tightenupvolume1 wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 1:00 pm Even if they could ban guns or if they make it very hard to get one legally there are so many guns in the USA a determined shooter can easily get one. I think this sort of thing is going to carry on and become a regular thing. I see no solution ?

I doubt there's any fast solution but I think a proper nationwide licensing system would at least be a good place to start.

You want to legally own a firearm? No problem but first prove you're not going to be a threat to the public just like you need to if you want to drive a car, fly a plane, fix people's teeth, work on the electrics in someone's home etc.

If you want to buy a firearm or ammo for it, show your license. If you sell a firearm or ammo to someone unlicensed that would be a crime and if the buyer robbed a shop or shot up a school with the guns/ammo you sold him, you'd be legally liable for that. If you come to the police's attention because of violence or mental instability your license can be revoked and your firearms confiscated.

It's a system that works reasonably well in other countries, but for it to work in the US they'd probably have to figure out how to get politicians out of the pockets of the big companies that make and sell the guns first.

Big Daikon wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 3:34 pm

Random Dude wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 2:13 pm I doubt there's any fast solution but I think a proper nationwide licensing system would at least be a good place to start.

You want to legally own a firearm? No problem but first prove you're not going to be a threat to the public just like you need to if you want to drive a car, fly a plane, fix people's teeth, work on the electrics in someone's home etc.

California did something like that in the 90s. The second time I purchased a pistol in that state, there was a licensing procedure that involved a test on gun laws and safety.

I got my license in New Zealand years ago. I needed a character reference the police would talk to, needed to do a safety course, needed to show that I had a secure (locked) place to store firearms, I was interviewed by the police and I assume there was a criminal record check on me.

It was a lot of hassle but I don't begrudge the process, we have a lot of violent dickheads running around out there, I'm glad most of them don't have easy access to guns.

I find it utterly bizarre that you cannot buy a beer aged 18 in America, yet you can buy these automatic guns and rifles

At least make it a little bit difficult and up the age of legal purchase to 25 or so when youngsters have matured a bit. Quite a few of these mass killings seem to be by youngsters. .

Either that or let them get so pissed they might miss their targets

IraHayes wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 12:21 pm The question.

And it is a serious question and not one to be glibly brushed aside as irrelevant.. is this.

Generally, weapons are now much harder to own or acquire than 40 years ago.
I have this feeling (not checked the data as I type this ok), a feeling that 40 years ago these "mass" shootings and the perpetrators were far less frequent and the perps were of a different type.

Anyone with the time and inclination to look into this and provide some insight to this "feeling"

An excellent question, the premise certainly seems to make sense to me but I thought I would do some reading and see what I could find. It's not as clear cut as you might imagine. I've tried to avoid political points and stick to the facts. I will add my thoughts but I expect everyone will draw their own conclusions as to how legislation has affected gun violence.

The first gun regulations enacted by the USA (discounting the second amendment) came in to force in the 1930's. The National and Federal Firearms Acts (NFA, FFA) were brought in as a direct response to the prohibition driven gang violence of the 1920's and 30's. These introduced a tax on manufacturing, selling, and transporting of certain firearms, introducing a barrier to entry for some and then a requirement for gun manufacturers, importers, and dealers to obtain a federal license and mandate customer record keeping.

Then in the 1960's following the assassinations of JFK, Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, President LBJ introduced the Gun Control Act. Besides updating some of the language and fixing certain "constitutional issues" the the bill banned importing guns that have “no sporting purpose,” imposed age restrictions to purchase handguns (21), prohibited felons, the mentally ill, and others from legally purchasing guns, required that all guns have a serial number, and imposed stricter licensing and regulation on the firearms industry.

It was after the passage of this act that pushback started to happen. The NRA which had been in existence since 1871 but had not previously been involved in lobbying began to record and collate instances legal gun owners being cited for violations of the act by overzealous ATF agents. Advocates claimed the ATF was repeatedly inspecting Federal Firearms License holders to put them out of business. This resulted in a 1982 report by a Republican-led Senate subcommittee which stated that, "the individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner was constitutionally protected", and that the large parts of the Gun Control Act would need to be repealed to be legal under the constitution.

This then led to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA). This bill explicitly prohibited a national registry of dealer records, limited ATF inspections to once per year, softened what was defined as “engaging in the business” of selling firearms, allowed licensed dealers to sell firearms at gun shows in their state without restriction and relaxed regulations on the sale and transfer of ammunition. It also expanded the GCA to restrict civilian ownership of machine guns made after the date of the bill.

