NY Times Op-Ed "A New Way to Tackle Gun Deaths"


PDA






Neo-Luddite
October 5, 2015, 11:49 AM
Read this for a good giggle--smart guns, microstamping and persons convicted of domestic violence should not be able to own a gun for ten years--did no one at the NY Times get the memo that a conviction for misdemeanor domestic battery already carries a LIFETIME prohibition on firearm ownership?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kristof-a-new-way-to-tackle-gun-deaths.html

Some pseudo-science and some tired ideas we need to be wary of.

If you enjoyed reading about "NY Times Op-Ed "A New Way to Tackle Gun Deaths"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
wally
October 5, 2015, 12:43 PM
Facts don't matter to these types.

How about a new way to deal with traffic deaths, drug deaths, medical error deaths, etc.

P5 Guy
October 5, 2015, 01:54 PM
Sounds like Martin O'Malley is on the editorial staff on the NY Times. :cuss:

lechiffre
October 5, 2015, 02:56 PM
did no one at the NY Times get the memo that a conviction for misdemeanor domestic battery already carries a LIFETIME prohibition on firearm ownership

Most people who want more gun laws don't realize how many laws there already are.

tomturkey
October 5, 2015, 02:59 PM
Even Hillary does not realize the ban on owning a gun after a domestic violence conviction. She proposed that there should be yesterday, along with a bunch of other nonsence.

The Exile
October 5, 2015, 03:23 PM
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

"Including suicides and accidents" so now we are blaming gun deaths for people who are A. too stupid to live or B. unwilling to live? Well that's pretty disingenuous if you ask me.

What exactly is the logic here? That gun owners want a new digital competent in their guns that make them more prone to failure and probably won't be cheap? Or do they propose to magically make this a thing required by law? May as well just ban guns when you are proposing magic legislature. Of course all this is screaming ignroance "We make cars and ovens safer when they aren't" well cars and ovens are not weapons by nature, they aren't dangerous by nature. I'd bet if you give people like this everything they wanted when stuff like Oregon happened anyway they'd just figure we need to keep going.

lechiffre
October 5, 2015, 03:28 PM
Even Hillary does not realize the ban on owning a gun after a domestic violence conviction. She proposed that there should be yesterday, along with a bunch of other nonsence

…or maybe she does know, but figures her followers don't. It's easy to promise to give someone something they already have.

Caliper_RWVA
October 5, 2015, 03:30 PM
And which mass killing would this have prevented?

Waiting periods are another piece of bunk. Looking through an article ( http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=0 ) about "how they got their guns". Most of the killers detailed legally bought their guns several months to a year before committing their crimes.

Several killers did get guns because info wasn't entered into NICS though...

gun_with_a_view
October 6, 2015, 12:10 AM
Bernie Sanders has a different take on the matter. Gun rights are state issues, rural America has a different agenda than city slickers:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-gun-control.html?mabReward=CTM&_r=0

barnbwt
October 6, 2015, 08:19 AM
Hey, that's what Jeb Bush thinks, too :p

txblackout
October 6, 2015, 09:22 AM
( ° °)

"Including suicides and accidents" so now we are blaming gun deaths for people who are A. too stupid to live or B. unwilling to live? Well that's pretty disingenuous if you ask me.

What exactly is the logic here? That gun owners want a new digital competent in their guns that make them more prone to failure and probably won't be cheap? Or do they propose to magically make this a thing required by law? May as well just ban guns when you are proposing magic legislature. Of course all this is screaming ignroance "We make cars and ovens safer when they aren't" well cars and ovens are not weapons by nature, they aren't dangerous by nature. I'd bet if you give people like this everything they wanted when stuff like Oregon happened anyway they'd just figure we need to keep going.
Electronic triggers could make guns much more accurate.

Electronic do fail but they can also be extremely reliable in harsh situations

Bikes are starting to get electronic derraileurs.


Will be interesting to see how they survive the market

basicblur
October 6, 2015, 09:29 AM
Electronic triggers could make guns much more accurate.
OR
One could practice a bit and become more proficient with existing triggers.

