School shootings and US Gun Control

[GloomCookie]

Out of curiosity, I looked up the US Postal Service's policy on mailing firearms. 

Of particular note was that certain pieces of firearms may not be mailed (frames and receivers were specified) and there appears to be a significant paper trail involved.  Affidavits, signature upon delivery, en-route tracking, and so forth.

This is in keeping with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms regulations. Link of FAQ's here: https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/0813-firearms-top-12-qaspdf/download#:~:text=Any%20person%20may%20ship%20firearms,%C2%A7%201715).

Both the ATF and the USPS must operate according to federal guidelines, which is why even private transfer of ownership must be through a registered firearm dealership. It's to help prevent straw purchases, where person A purchases a firearm and then gifts said firearm to person B without officially doing a background check on person B, since person B might be prohibited from purchasing firearms for one or more reasons, including being a felon, a person with mental health issues, restraining orders against various people, etc.

[Oniya]

Exactly - and since the UPS situation revolved around 'kit guns' (which I can only presume include frames and receivers) and 'untraceable guns' (which would suggest a certain lack of paper trail), it doesn't sound like the prohibition is really anything new - only something that they maybe haven't been diligent about enforcing.

[GloomCookie]

Yeah. It's sorta like how you are allowed to brew so many gallons of beer per year, or you can brew ethanol for fuel use, but you must regularly undergo an audit to make sure you're not making or selling illegally.

It's actually kinda interesting and something I'm thinking of looking into actually. The making fuel at home thing since I don't drink beer.

[TheGlyphstone]

I'm sure Gloombeer would be delicious though.

[Annaamarth]

Back on the topic of school shootings and gun control:

After backreading the thread I noticed a common trend, and a couple of interesting ideas ... that I disagree with.  On the topic of mental health - yeah, a bigger focus on mental health would be lovely, but I would also like to see the domestic violence loopholes closed.

For context, in the US if you are found guilty of domestic violence - ever, for any reason - it becomes illegal to own a firearm.  However, it is common practice to 'plea-bargain' that down to simple battery ... and then it's not DV anymore.  Why is this common practice?  Mostly, because cops.  Cops provide a lot of DV cases, but not a lot of DV convictions, because if found guilty of DV the wouldn't be able to carry a firearm for work anymore.

As it happens, DV is a really good indicator of future violence, so I would really like to close that loophole.

Now, I'm gonna nitpick a couple ideas that I didn't like - one potential gun control idea, and one ... simple idea.  I'll start with the latter:

Guns are just tools.

Sure, except they aren't just tools - at least not in the US.  They are symbols of adulthood and masculinity (of the toxic variety).  When was the last time you saw someone in the "Operator pose" with a power drill? (Spoiler: it happens, but not so much as the people doing the 'hurr hurr, I got a gun kinda like the one the Army uses', whether it actually is or not).

Across ... certain cross-sections of the US, militarism, toxic masculinity and a "violence is an acceptable solution" attitude have blended in an unbelievably unhealthy way.  I can speak to this with some confidence beyond that of an outside observer in part because I was raised in such a household - where violence was an acceptable way to solve problems - and in part through my experience as a veteran.  I have been close to a remarkably broad cross section of philosophies of ... varying health.

I would love for firearms to be just tools, but they aren't.  We need to fix that on a cultural level, but I'm afraid that's a matter of decades, not passing legislation.

Join the armed forces to own a gun

Oof ... I used to think this was a decent idea, but I have since been convinced that this doesn't work any better than a gun ban.

The purpose of the second amendment is, effectively, to give Americans the power - not right - to kill government employees; foreign, in the event of invasion, or domestic in the case of tyranny.  Originally, there was another duty that existed, but the people have been relieved of the duty to respond to a riot or similar civil insurrection by PD and National Guard.

Now, invasion is certainly unlikely, but a big part of the 2A is supposed to be to arm disadvantaged groups - ethnic, political and ideological minorities especially - so that in a "First, they came for the X and I said nothing, because I was not a(n) X" scenario it'll be so damn loud nobody will need to speak up.

This solution - pinning firearms licensure to military service - first relies on enfranchisement through the armed forces, an arm of the government that has been used for tyrannical purposes in the past (union-busting as a fairly ... neutral example, I think).  Worse, a private on military pay cannot support a family, and so this method would seem to disproportionately affect economically depressed groups - urban poor, who tend to be ethnic minorities, and natives on the rez come to mind most immediately, but certainly not exclusively.

I'm of the opinion that anything that disarms minorities (ethnic or otherwise) undermines the protections that the 2A are supposed to provide ... to a healthy, well-educated and responsible populace.  That last part is the thing I think we need to focus on.

[GloomCookie]

However, it is common practice to 'plea-bargain' that down to simple battery ... and then it's not DV anymore.  Why is this common practice?  Mostly, because cops.  Cops provide a lot of DV cases, but not a lot of DV convictions, because if found guilty of DV the wouldn't be able to carry a firearm for work anymore.

