Gun Control

Good values can destroy someone as easily as bad.

Make him live in a boot camp from Hell of good values and you can crush him.

But IMO that kid was a product of both neglect and abuse.

Quote: rxwine

I'm more interested in things that more clearly identify an individual as a risk. Not things that just makes the process more unwieldly just to make it unwieldly.
Although it does have some positive effects.

But, how? How do you identify an at risk individual in a way that is not "unwieldy"?

Demand a full review of all medical records? Check employment reviews of current and all past employers to see ethics and personality? Check personal references of all friends and acquittances? Do a credit check (to see if person may be under current financial hardship)? Check for recent personal tragedies (divorce, major lawsuit, death in family etc....)? Interview all neighbors (including at prior housing) to see if you do things that are anti-social? Check all investments to see if there is anything that can be a loyalty danger (including overall recent losses)? Do a full polygraph to ensure that everything in your application is true, and to see what your intentions with the purchase is? Check driving record in every state (and country if applicable) to see if there is a pattern of dangerous behavior? Do a full background check in every country that you have lived in or spent large time in (not just U.S.)? Interview everyone that you have had a romantic relationship with to see personality "behind closed doors"? Do a background check on all non-American foreign contacts (people you talk to regularly that are not American citizens)? Do a full social media review (forcing you to login to each one so they can see everything from your account)?

All of these could indicate factors that would lead to an increased risk, but these are unrealistic, and would turn buying a gun into a 5-20k process and 6-18 months of waiting for the results..... (And, most Americans would "fail").

You can't just judge risk by "gut instinct". Its like a security clearance (which is where I got those from), there are a host of factors that need to be evaluated and assessed as a whole to see if you may be at risk of dangerous or disloyal behaviors. And, even that would not be perfect, because people slip through (how often do we hear of somebody "who was perfect" until they were not....) If we did all of the above, close to zero (again some will always slip through) dangerous people would be able to (legally) buy a gun, but many people would feel that it is an infringement of their rights and privacy....

Quote: Gandler

Though blaming secularism and video games on mass shootings sounds straight out of Fox News. Video games increasing violence has been debunked since the 90s.

That is because they are looking for direct correlation and ignoring the violence creep of it all.

In the 80s video game "violence" was nowhere near as graphic as it was after. It was not even to the level of cartoon violence. Even when it was "shoot em up" it was very abstract. Same with movies and TV though you have to go further back on that one. In what I will call the "John Wayne Era" is someone got shot they just went down where they stood. Minimal blood, minimal gore. Compare that with modern movie violence.

The thing is you cannot measure it. Too many variables. But American society has clearly gotten and tolerates more violence than pre-1964.

Quote: AZDuffman

That is because they are looking for direct correlation and ignoring the violence creep of it all.

In the 80s video game "violence" was nowhere near as graphic as it was after. It was not even to the level of cartoon violence. Even when it was "shoot em up" it was very abstract. Same with movies and TV though you have to go further back on that one. In what I will call the "John Wayne Era" is someone got shot they just went down where they stood. Minimal blood, minimal gore. Compare that with modern movie violence.

The thing is you cannot measure it. Too many variables. But American society has clearly gotten and tolerates more violence than pre-1964.

That's because in the 80s video games did not have the capacity to be violent.

I do know, that in the 1960s, killing somebody in cold-blood was completely taboo, which is why older movies generally have the villain shooting first (for example in Dr. No -1962- first Bond movie, the most edited out scene was the one where he shoots Professor Dent because a hero taking a shot in cold blood was just not done), so it was definitely a culture for that time. But, I mean its an old trope going back to the 1800s (probably beyond), the older generations complain that the new media (even if short stories in the newspaper), are too graphic and not appropriate.

Every generation feels that they were more refined and portrayed less violence. When what we know for sure, the world on the whole, is far less violent than in 1960 or 1860, despite the advanced of violent media we have. There are some years that are dramatic exceptions (like these two most recent years), but on the whole life is improving with time, violence is decreasing, and people are living longer.

Probably in 50 years there will be some new form of media that we cannot fathom now, that is super violent and ultra-realistic, and people my age will be going crazy about it, its the cycle of life....

But, what we do know, without dispute, is that America and the world is steadily getting less violent despite all of this....

Quote: Gandler

But, how? How do you identify an at risk individual in a way that is not "unwieldy"?