One of my favorite quotes (which drives a lot of folks nuts, especially new shooters) comes from Massad Ayoob: A light trigger pull is, more than anything else, a crutch for bad trigger technique.

Sorry, but as one who made their living troubleshooting industrial electrical / electronics, I have little to no faith in any kind of electronic trigger, especially on a device employed when your life is at stake.

Red Eye Fred
October 6, 2015, 03:07 PM
Maybe they could invent bullets that would kill game but not even fire if they were aimed at people:banghead:

The Exile
October 6, 2015, 03:15 PM
Electronic triggers could make guns much more accurate.

Electronic do fail but they can also be extremely reliable in harsh situations

Bikes are starting to get electronic derraileurs.


Will be interesting to see how they survive the market
When you're talking about self defense often accuracy isn't the prime issue, don't they often say most self defense scenarios are "three shots in three seconds at three feet"? In general whenever you introduce a new mechanism to a machine in any way it becomes more prone to failure, or you can observe the exact opposite in something really simple like an AK. I think this is especially true when you try and replace a spring loaded mechanism with a digital mechanism.

morcey2
October 6, 2015, 04:51 PM
One of my cousins posted this article on facebook and called it a great "compromise". I asked her what gun owners get out of the deal, since it's a "compromise". She stated that we get to keep some of our guns. How generous. When I pointed out that smart guns and microstamping are so easily defeated and would only apply to new guns, she said, I swear, "We would make that illegal" (disabling smart guns and microstamps) and "They should require them in older guns". Last time I checked, it was already illegal to kill people and it didn't stop them. :banghead: :banghead:

sharkman
October 7, 2015, 08:48 AM
From yesterday's Raleigh NC News and Observer, one local gun owner says that all weapons capable of using magazines that hold more than 10 rounds should be regulated as Class 3 Firearms. :barf:

http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article37861599.html

morcey2
October 26, 2015, 02:59 PM
I've decided to expand upon my previous comment. In response to my question "What do gun owners get out of this compromise?", one of my cousin's friends commented "less dead people". This was after my previous responses were deleted. After doing a little research on the coal-gas v. natural-gas suicides in the UK thing, I wrote the following. Everything after the coal-gas paragraph is more-or-less a stream-of-consciousness:

(response to "less dead people")

If that's how you judge what was accomplished, ban back-yard swimming pools, ladders, bunny slippers, and flip-flops. That will save many more lives than anything proposed in the article.

While Mr. Kristof takes a very naive approach to gun violence, at least he's willing to admit that the 1994 AWB (and "assault weapon" bans in general) is a fools errand and had no affect other than burdening law abiding gun owners.

His use of the coal-gas v. natural-gas ovens in GB is interesting but misguided. Ovens aren't meant to be inherently dangerous. Guns are. There is nothing that can change that. There was a study done in 1976 by Norman Kreitman that found that there was a correlation in the decline in the overall suicide rate after the switch from coal gas to natural gas, the only real affect was on older males (75+). For males under 45, the suicide rate was effectively unchanged. THe suicide rate in the overall population decreased during this time also decreased, but suicide rates in the vast majority of industrialized countries declined at approximately the same rate during this time period, regardless of whether coal gas or guns were available. This correlates directly with improved psychiatric/psychologic treatment in those same countries.

Those who are bound and determined to kill themselves are going to find a way to do it. We've had several high school students commit suicide in the last two years and quite a few more who have survived suicide attempts. Of all of those, only one was with a firearm and nothing proposed in the article regarding gun law changes would have prevented that. The gun was his gun and he was 18. Neither safe-storage laws or "smart" guns would have applied to him since he would have had access to his own guns, even in safe storage, and he would have been an "authorized user" of his own "smart" gun.

