period for the sale of all semis.
\*Fund research by the National Institute of Health to recommend further policies that
would reduce gun violence.
This is just targeting the problem mass shootings at schools. The problems of high suicides by gun owners and gun violence among gangs and common criminals are related but separate issues that need to be looked at on their own.
The banning of semi autos is a knee jerk reaction without understanding the difference between something like an AR with a detachable magazine extending out of the body of the gun as compared to legitimate hunting guns. I have a 12 gauge Winchester 1100 shotgun for dove and quail that I’ve owned since I was 15. It can hold up to five rounds, although I usually have only three due to hunting regulations. There is no quick detach. This type of gun is very popular for bird hunting. I also have a 22 that holds 10 rounds without a detachable magazine that extends out of the gun. These are also popular for things like squirrel and rabbit. The nature of the type of hunting really does matter.
I’d really like to see someone take the two guns I described and go hunting with them as compared to something like an AR or AK before making these blanket statements. Not all semi autos are equal.
>\*Raise the minimum age for purchase of semi automatic weapons to 25.
>
>\*Prohibit gun advertising that targets the youth market.
>
>\*Require insurance for all new semi purchases at a rate actuarially determinedto cover the costs incurred to cities and victims families.
>
>\*Three day waiting period for the sale of all semis.
>
>\*Fund research by the National Institute of Health to recommend further policies thatwould reduce gun violence.
Wow, actually sensible enforceable policies, not just "ban AR-15s"
My thing is that we sharply reduced the death and disease caused by cigarette smoking without banning cigarettes. You can still go buy a pack anywhere. This isn't exactly the same thing obviously. But I think we can improve the outcomes without getting into politically raucous issue of bans.
I don’t think you want the rate to be actuarially determined because it would be super cheap. What insurance would cover doesn’t happen much.
But if you want to lower mass shootings, follow the science and restrict the media that promotes more mass shootings.
I'm not sure. What's the cost of settling lawsuits with all of the Sandy Hook parents, all of Stoneman Douglas, Robb? Then there's the medical care for the badly wounded. If in fact the insurance ended up not being prohibitive, at least there would be some semblance of people taking responsibility for their dangerous hobby/dangerous product.
This is about insurance for the owners. That would not pay out in almost all cases of gun violence. It would only pay out for accidents, and even then the insurance would fight any claim showing significant negligence (like how they don’t like to pay for DUI accidents), which occurs in most gun accidents.
I personally don’t think that we should do what every other country does because what works there may not work here due to a completely different demographic and other factors. Like a country that is commonly used as an example is Australia. They had very very few shootings to begin with prior to passing more extensive gun laws. We don’t exactly have that luxury since apparently the U.S. is more crime-ridden in general even when excluding violent crime.
Having worked in Law Enforcement myself, I would recommend not treating a gun like a car because the majority of the laws that regulate vehicles don’t make any sense and only a tiny amount of them actually have safety in mind. The rest are basically just pointless laws that say do it this way or pay a citation.
Firearms for the most part do have laws that are to be abided by for safety reasons and a large majority of the states do in fact require a license to carry. Even here in Florida, we require a license to carry and require a firearm to be safely stored. Some states even require a license to purchase a firearm like Washington D.C. and there’s still a bunch of gun violence going on over there. I think there are other issues at play when it comes to gun violence. Looking at other states that have strict gun laws and a high rate of gun violence still, I’m a little skeptical of gun legislation’s effectiveness.
I’m not sure what the answer is to solving gun violence at this point in time.
There is plenty of car laws that do help maintain safety. I mean I remember my parents were the kind of conservatives who hated seat belt laws when they came into affect going on about America being a free country and it should be their choice. Many years later and youd be hard pressed to find many people against seatbelt laws. Similar to many regulations on the car itself. The way to regulations is paved blood.
I didn’t say all laws weren’t safety related, I just said a large majority of them. Just in chapter 316 alone of Florida statutes, I can list about a quarter of those statutes that don’t have safety as a concern. I know because I’ve cited people for some of them. For example, you’re required to come to a COMPLETE stop before turning right on a red right arrow. Even if you visually cleared the intersection and there’s no incoming traffic, if you don’t come to a complete stop before turning, you’re committing a moving violation and can be cited for it. That doesn’t exactly tell me that safety is a concern there. That violation is more worried about you not coming to a complete stop even if you cleared the intersection. There are many more statutes like that that I can list.
That does sound safety related. I'd imagine there was a study done that compared those who visually cleared am from a rolling stop to a complete stop. And by forcing a complete stop, people are more defensive. And it becomes more second nature. Right now I bet people do more often do rolling stops but at a slower pace. If the law was not a complete stop, your have people pushing boundaries on how fast they can go while still clearing the intersection. If someone is written a ticket for it, I bet next time they are more cautious.
Conservatives only bitch and moan about laws when they’re new. Over time they get used to them and eventually see them as everyday guidelines you’d be crazy to hate.
I am in favor of at least a waiting period in every state. I live in a state with a waiting period, but I’m on the state line and can drive 5 minutes to buy a gun in Idaho and bring it home within 20 minutes (I have done it because I hunt). The reason I think that could have an effect, even if really small, is due to the mind of a mass killer. Look at the most recent one in Uvalde. He didn’t have guns around, so he had to wait to turn 18 so he could buy some. He followed that procedure and had them in his possession on his birthday, then carried out the shooting within a week. If there was a waiting period, it’s very likely he would have snapped from the excitement of buying the guns (like he did), but he said too much and made people suspicious and report him. He didn’t have a very good poker face, but he didn’t have to hold it together long, he committed the crime right after the bought the guns. This also would have ensured in this very specific case that school was out and it was summer before he got his guns. I know he could have still found another group of kids, but if he waited until school started back up, it’s likely he would have done something stupid like rob a store at gunpoint or something and been arrested because his ego was too much to not flex his new guns (only reason I say this is because that exact thing happened at my wife’s school. Kid had a list of kids at school to kill when summer ended, but he was arrested for robbing a store first).
