What Can Gun Control Compromise Look Like?

[GannonFan]

Probably because there are numerous laws and regulation that center around medical malpractice, including licensing, registration, and other means of documenting who is a doctor, what they're trained in, where they work, etc. We tend to deal with medical malpractice and punish it when it happens. There's no need to march for something to be done as plenty is and has been done.

Fact: According to the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), medical negligence is the third leading cause of death in the U.S.—right behind heart disease and cancer.

In 2012, over $3 billion was spent in medical malpractice payouts, averaging one payout every 43 minutes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/learnvest/ ... e7e07d416b
If medical malpractice is being dealt with, why is it the third leading cause of death...not lead poisoning???

If someone commits a crime with a gun causing death, are you saying it isn’t punished???

In medical malpractice, the person committing the crime is almost always known and tried. In homicides, only about 64% (per article in 2015) are solved (i.e. the person committing the crime is known and tried for the crime). So yes, there are plenty of cases of people committing a crime with a gun causing death who aren't punished.

America’s homicide clearance rate—the percentage of solved crimes that lead to arrest—has fallen considerably in the past 50 years, from around 90% in 1965 to around 64% in 2012, according to federal statistics. This means more than 211,000 homicides committed since 1980 remain unsolved. Every year introduces nearly 5,000 more.

https://www.economist.com/news/united-s ... tting-away

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Why do people always want to stop the really small number of deaths but let things go that kill 4 and 5 times more people than the small number?


Hmmm......I wonder why?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Col Hogan]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/learnvest/ ... e7e07d416b
If medical malpractice is being dealt with, why is it the third leading cause of death...not lead poisoning???

If someone commits a crime with a gun causing death, are you saying it isn’t punished???

In medical malpractice, the person committing the crime is almost always known and tried. In homicides, only about 64% (per article in 2015) are solved (i.e. the person committing the crime is known and tried for the crime). So yes, there are plenty of cases of people committing a crime with a gun causing death who aren't punished.

America’s homicide clearance rate—the percentage of solved crimes that lead to arrest—has fallen considerably in the past 50 years, from around 90% in 1965 to around 64% in 2012, according to federal statistics. This means more than 211,000 homicides committed since 1980 remain unsolved. Every year introduces nearly 5,000 more.

https://www.economist.com/news/united-s ... tting-away

And??? How many are Gun-induced???

Could be 0..

Stop making excuses for the third-leading but 100% preventable cause of death in this country...

[CID1990]

So my Dad has a background check run on me when he's ready to pass all our guns to me in a couple years... guns I've been using since I was a kid... guns that are not registered with any entity up to this point

So in order to run this check on me, he has to do it through law enforcement (because hopefully you can see the problem with just having some website where you can run background checks on anybody just by saying you're thinking about selling them a gun)

Dad has to justify why he's checking law enforcement records to see if I can buy a gun, and in order to prove it, he has to give the particulars of the gun to law enforcement, which is a de facto registering of that gun.

Nobody will do this, because see above about gun registries. And there's no way you can pass a SCOTUS-approved way to make the penalty for non-compliance severe enough to deter noncompliance.

It doesn't have to be that way. The particulars of the guns wouldn't have to be spelled out - heck, it could be written that not even the quantity would need to be disclosed, just the collection as a whole would be fine. It's not a de facto registry, then, since there's no accounting for the serial number of the guns nor even the number of guns.

SCOTUS has already ruled that background checks are perfectly legit with regards to the Constitution so there's nothing that's going to stop that. A penalty that is sufficient enough to begin to deter noncompliance would be fine as well under the same logic - how is it Constitutional to have background checks required but then somehow unconstitutional to put penalties in place to help support that law? That's nonsensical.

Stop a second.

Think this through very carefully - then explain to me again how private citizens can do background checks on other private citizens where the only justification is a gun that may or may not exist.

Also, I'll add to the earlier post where it was suggested that we might pursue the novel idea of actually prosecuting the laws that we already have on the books - want to take a guess what happens to most gun possession charges? They get pled down- almost always, unless the local Fed prosecutor takes an interest, but their docket load is filled with lots of high profile stuff and unless you used the gun in a bank robbery they wont go after the case.

I pulled a LOT of guns off people in my day and maybe a half a percent of them saw any time.

Finally- related (but not related to this thread) - when we DO enforce our gun laws strictly, guess who winds up in prison disproportionately?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

Close to 4000 people a year drown in the US.

Ban swimming. Think of the lives that could be saved. I mean swimming isn't even necessary..

[AZGrizFan]

It doesn't have to be that way. The particulars of the guns wouldn't have to be spelled out - heck, it could be written that not even the quantity would need to be disclosed, just the collection as a whole would be fine. It's not a de facto registry, then, since there's no accounting for the serial number of the guns nor even the number of guns.

SCOTUS has already ruled that background checks are perfectly legit with regards to the Constitution so there's nothing that's going to stop that. A penalty that is sufficient enough to begin to deter noncompliance would be fine as well under the same logic - how is it Constitutional to have background checks required but then somehow unconstitutional to put penalties in place to help support that law? That's nonsensical.

