Potential Solutions to Gun Violence

[JeffreyS]

Interesting discussion.

To the point of the medical / mental screening requirement and Stephen's counterpoint, I think a renewal period between 2-4 years would make sense.  Sure, it wouldn't catch every nut that cracked, but it would definitely harvest a few. 

What is the renewal period on a concealed permit?

With regard to a people living with others that wouldn't pass screening, I would also be for more liability for the gun owners in the event that their registered firearm was used in a crime.  Unless the gun is properly reported as stolen, then I believe if the owner is just as liable as the person committing the crime, then it would provide more incentive to be a bit more cautious when storing the gun. 

Then you better be willing to do the same thing with automobiles and any other property.  Perhaps even children.  That is a slippery slope.

Yes and IMO worth it. I like the automobile solution. Licensed, registered(to owner) and insured. I know why tracking is scary to some and it is a reasonable fear but again IMO worth it. 

This won't be perfect nothing is but owning a gun seems to me like it should be a big and ongoing responsibility.

I also like the idea of bio locks and kill switch tech going forward, no more I lost it or it was stolen excuses.

[NotNow]

Interesting discussion.

To the point of the medical / mental screening requirement and Stephen's counterpoint, I think a renewal period between 2-4 years would make sense.  Sure, it wouldn't catch every nut that cracked, but it would definitely harvest a few. 

What is the renewal period on a concealed permit?

With regard to a people living with others that wouldn't pass screening, I would also be for more liability for the gun owners in the event that their registered firearm was used in a crime.  Unless the gun is properly reported as stolen, then I believe if the owner is just as liable as the person committing the crime, then it would provide more incentive to be a bit more cautious when storing the gun. 

Then you better be willing to do the same thing with automobiles and any other property.  Perhaps even children.  That is a slippery slope.

Are they not already?  I hate to use an extreme as an example, but since it's the only one I can think of....

There is a case of a young man who has served 10ish years of a life sentence because his roommate took his car to commit a murder while he was supposedly sleeping on the couch.  Seems a bit far-fetched and I can't validate the truthfulness of it, but it's one that stands out in my head.

If someone were to come onto my property, legally or illegally, and hurt themselves because they fell into my half-full pool, or bitten by my dogs or any myriad of situation, then I'll be held liable and will be facing, at the minimum, a civil suit and the possibility of a criminal suit. 

And the same may be true with firearms, I don't know, I'm just posing a question and an opinion.

No.  They are not.  I have never heard of the case you quote, and I know of no statute that would apply in such a situation.  As for someone "on your property", you are speaking of civil liability only.  You could not be held criminally negligent in almost any circumstance.  A more accurate description of the current legal climate is that your friend/relative takes the keys to your car from the table in your entryway where they are unsecured.  He/she then uses your car to murder 12 people by running them down in the street.  You can not be held criminally responsible.  Even if your friend/relative just left the mental health facility after an involuntary admit.  But,  it that were a firearm, you must be able to prove that the firearm AND the ammunition were secured appropriately, no matter the circumstance. 

I would ask any of our attorney posters to correct me if I have misrepresented anything here.

Emphasis added.

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

Ryan Joseph Holle (born November 17, 1982) was convicted in 2004 of first-degree murder under the felony murder rule for lending his car to a friend after the friend and others at the party discussed their plans to steal drugs, money and beat up the 18 year old daughter of a marijuana dealer.[2][3][4] A former resident of Pensacola, Florida, United States, he is now serving a sentence of life without the possibility of parole at the Graceville Correctional Facility.[2]

The "felony murder rule" applies when you have knowledge of and assist in the crime, even though you were not "present" at the crime.  It is the same rule that is used when getaway drivers get charged with murder when their partner goes in a business and kills someone. 

The question is if the criminal acts without your knowledge.  He takes your car and uses it to commit vehicular homicide.  You had no previous knowledge of his plan...should you be charged?  If you loaned him your duck gun because he said he was going to shoot clays, but then he killed his boss with the shotgun...should you be charged?  Hopefully I have communicated the difference here.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Interesting discussion.

To the point of the medical / mental screening requirement and Stephen's counterpoint, I think a renewal period between 2-4 years would make sense.  Sure, it wouldn't catch every nut that cracked, but it would definitely harvest a few. 

What is the renewal period on a concealed permit?

With regard to a people living with others that wouldn't pass screening, I would also be for more liability for the gun owners in the event that their registered firearm was used in a crime.  Unless the gun is properly reported as stolen, then I believe if the owner is just as liable as the person committing the crime, then it would provide more incentive to be a bit more cautious when storing the gun. 