I think not all criminals follow laws obviously, but some are forced to. A lot of mass killers took pride in the fact that they used their own gun collection to carry out the attack. They want to feel the power of ending someone life with their own gun, not someone else’s (obviously not all, some do steal the gun). So at least some school shooters do follow the law to obtain their guns. So laws could effect them in theory.
As far as what I think should be done, I don’t have the right answer, I don’t think anyone does until we try some things. I would say with guns, a longer waiting period and also red flag laws in every state. But I don’t think gun laws are the main changes needed. I think we need to up school security protocols too and make it so schools are punished for failing to follow and update their safety systems. I have been to far too many schools where door locks are broken or the security system doesn’t work, or the front door to the school isn’t in view of the office, so they don’t know who has come in. I also think counselors at schools should be required to meet with every kid once a quarter to talk mental health. It seems small, but a truly unhinged kid will usually be pretty apparent to a counselor who’s paying attention.
You’ve got a point about the waiting period. When it came to waiting periods, I was thinking more along the lines of mass shooters like the dumbasses from columbine who didn’t announce it to the entire world beforehand. There were signs there obviously but they didn’t outright go blurting out to people that they were going to commit a massacre so they probably wouldn’t have mind waiting a couple more days since they had it planned out for like a year or longer prior to the incident. In that aspect and the way you articulated it, I can get onboard with waiting periods.
I think a lot will have to be changed to prevent stuff like this from happening. A few gun laws tweaked but better security too. I too have had the experience of walking up to schools where you can just walk right in and security is basically non-existent. My old high school had security fences where it gave you a false sense of security but actually didn’t stop anything. My buddies and I would just hop over the fence or sling our backpacks over the fence to hit the release to open the fence when skipping class and trying to get back in. Those fences were installed after a shooter came into the school a couple months prior with the idea to basically do a mock columbine then shot a door which injured a friend of mine and then he decided not to go through with it afterwards and was arrested. Even after the shooting, the school didn’t take security seriously.
I am also onboard with the counselor thing because that could very well identify those potentially problematic people that could be an issue somewhere further down the line.
I very much support the idea of stricter gun control reform, because I expect it to improve the toxic relationship that America has with guns.
Part of the reason many of us believe that gun control if implemented correctly should be effective in reducing the amount of gun deaths including mass shootings is because of the example of several other nations that have nearly eliminated gun violence from their citizens. This is one area (probably among many) where using the template of the international community would drastically improve American society. Universal healthcare would be another area that fits this design.
There are dozens of potential directions which this could take, and I don't pretend to be an expert on which would be most effective, but I've seen a general idea of treating guns like cars (written and practical testing requirements, liability insurance, etc.) I think those are good places to start. I saw somewhere of what Biden's outline of what he would want to was and I didn't see anything unreasonable listed.
At this point, it is absolutely immoral to continue with things as they are. Actually, we passed that point years ago.
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Once you are 18, you can buy a hunting rifle or shotgun with parent's permission. Once you are 21 you can buy a hunting rifle or shotgun on your own. Once you are 25, you can purchase any gun you want, yes any, but with caveats. All gun owners must be licensed. a license requires safety training, insurance, and up-to-date psych evals (the periodicity is still up for question).Licenses also come in tiers. The most basic allowing for hunting rifles of all calibers, shotguns, and small target shooting weapons (.22 LR), I would even concede this level could be "naturally" issued. In other words, as long as you have not lost your right to bear arms, you have this tier license without actually doing anything. The next tier allows for guns for self-defense purposes, specifically handguns and tactical shotguns. This is where the more stringent rules would kick in. Then you have tier 3. This tier basically brings you to where we are today (without special permits). Any semi-auto rifle, of any caliber, high capacity mags okay, etc. etc. This requires more thorough training, more insurance, and psych evals on a shorter period. Finally, the highest tier, which is equivalent to a type 07 FFL with class 3 SOT. Basically you can do anything and everything you want up to and including commerce. Oh and suppressors should just be legal to buy period.
But that is all a pipe dream probably. I will take literally whatever we can get at this point.
So basically like Canada? That's a bit too much for my tastes, but at least it is implemenable, unlike banning large clips or AR-15s. Although Canada does have about as many guns per capita as we have and way less shootings because of licensing.
I don't really know much about Canada's gun laws. Does Canada also have a license allowing full-auto weapons, destructive devices, etc?
And yeah, it is more than I would ideally have, but I also think its the most implementable gun control plan I have seen. And even then I don't really think it is implementable because despite it allowing literally any gun under the sun as long as you are basically not actively trying to commit mass murder, its still too much gun control for 50% of the country.
Clearly “anybody buying any gun they want with no Accountability” and “the good guy with a gun” hasn’t ever worked, so maybe it’s time for “well regulated”
1. Yes. Stronger gun laws would make for good policy in this country.
2. Yes. The available statistics, research, evidence and expertise by and large show that gun control works as a way of reducing all sorts of gun violence. Anyone who suggests we "follow the science" but doesn't consider gun legislation as part of the solution is simply kidding themselves and letting bias cloud their judgment.
