Gun Control


Summarized from a Guardian article - appeared in Daily Beast

Gun Deaths in the US Hit Highest Level in Over 20 Years

The rate of gun deaths in the U.S. has hit its highest level in more than 20 years, with almost 40,000 people killed in shootings in 2017, according to new government figures. The numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show 39,773 people in the U.S. lost their lives after being shot or shooting themselves in 2017. That represents a total of 12 deaths per 100,000 people—up from 10.1 in 2010 and the highest rate since 1996. According to a recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, that compares with rates of 0.2 gun deaths per 100,000 people in Japan, 0.3 in the U.K., 0.9 in Germany, and 2.1 in Canada. Suicide is by far the greatest killer, accounting for about 60 percent of all gun deaths. Almost 24,000 people, or 6.9 per 100,000, killed themselves with a gun in 2014—that's up from 6.1 in 2010 and 5.9 in 2000. Last year also saw the deadliest mass shooting by an individual to take place modern U.S. history, when 58 people died in a massacre on the Las Vegas Strip.


Reasonable actions to curb gun violence

November 8, 2018 - The TV is taken up with yet another mass shooting.  I think the total is something over 300 so far this year.  It's getting a little silly to ask "where were you when you heard about that shooting that killed 20 or 58 or 12 or 18 people?'  Who can remember? It's become a little like trying to remember when President Trump told a lie.  It's just all the time.

Almost every time something happens there are things suggested that could help.  Most are rejected because the NRA says we can't do that.  Once in a while something appears to go through like we'll stop selling bump stocks.  Thank goodness.  Think of all the people who have beed killed because of bump stocks!

Here's a few things that could be done.  That are perfectly logical and should get support.

First, starting now - nobody can buy or possess an automatic weapon.  They are weapons of war with no use other than killing people.  We don't allow people to buy or possess bazookas or hand grenades.  I get it - there will be a big problem taking guns away from those who have purchased them.  I think the manufacturers should refund the purchasers money.  I can imagine any solution that gets these weapons back, is going to be difficult but we can't allow the multi-millions of them out there to stay.

Second, all weapons must be licensed.  We don't think anything about licensing our cars why would anybody object to licensing a gun.  After a reasonable time any unlicensed gun that comes to the attention of authorities will be confiscated.

Third, we need to declare that owning a gun is not a right - it is a privilege.  Driving a car is not a right.  It is a privilege that is maintained provided that are responsible and don't exhibit behavior that suggests that you are not responsible.  If you speed, drive recklessly, drive while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, fail to maintain your license for you or the car, your privileges can be revoked.

How can your gun privileges be revoked?  Do you notice how often the story that comes out about the mass shooter includes several instances of interaction with the police or mental health professionals?  They often find that comments made on social media attributed to the shooter that most would considered crazy.  We don't act on them because they are considered free speech.  I would suggest that any indication of "crazy" behavior should land people on a "no buy" gun list.  If it seems more serious (as in the case of the Parkland shooter, they should be put on an "unable to own" list.  Any gun found at their home should be confiscated.

If we want to implement a plan like this, will we meet resistance?  Of course.  The biggest problem might be trying to get rid of already purchased assault rifles.  Everything else is no more than thinking about guns the way we are used to thinking about cars.  Easy peezy!

Submitted by Lee LeFaivre


Background Checks Alone Can’t Stop a Mass Shooter—But This Process Could

Reprinted from The Enlightened Voter May 2018 by Thomas Gabor, Fortune
Thomas Gabor is a criminologist and author of Confronting Gun Violence in America.

February 22, 2018

On Valentine’s Day, Americans—this time teenagers and school staff in a Parkland, Fla. high school—were once again slaughtered ruthlessly by, according to Florida police, a young man wielding a weapon of war.

In the wake of the shooting, people across the political spectrum—from President Donald Trump and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio to Senate Democrats and the Moms Demand Action advocacy group—have called for the strengthening of background checks on individuals looking to purchase firearms.

According to a Quinnipiac University National Poll conducted after the shooting, 97% of Americans—and all-time high for the poll—support universal background checks.

There is nothing wrong with trying to improve background checks, but the system itself remains fundamentally inadequate.

In this instance, Nikolas Cruz—who the Broward County Sheriff’s Office says confessed to the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School—passed a background check when he purchased his weapon from a gun store. That check would have been a simple, two-minute process in which the dealer placed a call to the FBI, which would have looked at whether Cruz had criminal background or mental health issues on record. Since nothing showed up, the sale went through.

Cruz had a history of troubling behavior—including disputes with neighbors, picking fights with other kids, and animal abuse—that frequently led to the police being called. Yet none of this showed up on his criminal record; a rap sheet is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the crimes an individual has been involved with.

The Parkland shooting incident shows that we can’t just put a Band-aid on a deeply broken process. Instead, we need to create a comprehensive gun licensing system that would actually be able to catch criminals before they commit a mass shooting.

In Florida, licenses are required of motor vehicle operators, barbers, mold remediation service providers, contractors in the construction industry, and many other professionals. If those operating cars and construction machinery need licenses, it stands to reason that those operating lethal weapons should be licensed as well.

With this in mind, I propose a federal licensing system that would help prevent future mass shootings. Here’s what it would include:

1. Law enforcement would conduct an in-person interview and criminal record check of the prospective buyer. There would be no exceptions to this step for people who buy guns privately.