Demand a full review of all medical records? Check employment reviews of current and all past employers to see ethics and personality? Check personal references of all friends and acquittances? Do a credit check (to see if person may be under current financial hardship)? Check for recent personal tragedies (divorce, major lawsuit, death in family etc....)? Interview all neighbors (including at prior housing) to see if you do things that are anti-social? Check all investments to see if there is anything that can be a loyalty danger (including overall recent losses)? Do a full polygraph to ensure that everything in your application is true, and to see what your intentions with the purchase is? Check driving record in every state (and country if applicable) to see if there is a pattern of dangerous behavior? Do a full background check in every country that you have lived in or spent large time in (not just U.S.)? Interview everyone that you have had a romantic relationship with to see personality "behind closed doors"? Do a background check on all non-American foreign contacts (people you talk to regularly that are not American citizens)? Do a full social media review (forcing you to login to each one so they can see everything from your account)?

All of these could indicate factors that would lead to an increased risk, but these are unrealistic, and would turn buying a gun into a 5-20k process and 6-18 months of waiting for the results..... (And, most Americans would "fail").

You can't just judge risk by "gut instinct". Its like a security clearance (which is where I got those from), there are a host of factors that need to be evaluated and assessed as a whole to see if you may be at risk of dangerous or disloyal behaviors. And, even that would not be perfect, because people slip through (how often do we hear of somebody "who was perfect" until they were not....) If we did all of the above, close to zero (again some will always slip through) dangerous people would be able to (legally) buy a gun, but many people would feel that it is an infringement of their rights and privacy....

Okay try this test. How many people have you threatened to kidnap, rape or kill. That's what's already been said from people who encountered the uvalde kid.
Either the person didn't report it, or nothing much was done about it?

How many times have police been called to your house for disturbance, fighting or threats?
How many times have you been picked up for violence and police found a weapon on you?
Have you been in regular altercations with people?
Have you ever been accused or convicted of domestic abuse.

I can add more, but how many have you even answered yes to yet? Of course, one minor thing alone may not be enough by itself. But several things indicate a pattern.

Of course, appropriate agencies have to have records of this whether police or some family crisis agency. Your records would be part of a background check.

...also, I'm not interested in just any misbehavior. but when there has been violence or threats. Someone running around stealing lawn ornaments never ends up on the list.

Quote: rxwine

Okay try this test. How many people have you threatened to kidnap, rape or kill. That's what's already been said from people who encountered the uvalde kid.
Either the person didn't report it, or nothing much was done about it?

How many times have police been called to your house for disturbance, fighting or threats?
How many times have you been picked up for violence and police found a weapon on you?
Have you been in regular altercations with people?
Have you ever been accused or convicted of domestic abuse.

I can add more, but how many have you even answered yes to yet? Of course, one minor thing alone may not be enough by itself. But several things indicate a pattern.

Of course, appropriate agencies have to have records of this whether police or some family crisis agency. Your records would be part of a background check.

Of course the answer is no to all, but I would also say that even if it was not (especially if I was trying to get access to something that I should not)...

To verify this you would need a formal review system of all records, like the process that I mentioned. Otherwise you can make 90 pages of questions and it would be unverifiable (and meaningless)....

Criminal records are already part of a standard background check (which everyone does on every gun purchase). To find the more nuanced personality traits you need to go way beyond a standard background check into security clearance terrority..... (at least if it is going to be done is a systemic way, which is the only way that would be proper). Most of such questions are not on a standard background check (and would require a review of school records, medical records, employment records, neighborhood interviews, etc....). Unless you are convicted of a crime or have certain court orders that have been sustained (restraining order, mental health orders forcing admission against will, etc...), nothing would be "in the system".... There is no system where you can see how many times the police have visited your home unless it always ends in an arrest (and conviction)....

Quote: Gandler

That's because in the 80s video games did not have the capacity to be violent.

Correct, but that does not change the fact that they got more violent when the tech was available. Later video games could have been just as cartoony but they were not.

Quote:

I do know, that in the 1960s, killing somebody in cold-blood was completely taboo, which is why older movies generally have the villain shooting first (for example in Dr. No -1962- first Bond movie, the most edited out scene was the one where he shoots Professor Dent because a hero taking a shot in cold blood was just not done), so it was definitely a culture for that time. But, I mean its an old trope going back to the 1800s (probably beyond), the older generations complain that the new media (even if short stories in the newspaper), are too graphic and not appropriate.