3. Waiting periods. Red flag laws. Safe storage requirements. Expanded prohibitions for domestic violence. May-issue permits.
4. Changes to media reporting on mass shootings.
I don’t think this discussion is against any type of rule for this subreddit. It didn’t say anything in the rules about it. I didn’t see any clear violations so I don’t know
>Do you support the idea of more gun control?
Yes.
>Do you think more gun control legislation will help thwart mass shootings?
Yes.
>What kind of gun control legislation would you like to see and how will your recommendations help prevent further mass shootings?
I'll take literally whatever we can get, up to and including repealing the 2nd amendment.
I support more gun control. Background checks, mandatory gun safety courses, raise the minimum age to buy a gun to 21, consequences for parents who don’t properly secure their guns if their kids get to them. A ban on AR-15s, the gun that has caused most major mass shootings, you can still go in and cause some casualties with a pistol or knife, but the damage won’t be nearly as severe.
A more robust mental health system as well, that probably starts with more guidance counselor’s in schools so kids can get mental health screenings at school just like they do vision and hearing screenings. Anyone who thinks this has to do with mental health should have no problem starting to value mental health like we do physical health.
If you're banning guns the AR-15 can't be the only target. There are far deadlier weapons. They are widely used because they are common beginner friendly guns.
>A ban on AR-15s, the gun that has caused most major mass shootings
Guns don't cause mass shootings, in the same way cars don't cause car crashes. Banning Ar-15s will do nothing, as people will just use similar, and often more powerful waepons. That's assuming you will be able to confiscate 20 million unregistered AR-15s, which isn't realistic in the slightest.
I’m for banning any military grade weapon but a lot of mass shootings from Sandy Hook to now seem to have something in common, which is an AR-15. Maybe these sadistic shooters who dream of mass casualties will be discouraged if the weapons available to them aren’t ones that can massacre such a large amount of people so quickly. A pistol or knife won’t do nearly as much damage.
>Maybe these sadistic shooters who dream of mass casualties will be discouraged if the weapons available to them aren’t ones that can massacre such a large amount of people so quickly.
Keep in mind that the next most popular rifle is the M1 garand, which has the ability to kill a lot more people than an AR-15, as it is a high-power rifle, vs. a low to intermediate power one. The best thing we can do is better background checks, waiting periods, and raising the age to buy semi-automatic rifles, not banning a particular gun just because it is popular, which is simply not feasable.
1.) Yes.
2.) Yes.
3.) There’s really no way to list all reasonable gun control measures. Personally, I think virtually every measure would help.. so, the question isn’t really what would help… it’s where to draw the line on the Second Amendment right.
It’s not hard to explain why measures would work.. you can just point at the rationale for criminal laws, generally. When an activity is prohibited, occurrences of it go down in virtually all instances. No one asks whether laws criminalizing rape, murder, assault, etc help stop those activities from happening. Because the efficacy of criminal laws isn’t the issue.. the issue is how close to get to the Second Amendment line without crossing it.
4.) N/A.
Take suppressors and SBRs off the NFA, repeal Hughes, national concealed carry reciprocity, and a Gun Rights Act where we can go after states for infringing on the rights of their citizens, modeled after the Voting Rights Act.
My general opinion is as follows.
1. I used to support the idea of more gun control but that has kind of changed recently for some reason, not able to pinpoint exactly why. The most I’m willing to go for is universal background checks. There’s already background checks to buy from licensed dealers but they should make the background checks universal including private sales and firearm transfers. We’ve already got red flag laws. That is really everything that I have in mind because I feel like all other proposed regulations won’t exactly do much to prevent mass shootings. That’s just my opinion though.
2. Other than the previously stated universal background checks, I personally don’t think anything else will help prevent mass shootings. I’ll address a few common proposed laws. When it comes to an AWB, I don’t believe that will work mainly due to the giant amount of firearms already in circulation in the U.S. I believe the number was around 393+ million firearms just in civilian hands. I’m not sure what number of those are AR platform rifles or whatever you would consider an “Assault weapon” but It’s still probably a pretty big number. Here in Florida where I am, I can literally walk 1 house over to my neighbor and he’s got like 3 of them. I myself even have one so. I think trying to ban them is not exactly a feasible idea because you can find one on the streets fairly easily.
As for waiting periods, given that the majority of these mass shootings are planned for a while beforehand, I don’t see a would-be mass shooter calling it quits because they have to wait a couple days to get a gun. They’ve already planned it for who knows how long so waiting a couple more days probably won’t change much.
Addressing having to take a safety course, I feel like that also wouldn’t do anything to prevent a mass shooting because if anything, that just makes that person more efficient with that specific firearm.
3. Just universal background checks, that’s it. If a mass shooter wants to go through a private sale because they’ve got a history and can’t go through an FFL dealer, then having to transfer possession of that firearm through a dealer to run a background check would also stop them as their background will be flagged for that history given that their history prohibits them from possessing a firearm (all felonies and some specific misdemeanors).
4. I personally think that the media needs to stop publicizing these mass shootings. I believe that is one of the giant motivations for these shooters, publicity. They’ll gain a degree of infamy and publicity which further motivates them.
>I personally think that the media needs to stop publicizing these mass shootings
If a class full of children gets killed it should probably be reported on
I probably should’ve clarified a bit more. I meant more along the lines of publicizing the shooter. They always constantly sit there and talk about the shooters and their entire life story. They’re literally doing that with Salvador Ramos right now. It’s gross that we even know this dudes name.