Then you better be willing to do the same thing with automobiles and any other property.  Perhaps even children.  That is a slippery slope.

Yes and IMO worth it. I like the automobile solution. Licensed, registered(to owner) and insured. I know why tracking is scary to some and it is a reasonable fear but again IMO worth it. 

This won't be perfect nothing is but owning a gun seems to me like it should be a big and ongoing responsibility.

I also like the idea of bio locks and kill switch tech going forward, no more I lost it or it was stolen excuses.

I'm against the 'mandated' use of the above.  Murphy's Law and all, the moment that you need it to not fail, it will.  But I would be for more liability in the event that your firearm is used in a crime, even if unbeknownst to you. 

And to responsible gun owners, it is considered a "...big and ongoing responsibility".  I may not own one now, but I was raised around them, know how to handle, clean, load & fire, and believe that most who have purchased a firearm through typical, standard means share the same belief, and I believe that's why there's such opposition to gun regulations.  The majority is being subjected to increased scrutiny due to the action of the few. 

If we were to use a car comparison, then why don't they make cars that travel over 80mph illegal?  Why do you 'need' a street legal car that goes 160 when the fastest that the law allows is around 70?  Who's responsible for more deaths, automobile accidents involving speeds over the posted limit or licensed / registered guns being involved in crimes?

[NotNow]

Interesting discussion.

To the point of the medical / mental screening requirement and Stephen's counterpoint, I think a renewal period between 2-4 years would make sense.  Sure, it wouldn't catch every nut that cracked, but it would definitely harvest a few. 

What is the renewal period on a concealed permit?

With regard to a people living with others that wouldn't pass screening, I would also be for more liability for the gun owners in the event that their registered firearm was used in a crime.  Unless the gun is properly reported as stolen, then I believe if the owner is just as liable as the person committing the crime, then it would provide more incentive to be a bit more cautious when storing the gun. 

Then you better be willing to do the same thing with automobiles and any other property.  Perhaps even children.  That is a slippery slope.

Yes and IMO worth it. I like the automobile solution. Licensed, registered(to owner) and insured. I know why tracking is scary to some and it is a reasonable fear but again IMO worth it. 

This won't be perfect nothing is but owning a gun seems to me like it should be a big and ongoing responsibility.

I also like the idea of bio locks and kill switch tech going forward, no more I lost it or it was stolen excuses.

It would certainly make tracking the weapons easier, but would not necessarily help with the mental health or stolen gun issues.  Any tech can be hacked, and it adds complication, cost, and failure rate to the weapon.   Not to mention the largest  block to such a plan...Constitutionality.

I don't think this plan could be instituted in this country at this time.

[NotNow]

Interesting discussion.

To the point of the medical / mental screening requirement and Stephen's counterpoint, I think a renewal period between 2-4 years would make sense.  Sure, it wouldn't catch every nut that cracked, but it would definitely harvest a few. 

What is the renewal period on a concealed permit?

With regard to a people living with others that wouldn't pass screening, I would also be for more liability for the gun owners in the event that their registered firearm was used in a crime.  Unless the gun is properly reported as stolen, then I believe if the owner is just as liable as the person committing the crime, then it would provide more incentive to be a bit more cautious when storing the gun. 

Then you better be willing to do the same thing with automobiles and any other property.  Perhaps even children.  That is a slippery slope.

Yes and IMO worth it. I like the automobile solution. Licensed, registered(to owner) and insured. I know why tracking is scary to some and it is a reasonable fear but again IMO worth it. 

This won't be perfect nothing is but owning a gun seems to me like it should be a big and ongoing responsibility.

I also like the idea of bio locks and kill switch tech going forward, no more I lost it or it was stolen excuses.

I'm against the 'mandated' use of the above.  Murphy's Law and all, the moment that you need it to not fail, it will.  But I would be for more liability in the event that your firearm is used in a crime, even if unbeknownst to you. 

And to responsible gun owners, it is considered a "...big and ongoing responsibility".  I may not own one now, but I was raised around them, know how to handle, clean, load & fire, and believe that most who have purchased a firearm through typical, standard means share the same belief, and I believe that's why there's such opposition to gun regulations.  The majority is being subjected to increased scrutiny due to the action of the few. 

If we were to use a car comparison, then why don't they make cars that travel over 80mph illegal?  Why do you 'need' a street legal car that goes 160 when the fastest that the law allows is around 70?  Who's responsible for more deaths, automobile accidents involving speeds over the posted limit or licensed / registered guns being involved in crimes?

Another good point.  Thanks.

[BridgeTroll]

The discussion of this topic is most difficult.  So difficult in fact that I was hoping to limit discussions to narrow and focused subjects such as... "ways to improve background checks" or "pros and cons or civil liability".

