4 ms·

Arguments about the level of click bait in the title aside - what can honestly be done at this point about firearm deaths in the US?

liotier 3y ago
A great conundrum of our times... Who knows what sets the USA apart from all other Western countries ?
RankingMember 3y ago
At this point I honestly don't see any meaningful legislation being passed until gun violence literally breaches the halls of power. If school shootings didn't do it, what else is there? (I hate that I have this view, because it's a reflection of such an ugly and stupid state of affairs)
mattbrewsbytes 3y ago
I mean we've tried nearly nothing and it hasn't worked. Seriously though, you need to approach it from a statistical perspective, looking at FBI crime stats, the highest numbers of homicides are from handguns [0]. Yeah there is "firearm, type not stated" that is large but assume the same distribution of the ones stated for the purposes of discussion. What goes counter to that is all the media and political coverage about rifles and mass shootings with them. They are scary and its frightening to think about those happening. However, if you don't talk about handguns you're not going to make a dent in those overall numbers. [0] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
- chmod600 3y ago
  Your first sentence is regrettable in an otherwise informative post. There are tons of laws, and part of the problem is that many laws are just, well, stupid and poorly-implemented. California has some kind of review process for guns themselves, in order to go on the "Roster" from which normal people can buy them. This is a highly restricted list that excludes most new models even if they are functionally the same. It serves no useful purpose and does nothing to reduce the danger of guns in any way, it's just to interfere with lawful gun owners who want more modern models, and cause trouble for manufacturers who need to keep producing old ones. If you were a gun owner, you'd probably think that they really are out to get you, and you may question whether those who passed the law even care about bringing firearm deaths down. That makes it a lot harder to work on legislation that's actually useful. And laws that are actually useful, like those that put violent people in jail (and put them back again if they are caught with a gun after they get out) have been tried and they do work. But a lot of cities are not enforcing those laws consistently. Could more be done? Yes, I think so. But compromise is a two-way street where both sides are trying to create a better balance. As long as "compromise" always means a one-way ratchet of gun restrictions, the other side will resist it with whatever they have.
chmod600 3y ago
By far the easiest win would be to enforce laws more strictly against people who have proven themselves to be violent. Many homicides are committed by people who already have a violent past or other very troubling crimes. Putting them in jail, and preventing them from purchasing guns for at least some time after release, would dramatically bring down homicide numbers. And once they are a prohibited person, if you find them with a gun put them in jail again. No constitutional challenges and no new laws even need to be passed. Just police and DAs doing their jobs. Unfortunately in a lot of cities the clearance rate on murders is pathetic. In Chicago it's about 50%, and it's only that high because so many suspects are found dead. https://wgntv.com/news/wgn-investigates/rise-in-cpd-murder-clearance-rate-bolstered-by-dead-suspects-data-show/ https://wgntv.com/news/wgn-investigates/rise-in-cpd-murder-c...
Kalkaline 3y ago
Removing guns, at least temporarily, from homes where someone is actively suicidal or in mental health crisis would be a good start. Locking guns up appropriately away from the ammunition would be another good step. Removing guns from homes where there is domestic abuse and domestic violence would go a long way as well.
chung8123 3y ago
Should we be even spending our resources here? 2279 firearm homicides for this group. Diabetes seems like a better place to spend our energy and resources. 283,000 children and adolescents younger than age 20 years—or 35 per 10,000 US youths—had diagnosed diabetes. This includes 244,000 with type 1 diabetes.

liotier 3y ago

A great conundrum of our times... Who knows what sets the USA apart from all other Western countries ?

RankingMember 3y ago

At this point I honestly don't see any meaningful legislation being passed until gun violence literally breaches the halls of power. If school shootings didn't do it, what else is there? (I hate that I have this view, because it's a reflection of such an ugly and stupid state of affairs)

mattbrewsbytes 3y ago

I mean we've tried nearly nothing and it hasn't worked. Seriously though, you need to approach it from a statistical perspective, looking at FBI crime stats, the highest numbers of homicides are from handguns [0]. Yeah there is "firearm, type not stated" that is large but assume the same distribution of the ones stated for the purposes of discussion. What goes counter to that is all the media and political coverage about rifles and mass shootings with them. They are scary and its frightening to think about those happening. However, if you don't talk about handguns you're not going to make a dent in those overall numbers. [0] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

chmod600 3y ago
Your first sentence is regrettable in an otherwise informative post. There are tons of laws, and part of the problem is that many laws are just, well, stupid and poorly-implemented. California has some kind of review process for guns themselves, in order to go on the "Roster" from which normal people can buy them. This is a highly restricted list that excludes most new models even if they are functionally the same. It serves no useful purpose and does nothing to reduce the danger of guns in any way, it's just to interfere with lawful gun owners who want more modern models, and cause trouble for manufacturers who need to keep producing old ones. If you were a gun owner, you'd probably think that they really are out to get you, and you may question whether those who passed the law even care about bringing firearm deaths down. That makes it a lot harder to work on legislation that's actually useful. And laws that are actually useful, like those that put violent people in jail (and put them back again if they are caught with a gun after they get out) have been tried and they do work. But a lot of cities are not enforcing those laws consistently. Could more be done? Yes, I think so. But compromise is a two-way street where both sides are trying to create a better balance. As long as "compromise" always means a one-way ratchet of gun restrictions, the other side will resist it with whatever they have.

chmod600 3y ago

By far the easiest win would be to enforce laws more strictly against people who have proven themselves to be violent. Many homicides are committed by people who already have a violent past or other very troubling crimes. Putting them in jail, and preventing them from purchasing guns for at least some time after release, would dramatically bring down homicide numbers. And once they are a prohibited person, if you find them with a gun put them in jail again. No constitutional challenges and no new laws even need to be passed. Just police and DAs doing their jobs. Unfortunately in a lot of cities the clearance rate on murders is pathetic. In Chicago it's about 50%, and it's only that high because so many suspects are found dead. https://wgntv.com/news/wgn-investigates/rise-in-cpd-murder-clearance-rate-bolstered-by-dead-suspects-data-show/ https://wgntv.com/news/wgn-investigates/rise-in-cpd-murder-c...

Kalkaline 3y ago

Removing guns, at least temporarily, from homes where someone is actively suicidal or in mental health crisis would be a good start. Locking guns up appropriately away from the ammunition would be another good step. Removing guns from homes where there is domestic abuse and domestic violence would go a long way as well.

chung8123 3y ago

Should we be even spending our resources here? 2279 firearm homicides for this group. Diabetes seems like a better place to spend our energy and resources. 283,000 children and adolescents younger than age 20 years—or 35 per 10,000 US youths—had diagnosed diabetes. This includes 244,000 with type 1 diabetes.