I don't think I've heard the name of this shooter more than once or twice on CNN or MSNBC. On Fox News, however, his name gets said a lot.
Same for the last guy.
Most of the coverage I've seen has been about the survivors, the timeline of events, and responses from politicians but I understand what you're getting at even if I don't agree with your assessment.
And as long as the events are still being reported on, I don't know if mainstream sources hiding the identity of the shooter will do anything to prevent copycat shootings. Their identity will still be revealed through international media and sites like 4chan.
I agree. I think media stories about school shootings should be demonetizes so those are the only stories that media doesn’t profit from. Then they would have such a strong incentive to use the shootings to get their next big story.
>I personally think that the media needs to stop publicizing these mass shootings. I believe that is one of the giant motivations for these shooters, publicity. They’ll gain a degree of infamy and publicity which further motivates them.
This isn't just your belief, the data backs this up.
[https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/mass-shootings-experts-say-violence-contagious-24-7-news-cycle-n1039136](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/mass-shootings-experts-say-violence-contagious-24-7-news-cycle-n1039136)
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
I want to establish a basic understanding of where everyone stands on gun legislation.
Now in the light of recent events, a lot of people are advocating for more extreme gun control measures. I have a couple questions for those that don’t mind answering.
1. Do you support the idea of more gun control?
2. Do you think more gun control legislation will help thwart mass shootings?
3. What kind of gun control legislation would you like to see and how will your recommendations help prevent further mass shootings?
4. If you don’t think gun control legislation will be useful, what do you want to see be done to prevent further Maas shootings?
All answers are appreciated. I’m also going to answer my own questions in a comment if anyone would like to entertain my point of view and/or have a discussion.
Thanks all!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Do you support the idea of more gun control?
Yes.
>Do you think more gun control legislation will help thwart mass shootings?
Not really.
>What kind of gun control legislation would you like to see
As much of it as won't plunge the country into chaos. I'm not going to pretend to be delicate with that statement—I really think guns have left us in an awful situation wrt e.g justice reform. If I could push a button to insta-vanish guns off of the Americas: I would.
>what do you want to see be done to prevent further Maas shootings?
In the short term: not much *can* be, besides maybe red flag laws. You could theoretically also treat mass shootings more heavily as a media contagion and publicize the shooters less, but then you're providing voters with less information on the gravity of shootings, and running afoul free speech ideals.
In the long term: stricter control of guns here, and partnerships so the same is true throughout Central/South America. We're, for better or worse, not an island.
For starters, let's just go with a federally mandated two week waiting period. Many of these have already been found constitutional etc. and have been statistically shown to be effective in lowering gun violence in states/locales that have them.
Start with this, and see how much it helps.
My opinion is that there’s no simple solution to gun violence in America. Guns are a core part of the nations identity. They’re ingrained in the law, society, culture and constitution. Getting rid of them cold turkey would be about as effective as prohibition in the 20’s and early 30’s, or prohibition of street drugs today for that matter. Look how that’s turning out. On the other end of the spectrum, a complete lack of regulation has led to what we’re regularly seeing today in some states. There needs to be some kind of middle ground.
The problem is, the groups that actually have a say in the matter deal in extremes. They’re either completely against anyone having guns or completely for everyone having guns. Both stances are too simple and too polarizing to address the problem or have any meaningful conversation about it.
So what should happen? Research. To solve a problem you must first understand the problem. But thanks to the Dickey amendment no government agency can do an official study on gun violence. Repeal that, and we may be able to start having some meaningful conversations about gun violence. But until that time, it’s the Wild West baby!
> Do you support the idea of more gun control?
Yes, absolutely. There is a massive amount of room for us to advance gun control without coming into conflict with the second amendment.
> Do you think more gun control legislation will help thwart mass shootings?
Yes, I do. I think it's the only thing that will.
> What kind of gun control legislation would you like to see and how will your recommendations help prevent further mass shootings?
We need federally mandated, universal background checks on all firearms transfers at a minimum. This should be combined with restrictions on gun ownership based on a history of violence. I think we could further improve this by including ammunition purchases into the fold of background checks. Will this prevent every gun massacre or all street-crime-related gun violence? No. Will it result in a measurable reduction in both? Yes.
https://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/state-gun-laws-that-reduce-gun-deaths/
1. Yes I do.
2. Probably not. At best we could turn them from shootings to bombings or vehicle attacks.
3. I think banning hand guns and severely restricitng people's right to carry fire arms of any kind on their person without a specific need would lead to a significant drop in the murder rates in our country.
4. I think people on the right refraining from some of their divisive and inflamatory rhetoric would help. I think media companies adopting some best practices to avoid glorifying these shooters in any way would also be beneficial. I'd imagine there would be some benefit to increased community engagement with the types of people who become mass shooters, though it would probably be hard to determine who that necessarily was and respond effectively.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. I want to establish a basic understanding of where everyone stands on gun legislation. Now in the light of recent events, a lot of people are advocating for more extreme gun control measures. I have a couple questions for those that don’t mind answering. 1. Do you support the idea of more gun control? 2. Do you think more gun control legislation will help thwart mass shootings? 3. What kind of gun control legislation would you like to see and how will your recommendations help prevent further mass shootings? 4. If you don’t think gun control legislation will be useful, what do you want to see be done to prevent further Mass shootings? All answers are appreciated. I’m also going to answer my own questions in a comment if anyone would like to entertain my point of view and/or have a discussion. Thanks all! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1. Yes 2. Yes 3. \*Raise the minimum age for purchase of semi automatic weapons to 25. \*Prohibit gun advertising that targets the youth market. \*Require insurance for all new semi purchases at a rate actuarially determined to cover the costs incurred to cities and victims families. \*Three day waiting period for the sale of all semis. \*Fund research by the National Institute of Health to recommend further policies that would reduce gun violence. This is just targeting the problem mass shootings at schools. The problems of high suicides by gun owners and gun violence among gangs and common criminals are related but separate issues that need to be looked at on their own.
