Gun control, the constitution and you, let's keep it civil.

[chbare]

However, can we not be more aggressive about limiting access to at risk individuals?

[DFIB]

However, can we not be more aggressive about limiting access to at risk individuals?

Are you suggesting profiling?

[chbare]

If you want to call it that, yes. You fill out a form asking about criteria that could prevent you from obtaining a firearm when go to buy one, now we could extend the check to people living in the house where the firearm will be stored. We do that to some extent when considering the environment felons will live in following release.

[DFIB]

Profiling is a normal every day occurrence. Every time we look at someone we are profiling in some way or another. I think we should profile way more than we do now or even admit to doing now.

[chbare]

It's a slippery slope and full of stereotypes and I think it can lead to some real rights violations. However, if somebody has been institutionalised, fixing to be institutionalised or is a felon, do they need to be in an environment where they have access to guns even if said guns were obtained legally? I have no data and I'm not a mental health expert, but it's probably worth discussing.

[systemet]

Here's a copy of the form they use in Canada:

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/faq/lic-per-eng.htm

Of note for the current conversation, it has sections (16/17) asking whether the applicant has been charged or convicted for a criminal code offence involving violence, improper firearm handling or storage, or drug trafficking. It also asks about whether anyone has placed a protection order against you, whether you have a recent history or mental illness or alcoholism, and whether anyone in your immediate household has been prohibited from owning weapons. In addition, it asks about recent job loss, separation, or bankruptcy. It further asks about any spouse, common-law or "conjugal" partners in the last 2 years, and requires that your spouse's contact details are given. There's a section requiring personal references too.

Some of these questions may seem improper to a US citizen -- but remember that in Canada, firearm ownership is a privilege versus a right. Another major distinction is that the use of firearms as a form of personal protection / defence and concealed carry are not accepted as valid.

Obviously any such form would need to be modified for a US audience, but it gives you an idea of how another nation with a similar sociocultural background has dealt with this problem.

This doesn't prevent a previously-law abiding individual from going out and shooting up a school. Nor does it guarantee that someone with a mental health problem will be refused a licence. But if you consider the shooter in the recent event in the US -- would they have been able to purchase firearms if they'd had to be vetted in a similar manner? Would the family have found two reference people? Perhaps -- and it wouldn't stop him from stealing another person's weapons, but it is another extra layer of safety against people who perhaps shouldn't own firearms.

[DFIB]

Back to the OP once again I remember when this happened. This is a survivors story.

[chbare]

It's raw and emotional, much like the anti-gun victim stories that we hear. However, it's that very emotion and the notion that she needs to protect herself from the government that is not the important consideration or particularly helpful. I think she needed to grieve and say what she needed to say. Fair enough. However, we need to come up with reasonable solutions.

Personally, people on the extreme ends of the debate really have nothing reasonable to add. To suggest that giving everybody a gun and mandating they learn how to carry and use it is as ridiculous as thinking we can go door to door and take all the evil guns away. These diametrically opposed camps assume a perfect world exists where everybody abides by the boundary conditions they set. That is not reality and not a helpful thought process.

The United States will continue to have lots of guns and I don't see that changing significantly in my life time. Likewise, reasonable regulation regarding the acquisition and use of firearms is desperately needed. In addition, said regulation must be highly flexible and change as we should have robust methods for gathering data to see what works and what needs to change.

You look at all the data pertaining to the 1994 ban, and I cannot make heads or tails of it, but I'm not sure of its overall efficacy. Unfortunately, much of the data is tainted by opinion and bias from both sides. Clearly, we need to change, but must do so in response to good data collection and analysis and not opinion. It's an incredibly tough challenge and I doubt everybody will be happy.

[DFIB]

Your analysis are always good Chris and I appreciate you doing them.

I think that we pretty much agree with the exception that I do not trust the government, any government. That would have to be another thread, another day, and another topic. I don't think that part of her argument ads to this particular discussion but am inclined to think it is a valid point.

[chbare]

DFIB, as somebody who is highly libertarian in many ways, I agree. Personally, I think it is our duty to be skeptical of government, it's intentions and it's actions. Typically, the question I ask when faced with social issues is "can I help by allowing the people to have more freedom?" I think this applies to many things such as gay marriage and the drug war, but that is a conservation for another day. However, I cannot solve the current issue when performing gedanken experiments with the information available, by allowing more freedom as it pertains to having access to guns. The issue for me becomes another question: "Does mandating armed teachers and armed security in every classroom amount to increased personal freedom and liberty?" I am not necessarily saying outright ban; however, it looks like a majority of the population is pissed and they are mandating some sort of change. I think as a good libertarian and citizen, I have to recognise the concerns and will of the people. The concerns are valid and we have to discuss options including the possibility of some sort of ban and try to identify what can help and where does the constitution begin and end. Possibly, the issue could again end up on the doormat of the supreme court. Clearly, I have bias and ignorance about many of the complex issues, but as a citizen and as a teacher at a college, the topic is very important to me and I want to debate and consider the various options, but it is also my goal to try and eliminate hyperbolic speech as much as possible.