As interesting as it is... the pros and cons of nuclear vs extended family should probably take place in another thread...

NRW brought up an interesting point during the discussion about responsibility and liability.  He asked...

If we were to use a car comparison, then why don't they make cars that travel over 80mph illegal?  Why do you 'need' a street legal car that goes 160 when the fastest that the law allows is around 70?  Who's responsible for more deaths, automobile accidents involving speeds over the posted limit or licensed / registered guns being involved in crimes?

If we are concerned with "saving innocent lives"... perhaps we should be licensing and permitting alcohol users.  In Florida alone we kill 700 a year in DUI accidents.  Each year on your birthday you go to city hall... participate in a 4 hour class, pay a fee, and get a "Alcohol Consumption Card that you would have to produce at the bar, club, liquor store, football game, when purchasing.  Those convicted of alcohol related offenses would have their ACC revoked for a period of time.

Another slippery slope?

[JeffreyS]

Interesting thought BT I will let it ferment for a while.

[BridgeTroll]

NRW provided this in another thread on a similar subject... I copied the "stats" portion for our use in this thread... it may come in handy...

Among the major findings of this Pew Research Center report:

U.S. Firearm Deaths

In 2010, there were 3.6 gun homicides per 100,000 people, compared with 7.0 in 1993, according to CDC data.
In 2010, CDC data counted 11,078 gun homicide deaths, compared with 18,253 in 1993.5
Men and boys make up the vast majority (84% in 2010) of gun homicide victims. The firearm homicide rate also is more than five times as high for males of all ages (6.2 deaths per 100,000 people) as it is for females (1.1 deaths per 100,000 people).

By age group, 69% of gun homicide victims in 2010 were ages 18 to 40, an age range that was 31% of the population that year. Gun homicide rates also are highest for adults ages 18 to 24 and 25 to 40.
A disproportionate share of gun homicide victims are black (55% in 2010, compared with the 13% black share of the population). Whites were 25% of victims but 65% of the population in 2010. Hispanics were 17% of victims and 16% of the population in 2010.

The firearm suicide rate (6.3 per 100,000 people) is higher than the firearm homicide rate and has come down less sharply. The number of gun suicide deaths (19,392 in 2010) outnumbered gun homicides, as has been true since at least 1981.

U.S. Firearm Crime Victimization

In 2011, the NCVS estimated there were 181.5 gun crime victimizations for non-fatal violent crime (aggravated assault, robbery and sex crimes) per 100,000 Americans ages 12 and older, compared with 725.3 in 1993.
In terms of numbers, the NCVS estimated there were about 1.5 million non-fatal gun crime victimizations in 1993 among U.S. residents ages 12 and older, compared with 467,000 in 2011.

U.S. Other Non-fatal Crime

The victimization rate for all non-fatal violent crime among those ages 12 and older—simple and aggravated assaults, robberies and sex crimes, with or without firearms—dropped 53% from 1993 to 2000, and 49% from 2000 to 2010. It rose 17% from 2010 to 2011.

Although not the topic of this report, the rate of property crimes—burglary, motor vehicle theft and theft—also declined from 1993 to 2011, by 61%. The rate for these types of crimes was 351.8 per 100,000 people ages 12 and older in 1993, 190.4 in 2000 and 138.7 in 2011.
Context

The number of firearms available for sale to or possessed by U.S. civilians (about 310 million in 2009, according to the Congressional Research Service) has grown in recent years, and the 2009 per capita rate of one person per gun had roughly doubled since 1968. It is not clear, though, how many U.S. households own guns or whether that share has changed over time.

Crime stories accounted for 17% of the total time devoted to news on local television broadcasts in 2012, compared with 29% in 2005, according to Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism. Crime trails only traffic and weather as the most common type of story on these newscasts.

[BridgeTroll]

Back to the thread...BT, I'm not sure that the "alcohol card" would work.  Like most overreaches of government control, it would control an obvious cause of early death and misery...in theory.   In reality, I believe that most Americans would ignore and violate such a law.    Just as Americans would ignore over reaching laws on firearms.

And perhaps... indirectly... that was the reason I posed the hypothetical solution to an alcohol death problem that is at least as deadly as gun violence.  How much "over-reach" by the government are people willing to accept to be "safer"?  Many here have made light of those who think enhanced security at airports is good... or cameras on street corners and stoplights... yet somehow can justify other "over-reach's" in the name of gun safety.

[peestandingup]

BT, its not a slippery slope at all & its part of the bigger picture that we all seem to forget. I've constantly made these arguments & it almost always seems to get brushed aside while we all can't wait to get back to yammering on & taking our sides.