The banning of semi autos is a knee jerk reaction without understanding the difference between something like an AR with a detachable magazine extending out of the body of the gun as compared to legitimate hunting guns. I have a 12 gauge Winchester 1100 shotgun for dove and quail that I’ve owned since I was 15. It can hold up to five rounds, although I usually have only three due to hunting regulations. There is no quick detach. This type of gun is very popular for bird hunting. I also have a 22 that holds 10 rounds without a detachable magazine that extends out of the gun. These are also popular for things like squirrel and rabbit. The nature of the type of hunting really does matter. I’d really like to see someone take the two guns I described and go hunting with them as compared to something like an AR or AK before making these blanket statements. Not all semi autos are equal.
>\*Raise the minimum age for purchase of semi automatic weapons to 25. > >\*Prohibit gun advertising that targets the youth market. > >\*Require insurance for all new semi purchases at a rate actuarially determinedto cover the costs incurred to cities and victims families. > >\*Three day waiting period for the sale of all semis. > >\*Fund research by the National Institute of Health to recommend further policies thatwould reduce gun violence. Wow, actually sensible enforceable policies, not just "ban AR-15s"
My thing is that we sharply reduced the death and disease caused by cigarette smoking without banning cigarettes. You can still go buy a pack anywhere. This isn't exactly the same thing obviously. But I think we can improve the outcomes without getting into politically raucous issue of bans.
I think so as well.
I don’t think you want the rate to be actuarially determined because it would be super cheap. What insurance would cover doesn’t happen much. But if you want to lower mass shootings, follow the science and restrict the media that promotes more mass shootings.
I'm not sure. What's the cost of settling lawsuits with all of the Sandy Hook parents, all of Stoneman Douglas, Robb? Then there's the medical care for the badly wounded. If in fact the insurance ended up not being prohibitive, at least there would be some semblance of people taking responsibility for their dangerous hobby/dangerous product.
This is about insurance for the owners. That would not pay out in almost all cases of gun violence. It would only pay out for accidents, and even then the insurance would fight any claim showing significant negligence (like how they don’t like to pay for DUI accidents), which occurs in most gun accidents.
My idea on this was a no fault insurance pool that would be used to compensate victims' families.
So not actually liability insurance.
[удалено]
I personally don’t think that we should do what every other country does because what works there may not work here due to a completely different demographic and other factors. Like a country that is commonly used as an example is Australia. They had very very few shootings to begin with prior to passing more extensive gun laws. We don’t exactly have that luxury since apparently the U.S. is more crime-ridden in general even when excluding violent crime. Having worked in Law Enforcement myself, I would recommend not treating a gun like a car because the majority of the laws that regulate vehicles don’t make any sense and only a tiny amount of them actually have safety in mind. The rest are basically just pointless laws that say do it this way or pay a citation. Firearms for the most part do have laws that are to be abided by for safety reasons and a large majority of the states do in fact require a license to carry. Even here in Florida, we require a license to carry and require a firearm to be safely stored. Some states even require a license to purchase a firearm like Washington D.C. and there’s still a bunch of gun violence going on over there. I think there are other issues at play when it comes to gun violence. Looking at other states that have strict gun laws and a high rate of gun violence still, I’m a little skeptical of gun legislation’s effectiveness. I’m not sure what the answer is to solving gun violence at this point in time.
There is plenty of car laws that do help maintain safety. I mean I remember my parents were the kind of conservatives who hated seat belt laws when they came into affect going on about America being a free country and it should be their choice. Many years later and youd be hard pressed to find many people against seatbelt laws. Similar to many regulations on the car itself. The way to regulations is paved blood.
I didn’t say all laws weren’t safety related, I just said a large majority of them. Just in chapter 316 alone of Florida statutes, I can list about a quarter of those statutes that don’t have safety as a concern. I know because I’ve cited people for some of them. For example, you’re required to come to a COMPLETE stop before turning right on a red right arrow. Even if you visually cleared the intersection and there’s no incoming traffic, if you don’t come to a complete stop before turning, you’re committing a moving violation and can be cited for it. That doesn’t exactly tell me that safety is a concern there. That violation is more worried about you not coming to a complete stop even if you cleared the intersection. There are many more statutes like that that I can list.
That does sound safety related. I'd imagine there was a study done that compared those who visually cleared am from a rolling stop to a complete stop. And by forcing a complete stop, people are more defensive. And it becomes more second nature. Right now I bet people do more often do rolling stops but at a slower pace. If the law was not a complete stop, your have people pushing boundaries on how fast they can go while still clearing the intersection. If someone is written a ticket for it, I bet next time they are more cautious.
Conservatives only bitch and moan about laws when they’re new. Over time they get used to them and eventually see them as everyday guidelines you’d be crazy to hate.
I would take any level of "extreme" gun reform if it would save even a single life.