2. Law enforcement would speak with the prospective buyer’s references, inquiring if the individual had a history of violent behavior or substance abuse, and if they were emotionally stable.

3. Law enforcement would notify current and former domestic partners of a license application in order to provide them an opportunity to disclose previous acts of violence, threats, and any other troubling behavior from the prospective buyer.

4. The prospective buyer would undergo gun safety and skills training administered by law enforcement.

5. If under 26 years old, the buyer would undergo a psychological evaluation probing their level of anxiety, depression, and tendency toward violence and self-injury, as well as history of substance abuse. If they were to pass this, they would obtain a certificate of mental aptitude.

6. The prospective buyer would need to wait 10 business days to receive the license following the application and to renew their gun license every five years.

The proposed licensing system could have prevented Cruz from obtaining his weapons at four different points of the process:

1. The in-person interview may have uncovered that the suspect “had a fascination with guns,” according to the aforementioned Washington Post report, thereby deterring him from seeking a license and eventually a firearm.

2. Reference checks with peers, family (in this case, surrogate family) members, and school personnel, and a review of social media postings, may have uncovered Cruz’s troubling past behavior.

3. The psychological evaluation done for the certificate of mental aptitude may have revealed the suspect’s disturbing attitudes or past behavior.

4. The training requirement would have provided an opportunity for instructors to spot some warning signs as to what the suspect hoped to do upon receiving his license. Both in the classroom and on the range, the suspect might have shown an alarming level of aggression or a lack of care or restraint in the handling of a firearm.

States already have varying levels of licensing requirements for individuals looking to purchase firearms. These systems have proven effective in preventing gun homicides and gun trafficking.

But clearly that hasn’t been enough. A national system is needed, as porous state borders mean that individuals denied a license in one state could still obtain firearms in nearby states with lower standards. In addition, individuals can seamlessly transport weapons across state lines without having to deal with border controls.

Regarding constitutional concerns over such a federal licensing system, the District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court ruling in 2008 makes clear that laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the sale of firearms do not violate the Second Amendment.

A national licensing system would create an effective standard in regulating firearms to replace the patchwork quilt of state legislation that currently exists. It would ensure that only responsible Americans could purchase guns and, hopefully, prevent inadequately vetted individuals from committing more tragic massacres.

Thomas Gabor is a criminologist and author of Confronting Gun Violence in America.


Why are we even talking about gun control?

Mostly because on an average day, 96 Americans are killed with guns.  We are in this situation because the Supreme Court interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean that every US citizen has a right to own a weapon.  We can easily argue that the Supreme Court misinterpreted the intent of the Founding Fathers in 1789 who actually said - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

They were saying this when the only arms available were muskets and flint-lock pistols.  When the Supreme Court did their interpretation, modern firearms could fire hundreds of bullets in the time that that people in those days could manage one shot.

Once the Supreme Court has interpreted that it was the right of every person to have a weapon, the NRA with the help of gun and ammunition manufacturers seized the opportunity to monetize the "right" by creating reasons for people to purchase the guns to which they were entitled.

Among the "reasons" are "personal protection" - only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.  We have people all over the country carrying guns just waiting for a bad guy to show up. Happily, since the "good" guy is just as likely to shoot a bystander as they are to get the "bad" guy, the situation is not often tested!

Another reason that is actually an outlandish myth, is that the government, who wants to control the population, will come and take all weapons from citizens so that no one can fight back when they decide to mistreat us.  The people that quote this usually mention Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and others.  This is a persistent argument that is just not going to happen.  It does, however, sell a lot of guns.


To appreciate the scope of the problem, explore these topics.

On an average day 96 Americans are killed with guns.  MORE

On average there are nearly 13,000 gun homicides a year in the US.

For every one person killed with a gun two more are injured.

Seven children and teens are killed by guns in the US on an average day.


Gun Control issues - Somehow gun control seems to be a Democrats issue.  The NRA owns and controls Republicans such that they are quick to vote against any action that even hints of control without even a discussion.  What are the issues in the Gun Control debate?  Click Here for a review.


5 Reasons the NRA is Wrong - Do you ever think that the Republicans spouting NRA gospel might have a point?  Check Here for some wake up thoughts.


Do you have thoughts or comments about Gun Control?

We are all interested in what others have to say on this topic. If you like you may enter a title for your entry - its optional.

[ ? ]

Upload 1-4 Pictures or Graphics (optional)[ ? ]

 

Click here to upload more images (optional)

Author Information (optional)

To receive credit as the author, enter your information below.

(first or full name)

(e.g., City, State, Country)

Submit Your Contribution

  •  submission guidelines.


(You can preview and edit on the next page)

What Other Visitors Have Said

Click below to see contributions from other visitors to this page...

2nd Amendment  
One of the first things that all would be tyrants and dictators do is to confiscate weapons from its citizens. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, et al all …

Good guys with a gun?? Not rated yet
As the instances of mass murder continue to pile up, we constantly hear (from Trump and others) that all would be well if only we had "good" guys armed …

Click here to write your own.


Access to our Facebook, Twitter and YouTube accounts - click on the logo

To post to The Villages Democratic facebook group CLICK HERE Only members may post.

To post to the Sumter Democrats facebook group CLICK HERE Only members may post.