This is before I was born. When I was a kid there were the first calls to reduce violence on TV. And you cannot tell me "The Shield" was not many times more violent than even a 70s cop show. I loved "The Shield" and loved seeing Vic get away with it. But the fact remains that the violence creep was there. "The Shield" is actually a generation old now, I do not watch many new shows, er any new shows, but once the bar is raised the next show jumps over it.

Quote:

But, what we do know, without dispute, is that America and the world is steadily getting less violent despite all of this....

Gotta disagree there. If things are getting less violent it is because the demographic age is going up the world over. Those in their "violence age" or to say those under age of early-30s are as violent as ever.

Quote: AZDuffman

Correct, but that does not change the fact that they got more violent when the tech was available. Later video games could have been just as cartoony but they were not.



This is before I was born. When I was a kid there were the first calls to reduce violence on TV. And you cannot tell me "The Shield" was not many times more violent than even a 70s cop show. I loved "The Shield" and loved seeing Vic get away with it. But the fact remains that the violence creep was there. "The Shield" is actually a generation old now, I do not watch many new shows, er any new shows, but once the bar is raised the next show jumps over it.



Gotta disagree there. If things are getting less violent it is because the demographic age is going up the world over. Those in their "violence age" or to say those under age of early-30s are as violent as ever.

There is nothing to disagree with, going back to the verge of the prehistorical era, the world is exponentially getting less violent.

https://ourworldindata.org/ethnographic-and-archaeological-evidence-on-violent-deaths#share-of-violent-deaths-in-prehistoric-archeological-state-and-non-state-societies


For Americ specifically:
"In the long term, violent crime in the United States has been in decline since colonial times. The homicide rate has been estimated to be over 30 per 100,000 people in 1700, dropping to under 20 by 1800, and to under 10 by 1900. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
(And, yes wiki is a fine reference for casual discussions, this is not a research paper)...

But, here is the FBI which lets you return and breakdown back to 1985:
https://crime-data-explorer.fr.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend


The world and America is simply getting less violent as time elapses (dramatically). Yes, there are years, or even groups of years that are outliers. But, there is no dispute the trend going back to ancient societies and early America....

I mean just think about it generally, when America was founded (which was not that long ago), dueling was still socially acceptable (and even partook in by several Presidents), local militias were common (which were in frequent conflict with all kinds of groups including other American militias), there was slavery (which meant slavery rebellions), there was piracy and privateering (to a massive extent), there were widespread crime groups, there was no uniformed policing system, etc.... A lot quickly changed in the last 300 years. It was a world where violence was not just tolerated, but expected. I am sure in 300 years people will look back on how barbaric we are now. And, this was all just America, which was much "better" (in many ways) than most other countries at the time.....

Quote: Gandler

Of course the answer is no to all, but I would also say that even if it was not (especially if I was trying to get access to something that I should not)...

To verify this you would need a formal review system of all records, like the process that I mentioned. Otherwise you can make 90 pages of questions and it would be unverifiable (and meaningless)....

Criminal records are already part of a standard background check (which everyone does on every gun purchase). To find the more nuanced personality traits you need to go way beyond a standard background check into security clearance terrority..... (at least if it is going to be done is a systemic way, which is the only way that would be proper). Most of such questions are not on a standard background check (and would require a review of school records, medical records, employment records, neighborhood interviews, etc....). Unless you are convicted of a crime or have certain court orders that have been sustained (restraining order, mental health orders forcing admission against will, etc...), nothing would be "in the system".... There is no system where you can see how many times the police have visited your home unless it always ends in an arrest (and conviction)....

It's already being done in some states. It's part of gun licensing requirement. There are local agencies which have different records than what is in the FBI database. A local alcohol drug rehab center can have recent incidence of someone who has violent behavior as well as a drug problem who perhaps they had to call the police and report it. There doesn't need to be explicit description to the person doing the check. A local court can have a record of someone violating a restraining order that the FBI won't have. A school may have a record with constant discipline problems of one student that required an incident report. You don't need deep psychological evaluations. It's no more than recording incidents of threats or violence. You no more need an evaluation to keep citing someone with reported traffic violtions. You just record it.