Stop a second.

Think this through very carefully - then explain to me again how private citizens can do background checks on other private citizens where the only justification is a gun that may or may not exist.

Also, I'll add to the earlier post where it was suggested that we might pursue the novel idea of actually prosecuting the laws that we already have on the books - want to take a guess what happens to most gun possession charges? They get pled down- almost always, unless the local Fed prosecutor takes an interest, but their docket load is filled with lots of high profile stuff and unless you used the gun in a bank robbery they wont go after the case.

I pulled a LOT of guns off people in my day and maybe a half a percent of them saw any time.

Finally- related (but not related to this thread) - when we DO enforce our gun laws strictly, guess who winds up in prison disproportionately?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exhibit A for why CID is top 3 favorite posters on this site.

[Chizzang]

Stop a second.

Think this through very carefully - then explain to me again how private citizens can do background checks on other private citizens where the only justification is a gun that may or may not exist.

Also, I'll add to the earlier post where it was suggested that we might pursue the novel idea of actually prosecuting the laws that we already have on the books - want to take a guess what happens to most gun possession charges? They get pled down- almost always, unless the local Fed prosecutor takes an interest, but their docket load is filled with lots of high profile stuff and unless you used the gun in a bank robbery they wont go after the case.

I pulled a LOT of guns off people in my day and maybe a half a percent of them saw any time.

Finally- related (but not related to this thread) - when we DO enforce our gun laws strictly, guess who winds up in prison disproportionately?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exhibit A for why CID is top 3 favorite posters on this site.

You can't have him...
He's mine

[Col Hogan]

It doesn't have to be that way. The particulars of the guns wouldn't have to be spelled out - heck, it could be written that not even the quantity would need to be disclosed, just the collection as a whole would be fine. It's not a de facto registry, then, since there's no accounting for the serial number of the guns nor even the number of guns.

SCOTUS has already ruled that background checks are perfectly legit with regards to the Constitution so there's nothing that's going to stop that. A penalty that is sufficient enough to begin to deter noncompliance would be fine as well under the same logic - how is it Constitutional to have background checks required but then somehow unconstitutional to put penalties in place to help support that law? That's nonsensical.

Stop a second.

Think this through very carefully - then explain to me again how private citizens can do background checks on other private citizens where the only justification is a gun that may or may not exist.

Also, I'll add to the earlier post where it was suggested that we might pursue the novel idea of actually prosecuting the laws that we already have on the books - want to take a guess what happens to most gun possession charges? They get pled down- almost always, unless the local Fed prosecutor takes an interest, but their docket load is filled with lots of high profile stuff and unless you used the gun in a bank robbery they wont go after the case.

I pulled a LOT of guns off people in my day and maybe a half a percent of them saw any time.

Finally- related (but not related to this thread) - when we DO enforce our gun laws strictly, guess who winds up in prison disproportionately?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

More than 100,000 convicted felons or other “prohibited persons” tried to buy guns each year during President Barack Obama’s administration by lying on their applications, but the Justice Department only considered prosecuting about 30 to 40 people each year, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation investigation.

The Obama administration may have publicly aligned itself with anti-gun activists, but it consistently turned a blind eye to prosecute known criminals who tried to buy guns.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/15/exclu ... illegally/

And yet, every shooting brought a call for “common-sense” addition to the already oppressive gun laws that law-abiding citizens have to jump through to exercise a basic right...

How about “common-sense” enforcement of what exists...

[89Hen]

We don't enforce immigration laws because people wouldn't like the outcome. We don't enforce gun laws for the same reason. In both cases, the laws already exist.

[Chizzang]

We don't enforce immigration laws because people wouldn't like the outcome. We don't enforce gun laws for the same reason. In both cases, the laws already exist.

This ^

[Col Hogan]

We don't enforce immigration laws because people wouldn't like the outcome. We don't enforce gun laws for the same reason. In both cases, the laws already exist.

Got it...which is why it really pisses me off when anti’s scream we need more “common-sense” laws after a shooting...

Passing laws does nothing but get us closer to their ultimate goal of a total ban...

[Chizzang]

That's the real conversation...
Like anything highly controversial and strongly divided

What laws are presently on the books..?
and are they being enforced - if not - are they even capable of being enforced
and if so... what is the real outcome of enforcing said laws

Immigration (same)
Abortion (same)
Gun Control (same)

It's not always about creating some new law as though that will change something
because very likely it won't - or it won't have the outcome we all want

[89Hen]

That's the real conversation...
Like anything highly controversial and strongly divided

What laws are presently on the books..?
and are they being enforced - if not - are they even capable of being enforced
and if so... what is the real outcome of enforcing said laws

Immigration (same)
Abortion (same)
Gun Control (same)

It's not always about creating some new law as though that will change something
because very likely it won't - or it won't have the outcome we all want

How so on abortion?