We know from stats that gun violence isn't out of control, we're not living in a "war zone", etc. Yes, gun violence is there, esp in many urban blighted areas (but that's something different). So while we're going on about a couple people who got shot somewhere by a right wing nutjob, dozens were shot in places like Chicago (not a peep from anyone), hundreds were seriously injured or killed in car crashes (which is somehow "acceptable deaths" that no one blinks an eye over), preventable health issues kills thousands upon thousands, etc. Yet, here we are talking about that one crazy dude somewhere who went off his nut.

But we're not the only ones, everyone does it. Even the Pres himself with his "oh, if we could just save one life it'll all be worth it". What a load of BS. Yes, saving a single life is important, but why not step back, take off the blinders, stop plucking at heart strings & look at the bigger picture. You wanna save lives? There's a million other places you could start first instead of worrying about some almost nonexistent threat of loony conspiracy theorist white guy.

[NotNow]

I can't argue with your analysis, pee.  You don't mind if I call you by your first name, do you?   

[BridgeTroll]

BT, its not a slippery slope at all & its part of the bigger picture that we all seem to forget. I've constantly made these arguments & it almost always seems to get brushed aside while we all can't wait to get back to yammering on & taking our sides.

We know from stats that gun violence isn't out of control, we're not living in a "war zone", etc. Yes, gun violence is there, esp in many urban blighted areas (but that's something different). So while we're going on about a couple people who got shot somewhere by a right wing nutjob, dozens were shot in places like Chicago (not a peep from anyone), hundreds were seriously injured or killed in car crashes (which is somehow "acceptable deaths" that no one blinks an eye over), preventable health issues kills thousands upon thousands, etc. Yet, here we are talking about that one crazy dude somewhere who went off his nut.

But we're not the only ones, everyone does it. Even the Pres himself with his "oh, if we could just save one life it'll all be worth it". What a load of BS. Yes, saving a single life is important, but why not step back, take off the blinders, stop plucking at heart strings & look at the bigger picture. You wanna save lives? There's a million other places you could start first instead of worrying about some almost nonexistent threat of loony conspiracy theorist white guy.

I absolutely agree with you PSU... yet simply ignoring the voices like Stephen, the parents of dead school children, and now the President, will not work either.  Securing public places like schools, malls and theaters may work but again... at what cost? (I'm not refering to money)

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

BT, its not a slippery slope at all & its part of the bigger picture that we all seem to forget. I've constantly made these arguments & it almost always seems to get brushed aside while we all can't wait to get back to yammering on & taking our sides.

And the side we take is typically determined by which 'facts' we choose to hear. 

According to the Pew research article that I posted, statistically, gun crimes overall are down almost 50% from where they were a decade ago.  And that's a total number.  So we have an even larger population with fewer gun crimes.  So, as you posted, we choose to focus on the few extreme examples, have each 'side' spew whatever information that suits their agenda which in turn coerces the average person into taking a side based on skewed facts.   

The unfortunate part is the amount of people who are entirely unwilling to even discuss the issue, perceived or not, without going straight to their 'ace-in-the-hole'.  It tends to always devolve into, "You're not taking my guns away" or "We need to restrict all guns". 

That's why I use my car analogy, because in its purest form, it's the exact same thing.  Inanimate objects don't kill people until they're misused.

[BridgeTroll]

I differ with NRW on the auto analogy... I do not like it because there is no "Right to Drive" specifically listed in the Constitution. 

[peestandingup]

Oh I agree, BT & its def important. But everytime something like this happens, there's a lot of people who can't WAIT to paint the picture that this is some national crisis that requires emergency action & a Constitutional rewrite, completely brushing aside things that are much MUCH more likely to kill them or a loved one/someone they know. I mean, a life is a life, right??

But yes, these things are always sad & I couldn't imagine what the victim's loved ones go through. On the same note though, we could say the same about car accident victim's families. Seriously, how easy could it be to blame our car culture & total reliance on automobiles brought on by corporate greed on people's unnecessary deaths? But no one ever does that. Why not? Is it not important? It certainly kills people in droves like there's no tomorrow.

Anyways, gun violence def need talked about & figured out. It's just that the extreme "ban all the things" side obviously uses instances as fuel to push an agenda trumped up by flaky stats. The media doesn't help either & distorts a lot of what's reality for ratings. But the other "everyone should be packing" camp prob isn't correct either.

When its all said & done though, no one can really keep you safe. If someone wants to hurt you in a mall, they will. Maybe not if we lived in a total surveillance locked down police state, but that would be worse than the former. Society's problems stem from things much greater than the tool used to inflict the harm.