This is because the prosecution must weigh the likelihood of nailing a conviction in a trial v. winning a case. Most DA's tend to view their total conviction numbers as crucial to their future political career, such as the DA for New York City often using the position to gun for the governorship (I think don't hold me to this). So what they'll do is they'll look at the caseload and how long it would take to get to trial vs. offering a lower sentence to entice the person to accept the bargain. Prosecution wins because they get to claim another victory, criminal wins because they get a lesser sentence, and it keeps from having to add another case to the already backlogged system.

[RedRose]

Even if one is "pro gun", if you see murder after murder, not to mention the suicides and the accidents... I'd still want them gone. I'm not per se antigun, I'm one of the few non cop/non army in my country that can shoot, but wow, there IS  a problem. Not all "gun" countries suffer from this (at least not the shootings). But they don't make it that easy getting a gun legally... Frankly, if I had a gun at home, I would make sure my kids never have access to it. If I cannot be 10000% certain, bye gun. Or get an out of the home place only people over 18 can access with an authorization, or something. See, there are ways, but school shootings aren't ok ...

[Annaamarth]

This is because the prosecution must weigh the likelihood of nailing a conviction in a trial v. winning a case. Most DA's tend to view their total conviction numbers as crucial to their future political career, such as the DA for New York City often using the position to gun for the governorship (I think don't hold me to this). So what they'll do is they'll look at the caseload and how long it would take to get to trial vs. offering a lower sentence to entice the person to accept the bargain. Prosecution wins because they get to claim another victory, criminal wins because they get a lesser sentence, and it keeps from having to add another case to the already backlogged system.

I don't have any problem at all with plea-bargaining on it's face - but I think the US could stand to discuss whether DV being pled down to battery or literally anything else it should keep the firearms restriction limitation.

You fly off the handle once and hit someone you dated once and the courts needed to get involved?  You don't get to own anymore.

Even if one is "pro gun", if you see murder after murder, not to mention the suicides and the accidents... I'd still want them gone. I'm not per se antigun, I'm one of the few non cop/non army in my country that can shoot, but wow, there IS  a problem. Not all "gun" countries suffer from this (at least not the shootings). But they don't make it that easy getting a gun legally...

I don't own because my wife has mental health issues.  I cannot safely own, and that's okay.

Unfortunately, "making guns gone" isn't possible in the US.  There are (estimated) 1.2 guns per person in the US. of which there are around 330 million people.  That's too many to "take off the streets."  There isn't enough law enforcement to make that happen, even if they agreed to enforce it and everyone in the US suddenly became cooperative.

Not only that, making guns can be done in a simple shop in a garage.  In the US, guns aren't like drugs - they don't become more expensive when you go to the black market, they become cheaper.  So that means if you were to remove the 2A, the only people to have firearms would be the ones you don't want having them - the gun nuts most prone to supporting the 06 insurrection and other violent actions.  In the meantime, potentially vulnerable, disadvantaged communities who would get cracked down on by law enforcement, as has happened in the US in the past, would be more at risk of going the way of Jews and socialists in Germany in the 20s and 30s.

I do not find this desirable - I may not be a huge supporter of the 2A, but I am unwilling to see it walked back in such a way that people who are at-risk become further at-risk.

Bear in mind, the US has always had a lot of guns.  Personally owned cannons used to be fairly common, not an exception.  Mass shootings are a relatively recent occurence, by contrast - the last 20% or so of the nation's history has seen an upward trend, but semi-auto and full-auto weapons aren't new.  So ... what happened?

In the short term, I've alluded to the embrace of militarism and a might-makes-right attitude (or, to rephrase, a lot of toxic masculinity), but I think in a longer-term sense it's an outgrowth of postwar militarism, fear of communism, American exceptionalism, and the commonplace idea that - again - violence is not only an acceptable way to solve problems, but a preferred way.  From the conservative traditionalists saying "well, those shooters just need more discipline" (which is code for getting slapped around more and shouted into line more) to Will Smith slapping Kid Rock at the Oscars, violence seems to have become a go-to solution. Violence - along with firearms ownership - isn't given the respect it deserves.

Frankly, if I had a gun at home, I would make sure my kids never have access to it. If I cannot be 10000% certain, bye gun. Or get an out of the home place only people over 18 can access with an authorization, or something. See, there are ways, but school shootings aren't ok ...

Yeah, I don't own for this reason.  My wife is psychotic - she hears voices and sometimes they control her - so ... sometimes we have to put the knives away.  Her medicine cabinet is in a key+keypad safe.  Of course it wouldn't be safe to keep a firearm or ammunition in the house! Unfortunately, not everyone has the sensible attitude you and I have, and getting people to have that attitude - or find ways of restricting 2A rights for people based on behavioural criteria rather than protected criteria (like the DV restriction) - is the challenge facing the US.  It's not impossible, but it will be difficult.