[Chizzang]

Firstly,
It's a subject in which neither side can come to anything even remotely like common ground
So no matter what laws are enacted or even suggested a whole bunch of people are going to be pissed
Regardless... period

Secondly,
The more severe the laws are the more improbable the enforcement
Much of the enforcement would require access to medical record and doctor patient intervention

Thirdly,
wide swings in popular opinion regionally and state to state make for loophole type situations
So federal laws get ignored here and not there etc.
and local laws are tough in this state but in the adjacent state are wide open

Gun Control / Immigration / Abortion
are a sh!tshow no matter how you slice it...

[89Hen]

Firstly,
It's a subject in which neither side can come to anything even remotely like common ground
So no matter what laws are enacted or even suggested a whole bunch of people are going to be pissed
Regardless... period

Secondly,
The more severe the laws are the more improbable the enforcement
Much of the enforcement would require access to medical record and doctor patient intervention

Thirdly,
wide swings in popular opinion regionally and state to state make for loophole type situations
So federal laws get ignored here and not there etc.
and local laws are tough in this state but in the adjacent state are wide open

Gun Control / Immigration / Abortion
are a sh!tshow no matter how you slice it...

However, one of these things is not like the other. There are no laws outlawing abortion in the US so to lump it in seems folly at best. I guess what you're trying to say is that if the US did start outlawing abortions that we might have a similar result in selective enforcement? Maybe. I guess it depends on what the laws say and what any punishment is. If the law states that doctors would lose their medical license for providing illegal abortions, my guess is that law would be enforced easily and regularly.

[Chizzang]

Firstly,
It's a subject in which neither side can come to anything even remotely like common ground
So no matter what laws are enacted or even suggested a whole bunch of people are going to be pissed
Regardless... period

Secondly,
The more severe the laws are the more improbable the enforcement
Much of the enforcement would require access to medical record and doctor patient intervention

Thirdly,
wide swings in popular opinion regionally and state to state make for loophole type situations
So federal laws get ignored here and not there etc.
and local laws are tough in this state but in the adjacent state are wide open

Gun Control / Immigration / Abortion
are a sh!tshow no matter how you slice it...

However, one of these things is not like the other. There are no laws outlawing abortion in the US so to lump it in seems folly at best. I guess what you're trying to say is that if the US did start outlawing abortions that we might have a similar result in selective enforcement? Maybe. I guess it depends on what the laws say and what any punishment is. If the law states that doctors would lose their medical license for providing illegal abortions, my guess is that law would be enforced easily and regularly.

It's tricky...
and never as "easy" as is implied by those in favor of any of those three issues
from either side

[89Hen]

However, one of these things is not like the other. There are no laws outlawing abortion in the US so to lump it in seems folly at best. I guess what you're trying to say is that if the US did start outlawing abortions that we might have a similar result in selective enforcement? Maybe. I guess it depends on what the laws say and what any punishment is. If the law states that doctors would lose their medical license for providing illegal abortions, my guess is that law would be enforced easily and regularly.

It's tricky...
and never as "easy" as is implied by those in favor of any of those three issues
from either side

Abortion laws would be VERY hard. I don't dispute that.

[AZGrizFan]

Exhibit A for why CID is top 3 favorite posters on this site.

You can't have him...
He's mine

literally as I was posting that I KNEW you’d get jelly....

[houndawg]

That's just a dodge for not having an answer. We have rampant gun violence, even if you don't look at the mass shootings. What do we do about it?

Ooh, ooh, I have an idea. Why don’t we enforce (or strengthen) existing laws and sentencing.

Take a look at the Ball thug and the other two UCLA players who shoplifted sunglasses in China. They were looking at 3-10 years in prison until Trump waved his hand and had Xi release them.

I bet China doesn’t have a shoplifting problem. What laws do Chinese break? US laws (espionage, pirating), because they know we’re pussies as far as criminal justice goes.

lol...Trump doesn't tell Xi shit.

[BDKJMU]

That's just a dodge for not having an answer. We have rampant gun violence, even if you don't look at the mass shootings. What do we do about it?

Ooh, ooh, I have an idea. Why don’t we enforce (or strengthen) existing laws and sentencing.

Take a look at the Ball thug and the other two UCLA players who shoplifted sunglasses in China. They were looking at 3-10 years in prison until Trump waved his hand and had Xi release them.

I bet China doesn’t have a shoplifting problem. What laws do Chinese break? US laws (espionage, pirating), because they know we’re pussies as far as criminal justice goes.

What a bunch of dumbasses. 6 foot something tall black guys walking around amongst 5 foot something tall Chinamen. Stuck out like sore thumbs and probably had lots of people watching them..Had to be idiots to think they were going to get away with shoplifting high end sunglasses..

[93henfan]

Chinamen

Did you know that that word and "oriental" are now racist terms according to the liberal snowflakes?

[Col Hogan]

Chinamen

Did you know that that word and "oriental" are now racist terms according to the liberal snowflakes?

So, what am I suppose to call my fancy “oriental” rug now???

[93henfan]

Did you know that that word and "oriental" are now racist terms according to the liberal snowflakes?

So, what am I suppose to call my fancy “oriental” rug now???

Asian non-binary, questioning.