In the 1990's Bill Clinton introduced measures such as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (named after Reagan's press secretary injured in the assasination attempt of '81) and the "Assualt Weapons ban". The former introduced background checks when buying from a licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer and created the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) maintained by the FBI. The later prohibited the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms as well as certain large capacity magazines. This bill had a sunset clause limiting it's term to 10 years if it was not renewed. It expired in 2004 and multiple attempts to extend it have failed.

The 2000's saw the NRA lead efforts to restrict information being released about the firearms trade and protect businesses involved in the trade from being held culpable for crimes commited using firearms they manufacture. The Tiahrt Amendment, proposed by Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) prohibited the ATF from publicly releasing data showing where criminals bought their firearms and stipulated that only law enforcement officers or prosecutors could access such information. The Washington Post wrote in 2010, “The law effectively shields retailers from lawsuits, academic study and public scrutiny. It also keeps the spotlight off the relationship between rogue gun dealers and the black market in firearms".

George W. Bush signed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act into law in 2005. It's stated aim was "to prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended".

In 2008 the court case, District of Columbia v. Heller changed a nearly 70-year precedent in the definition of a “well regulated militia” described in the second amendment. Previous interpretations had been based on the “collective rights theory” and referred to a state’s right to defend itself. Heller focused on the “individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia". Heller challenged the constitutionality of a 32 year old handgun ban in Washington DC and found, “The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement violate the Second Amendment”.

So it would seem to me that the US followed many other countries in tightening gun legislation until the 1980's when there was pushback based on second amendment provisions. Bill Clinton in the 90's made efforts to continue the previous trend of tighter regulation but the 2000's saw further liberalisation and protections introducted to shield the gun industry from legal culpability and scrutiny from the press. Ending in the reinterpretation of the second amendment to widen gun ownership protections and repeal previous restrictions on handgun ownership in Washinton DC.

Big Daikon wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 1:13 pm

Kenr wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 12:51 pm Mass killings have been the norm since the 80’s in the US.

I will respectfully disagree. There has definitely been an increase in recent years.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/811 ... in-the-us/

Specifically:


(Please note the exact definition of mass shooting varies from source to source.)

Interesting to add the Assault Weapons Ban dates (1994-2004) to this chart. People can probably argue either way on the benefit based on their beliefs.



Another one I found which is interesting. Weapons sales by year. Caveat: This is only publicly available data from registered gun sales, the loopholes such as "gun shows" and private sales limit publicly available data considerably. I would think the trends are fairly reliable though.

xandreu wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 5:33 pm

Random Dude wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 2:13 pm

tightenupvolume1 wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 1:00 pm Even if they could ban guns or if they make it very hard to get one legally there are so many guns in the USA a determined shooter can easily get one. I think this sort of thing is going to carry on and become a regular thing. I see no solution ?

I doubt there's any fast solution but I think a proper nationwide licensing system would at least be a good place to start.

You want to legally own a firearm? No problem but first prove you're not going to be a threat to the public just like you need to if you want to drive a car, fly a plane, fix people's teeth, work on the electrics in someone's home etc.

If you want to buy a firearm or ammo for it, show your license. If you sell a firearm or ammo to someone unlicensed that would be a crime and if the buyer robbed a shop or shot up a school with the guns/ammo you sold him, you'd be legally liable for that. If you come to the police's attention because of violence or mental instability your license can be revoked and your firearms confiscated.

It's a system that works reasonably well in other countries, but for it to work in the US they'd probably have to figure out how to get politicians out of the pockets of the big companies that make and sell the guns first.

This is pretty much how it works in the UK. Anyone over 18 can own a firearm so long as they can prove they are of sound mind and aren't a threat to the public.

The difference is the culture. We're just not a gun-owning culture. Nobody thinks about guns. Nobody knows anyone who has a gun. Nobody feels the need to own a gun. Our police don't routinely carry guns. Guns are just not a thing in the UK.

For America to ever deal with its gun problems, it would take a monumental shift in the cultural attitude towards them.

Another factor regarding UK gun/firearm ownership is that a person even hinting that they want to own a gun for self defense, will automatically disqualify that person from legally owning one.
So guns are not normally considered, and never admitted to, as being for self defense, rather they are for target shooting, sporting use and hunting only.