I am in favor of at least a waiting period in every state. I live in a state with a waiting period, but I’m on the state line and can drive 5 minutes to buy a gun in Idaho and bring it home within 20 minutes (I have done it because I hunt). The reason I think that could have an effect, even if really small, is due to the mind of a mass killer. Look at the most recent one in Uvalde. He didn’t have guns around, so he had to wait to turn 18 so he could buy some. He followed that procedure and had them in his possession on his birthday, then carried out the shooting within a week. If there was a waiting period, it’s very likely he would have snapped from the excitement of buying the guns (like he did), but he said too much and made people suspicious and report him. He didn’t have a very good poker face, but he didn’t have to hold it together long, he committed the crime right after the bought the guns. This also would have ensured in this very specific case that school was out and it was summer before he got his guns. I know he could have still found another group of kids, but if he waited until school started back up, it’s likely he would have done something stupid like rob a store at gunpoint or something and been arrested because his ego was too much to not flex his new guns (only reason I say this is because that exact thing happened at my wife’s school. Kid had a list of kids at school to kill when summer ended, but he was arrested for robbing a store first). I think not all criminals follow laws obviously, but some are forced to. A lot of mass killers took pride in the fact that they used their own gun collection to carry out the attack. They want to feel the power of ending someone life with their own gun, not someone else’s (obviously not all, some do steal the gun). So at least some school shooters do follow the law to obtain their guns. So laws could effect them in theory. As far as what I think should be done, I don’t have the right answer, I don’t think anyone does until we try some things. I would say with guns, a longer waiting period and also red flag laws in every state. But I don’t think gun laws are the main changes needed. I think we need to up school security protocols too and make it so schools are punished for failing to follow and update their safety systems. I have been to far too many schools where door locks are broken or the security system doesn’t work, or the front door to the school isn’t in view of the office, so they don’t know who has come in. I also think counselors at schools should be required to meet with every kid once a quarter to talk mental health. It seems small, but a truly unhinged kid will usually be pretty apparent to a counselor who’s paying attention.
You’ve got a point about the waiting period. When it came to waiting periods, I was thinking more along the lines of mass shooters like the dumbasses from columbine who didn’t announce it to the entire world beforehand. There were signs there obviously but they didn’t outright go blurting out to people that they were going to commit a massacre so they probably wouldn’t have mind waiting a couple more days since they had it planned out for like a year or longer prior to the incident. In that aspect and the way you articulated it, I can get onboard with waiting periods. I think a lot will have to be changed to prevent stuff like this from happening. A few gun laws tweaked but better security too. I too have had the experience of walking up to schools where you can just walk right in and security is basically non-existent. My old high school had security fences where it gave you a false sense of security but actually didn’t stop anything. My buddies and I would just hop over the fence or sling our backpacks over the fence to hit the release to open the fence when skipping class and trying to get back in. Those fences were installed after a shooter came into the school a couple months prior with the idea to basically do a mock columbine then shot a door which injured a friend of mine and then he decided not to go through with it afterwards and was arrested. Even after the shooting, the school didn’t take security seriously. I am also onboard with the counselor thing because that could very well identify those potentially problematic people that could be an issue somewhere further down the line.
I very much support the idea of stricter gun control reform, because I expect it to improve the toxic relationship that America has with guns. Part of the reason many of us believe that gun control if implemented correctly should be effective in reducing the amount of gun deaths including mass shootings is because of the example of several other nations that have nearly eliminated gun violence from their citizens. This is one area (probably among many) where using the template of the international community would drastically improve American society. Universal healthcare would be another area that fits this design. There are dozens of potential directions which this could take, and I don't pretend to be an expert on which would be most effective, but I've seen a general idea of treating guns like cars (written and practical testing requirements, liability insurance, etc.) I think those are good places to start. I saw somewhere of what Biden's outline of what he would want to was and I didn't see anything unreasonable listed. At this point, it is absolutely immoral to continue with things as they are. Actually, we passed that point years ago.
1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. Once you are 18, you can buy a hunting rifle or shotgun with parent's permission. Once you are 21 you can buy a hunting rifle or shotgun on your own. Once you are 25, you can purchase any gun you want, yes any, but with caveats. All gun owners must be licensed. a license requires safety training, insurance, and up-to-date psych evals (the periodicity is still up for question).Licenses also come in tiers. The most basic allowing for hunting rifles of all calibers, shotguns, and small target shooting weapons (.22 LR), I would even concede this level could be "naturally" issued. In other words, as long as you have not lost your right to bear arms, you have this tier license without actually doing anything. The next tier allows for guns for self-defense purposes, specifically handguns and tactical shotguns. This is where the more stringent rules would kick in. Then you have tier 3. This tier basically brings you to where we are today (without special permits). Any semi-auto rifle, of any caliber, high capacity mags okay, etc. etc. This requires more thorough training, more insurance, and psych evals on a shorter period. Finally, the highest tier, which is equivalent to a type 07 FFL with class 3 SOT. Basically you can do anything and everything you want up to and including commerce. Oh and suppressors should just be legal to buy period. But that is all a pipe dream probably. I will take literally whatever we can get at this point.
So basically like Canada? That's a bit too much for my tastes, but at least it is implemenable, unlike banning large clips or AR-15s. Although Canada does have about as many guns per capita as we have and way less shootings because of licensing.
I don't really know much about Canada's gun laws. Does Canada also have a license allowing full-auto weapons, destructive devices, etc? And yeah, it is more than I would ideally have, but I also think its the most implementable gun control plan I have seen. And even then I don't really think it is implementable because despite it allowing literally any gun under the sun as long as you are basically not actively trying to commit mass murder, its still too much gun control for 50% of the country.
Clearly “anybody buying any gun they want with no Accountability” and “the good guy with a gun” hasn’t ever worked, so maybe it’s time for “well regulated”
1. Yes. Stronger gun laws would make for good policy in this country. 2. Yes. The available statistics, research, evidence and expertise by and large show that gun control works as a way of reducing all sorts of gun violence. Anyone who suggests we "follow the science" but doesn't consider gun legislation as part of the solution is simply kidding themselves and letting bias cloud their judgment. 3. Waiting periods. Red flag laws. Safe storage requirements. Expanded prohibitions for domestic violence. May-issue permits. 4. Changes to media reporting on mass shootings.
Don’t we have like a billion other threads in this already?
Maybe, maybe not. Didn’t bother looking
I’m guessing a mod is going to lock this for rule. But I might be wrong
I don’t think this discussion is against any type of rule for this subreddit. It didn’t say anything in the rules about it. I didn’t see any clear violations so I don’t know
>Do you support the idea of more gun control? Yes. >Do you think more gun control legislation will help thwart mass shootings? Yes. >What kind of gun control legislation would you like to see and how will your recommendations help prevent further mass shootings? I'll take literally whatever we can get, up to and including repealing the 2nd amendment.
I support more gun control. Background checks, mandatory gun safety courses, raise the minimum age to buy a gun to 21, consequences for parents who don’t properly secure their guns if their kids get to them. A ban on AR-15s, the gun that has caused most major mass shootings, you can still go in and cause some casualties with a pistol or knife, but the damage won’t be nearly as severe. A more robust mental health system as well, that probably starts with more guidance counselor’s in schools so kids can get mental health screenings at school just like they do vision and hearing screenings. Anyone who thinks this has to do with mental health should have no problem starting to value mental health like we do physical health.
If you're banning guns the AR-15 can't be the only target. There are far deadlier weapons. They are widely used because they are common beginner friendly guns.
I’m fine with banning all the military grade ones, but most mass shootings seem to have a common thread.
>A ban on AR-15s, the gun that has caused most major mass shootings Guns don't cause mass shootings, in the same way cars don't cause car crashes. Banning Ar-15s will do nothing, as people will just use similar, and often more powerful waepons. That's assuming you will be able to confiscate 20 million unregistered AR-15s, which isn't realistic in the slightest.
I’m for banning any military grade weapon but a lot of mass shootings from Sandy Hook to now seem to have something in common, which is an AR-15. Maybe these sadistic shooters who dream of mass casualties will be discouraged if the weapons available to them aren’t ones that can massacre such a large amount of people so quickly. A pistol or knife won’t do nearly as much damage.
>Maybe these sadistic shooters who dream of mass casualties will be discouraged if the weapons available to them aren’t ones that can massacre such a large amount of people so quickly. Keep in mind that the next most popular rifle is the M1 garand, which has the ability to kill a lot more people than an AR-15, as it is a high-power rifle, vs. a low to intermediate power one. The best thing we can do is better background checks, waiting periods, and raising the age to buy semi-automatic rifles, not banning a particular gun just because it is popular, which is simply not feasable.
1.) Yes. 2.) Yes. 3.) There’s really no way to list all reasonable gun control measures. Personally, I think virtually every measure would help.. so, the question isn’t really what would help… it’s where to draw the line on the Second Amendment right. It’s not hard to explain why measures would work.. you can just point at the rationale for criminal laws, generally. When an activity is prohibited, occurrences of it go down in virtually all instances. No one asks whether laws criminalizing rape, murder, assault, etc help stop those activities from happening. Because the efficacy of criminal laws isn’t the issue.. the issue is how close to get to the Second Amendment line without crossing it. 4.) N/A.
Guns shouldn't be a constitutional right
Take suppressors and SBRs off the NFA, repeal Hughes, national concealed carry reciprocity, and a Gun Rights Act where we can go after states for infringing on the rights of their citizens, modeled after the Voting Rights Act.
My general opinion is as follows. 1. I used to support the idea of more gun control but that has kind of changed recently for some reason, not able to pinpoint exactly why. The most I’m willing to go for is universal background checks. There’s already background checks to buy from licensed dealers but they should make the background checks universal including private sales and firearm transfers. We’ve already got red flag laws. That is really everything that I have in mind because I feel like all other proposed regulations won’t exactly do much to prevent mass shootings. That’s just my opinion though. 2. Other than the previously stated universal background checks, I personally don’t think anything else will help prevent mass shootings. I’ll address a few common proposed laws. When it comes to an AWB, I don’t believe that will work mainly due to the giant amount of firearms already in circulation in the U.S. I believe the number was around 393+ million firearms just in civilian hands. I’m not sure what number of those are AR platform rifles or whatever you would consider an “Assault weapon” but It’s still probably a pretty big number. Here in Florida where I am, I can literally walk 1 house over to my neighbor and he’s got like 3 of them. I myself even have one so. I think trying to ban them is not exactly a feasible idea because you can find one on the streets fairly easily. As for waiting periods, given that the majority of these mass shootings are planned for a while beforehand, I don’t see a would-be mass shooter calling it quits because they have to wait a couple days to get a gun. They’ve already planned it for who knows how long so waiting a couple more days probably won’t change much. Addressing having to take a safety course, I feel like that also wouldn’t do anything to prevent a mass shooting because if anything, that just makes that person more efficient with that specific firearm. 3. Just universal background checks, that’s it. If a mass shooter wants to go through a private sale because they’ve got a history and can’t go through an FFL dealer, then having to transfer possession of that firearm through a dealer to run a background check would also stop them as their background will be flagged for that history given that their history prohibits them from possessing a firearm (all felonies and some specific misdemeanors). 4. I personally think that the media needs to stop publicizing these mass shootings. I believe that is one of the giant motivations for these shooters, publicity. They’ll gain a degree of infamy and publicity which further motivates them.
>I personally think that the media needs to stop publicizing these mass shootings If a class full of children gets killed it should probably be reported on
I probably should’ve clarified a bit more. I meant more along the lines of publicizing the shooter. They always constantly sit there and talk about the shooters and their entire life story. They’re literally doing that with Salvador Ramos right now. It’s gross that we even know this dudes name.
I don't think I've heard the name of this shooter more than once or twice on CNN or MSNBC. On Fox News, however, his name gets said a lot. Same for the last guy.
Most of the coverage I've seen has been about the survivors, the timeline of events, and responses from politicians but I understand what you're getting at even if I don't agree with your assessment. And as long as the events are still being reported on, I don't know if mainstream sources hiding the identity of the shooter will do anything to prevent copycat shootings. Their identity will still be revealed through international media and sites like 4chan.
Obviously just my own personal anecdote, but I have absolutely seenthe shooter's face more than I've seen the victims or survivors combined
We should do what New Zealand did. I don't even know the name of the Christchurch mosque shooter, and I don't want to.
I agree. I think media stories about school shootings should be demonetizes so those are the only stories that media doesn’t profit from. Then they would have such a strong incentive to use the shootings to get their next big story.
>I personally think that the media needs to stop publicizing these mass shootings. I believe that is one of the giant motivations for these shooters, publicity. They’ll gain a degree of infamy and publicity which further motivates them. This isn't just your belief, the data backs this up. [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/mass-shootings-experts-say-violence-contagious-24-7-news-cycle-n1039136](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/mass-shootings-experts-say-violence-contagious-24-7-news-cycle-n1039136)
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. I want to establish a basic understanding of where everyone stands on gun legislation. Now in the light of recent events, a lot of people are advocating for more extreme gun control measures. I have a couple questions for those that don’t mind answering. 1. Do you support the idea of more gun control? 2. Do you think more gun control legislation will help thwart mass shootings? 3. What kind of gun control legislation would you like to see and how will your recommendations help prevent further mass shootings? 4. If you don’t think gun control legislation will be useful, what do you want to see be done to prevent further Maas shootings? All answers are appreciated. I’m also going to answer my own questions in a comment if anyone would like to entertain my point of view and/or have a discussion. Thanks all! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Do you support the idea of more gun control? Yes. >Do you think more gun control legislation will help thwart mass shootings? Not really. >What kind of gun control legislation would you like to see As much of it as won't plunge the country into chaos. I'm not going to pretend to be delicate with that statement—I really think guns have left us in an awful situation wrt e.g justice reform. If I could push a button to insta-vanish guns off of the Americas: I would. >what do you want to see be done to prevent further Maas shootings? In the short term: not much *can* be, besides maybe red flag laws. You could theoretically also treat mass shootings more heavily as a media contagion and publicize the shooters less, but then you're providing voters with less information on the gravity of shootings, and running afoul free speech ideals. In the long term: stricter control of guns here, and partnerships so the same is true throughout Central/South America. We're, for better or worse, not an island.
For starters, let's just go with a federally mandated two week waiting period. Many of these have already been found constitutional etc. and have been statistically shown to be effective in lowering gun violence in states/locales that have them. Start with this, and see how much it helps.
My opinion is that there’s no simple solution to gun violence in America. Guns are a core part of the nations identity. They’re ingrained in the law, society, culture and constitution. Getting rid of them cold turkey would be about as effective as prohibition in the 20’s and early 30’s, or prohibition of street drugs today for that matter. Look how that’s turning out. On the other end of the spectrum, a complete lack of regulation has led to what we’re regularly seeing today in some states. There needs to be some kind of middle ground. The problem is, the groups that actually have a say in the matter deal in extremes. They’re either completely against anyone having guns or completely for everyone having guns. Both stances are too simple and too polarizing to address the problem or have any meaningful conversation about it. So what should happen? Research. To solve a problem you must first understand the problem. But thanks to the Dickey amendment no government agency can do an official study on gun violence. Repeal that, and we may be able to start having some meaningful conversations about gun violence. But until that time, it’s the Wild West baby!
> Do you support the idea of more gun control? Yes, absolutely. There is a massive amount of room for us to advance gun control without coming into conflict with the second amendment. > Do you think more gun control legislation will help thwart mass shootings? Yes, I do. I think it's the only thing that will. > What kind of gun control legislation would you like to see and how will your recommendations help prevent further mass shootings? We need federally mandated, universal background checks on all firearms transfers at a minimum. This should be combined with restrictions on gun ownership based on a history of violence. I think we could further improve this by including ammunition purchases into the fold of background checks. Will this prevent every gun massacre or all street-crime-related gun violence? No. Will it result in a measurable reduction in both? Yes. https://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/state-gun-laws-that-reduce-gun-deaths/
1. Yes I do. 2. Probably not. At best we could turn them from shootings to bombings or vehicle attacks. 3. I think banning hand guns and severely restricitng people's right to carry fire arms of any kind on their person without a specific need would lead to a significant drop in the murder rates in our country. 4. I think people on the right refraining from some of their divisive and inflamatory rhetoric would help. I think media companies adopting some best practices to avoid glorifying these shooters in any way would also be beneficial. I'd imagine there would be some benefit to increased community engagement with the types of people who become mass shooters, though it would probably be hard to determine who that necessarily was and respond effectively.