The majority of gun owners may favor universal background checks, but the majority of gun owners are also opposed to a federal gun registry. Why is this important? Because the only way to enforce a UBC law is to have a federal registry. What would be the exceptions to the UBC? If I'm at the range with a friend and they want to have a chance to shoot one of my guns, is that considered a transfer and would it require a background check? If so, would I have to get a background check to get it back? What about lending a gun to someone in my hunting party because theirs isn't working properly? What about inheritance and gifts? And what about the tax liability for each transfer? Washington state's current UBC law states that every transfer also incurs the sales tax based on the fair-market value of the gun along with any other taxes that are imposed by the state on firearms transfers. "But criminals won't be able to pass the background check to get the gun and we'll all be dancing in happy rainbow and unicorn land!" Um. Criminals don't buy guns themselves. They either steal them, have someone who who will pass a background check buy it for them (called a straw purchase), or buy it from another criminal who stole it. All of those methods are already explicitly illegal. A straw purchase is already a federal felony, but it is almost never prosecuted. Same with lying on the 4473 form filled out by the buyer under penalty of perjury when buying a gun from an FFL. If the buyer is denied, and it isn't a case of mistaken identity (more common than you'd think), there is a very good chance that they potential buyer flat-out lied on the form. It's almost never even investigated, let alone prosecuted. That, right there, is the biggest issue. We have firearms laws in place, but they're almost never prosecuted. Less than 0.01% of the background check denials are ever prosecuted and those are usually added to other charges as an afterthought.

Smart guns? Microstamping? They're wonderful in theory, but are so easily defeated in practice as to be nothing more than adding unnecessary expense to a firearm. If the "stamp" is inside the chamber and deep enough to effectively imprint into the shell casing, it will interfere with the proper operation of the gun. That's not something I want to deal with if I'm depending on that gun to protect myself and my family in my home. If it's shallow enough to not interfere with operation, it's easily polished away in a few minutes. Also, with some steel cartridge casings, there is no effective way to imprint the stamp in the chamber of a standard semi-automatic handgun. If the stamp is on the firing pin surface, it will probably be peened out of existence on its own withing a couple hundred rounds. Bad guys will also simply polish off the firing pin tip and, voila, no more microstamp.

Smart guns create their own set of issues. Who's allowed to shoot the gun? Only the registered owner? Whoever the owner decides? If it's only the registered owner, why is my wife not allowed to use it in defense of our home simply because I'm only allowed one person on the smart gun? What if the batteries go dead? Does it make the gun inoperable? What about bad guys? If someone steals that gun, a law saying that it's illegal to remove the "smart" part of the gun and turn it back into a "dumb" gun isn't going to stop them. It was already illegal to steal the gun, why would they care about the other part of the law? (It's not that hard. Every smart gun prototype that has come out has been "broken" in very short order after it's release.)

Smart guns may have a very small affect on firearms suicides, but that will be offset by deaths from smart guns that fail when law-abiding gun owners are attempting to defend themselves. Pin numbers? Really? What's the first thing that goes in a high-stress life-or-death situation? Fine motor control. "Mr bad guy, can you hang on a second. I keep getting the pin number wrong on my gun." Um. sure. Fingerprint scanners? I use them on multiple occasions every day on some very high-end hardware and they only work the first time about half the time. If my hands are dry or not completely clean, they won't work. And these aren't scanners that have been minaturized to the point of working in a gun without making in unnecessarily cumbersome. I shouldn't have to ask a bad guy to wait while I wash my hands so I can defend myself.

Liability insurance for gun owners hasn't been thought through by those proposing it. If a car is stolen and used in a crime, the owners liability insurance doesn't apply to the victims of the crime. Same with guns. Insurance companies aren't going to pay out for that and a law requiring it wouldn't stand up in court. If a gun is used in self defence, such as when someone breaks into a home, the gunowners liability insurance isn't going to cover the death or injuries sustained by the criminal. So that leaves accidental shootings. Having talked to several insurance agents about it, the probability of an accidental gun discharge/accidental shooting happening from a specific gun is so infintesimally small that the premium wouldn't cover the effort that the agent had to put into selling the policy. I don't believe that liability insurance is the real goal here, but a back-door registration mechanism. After all, how would it be enforces without some sort of registration?

Safe storage requirements: My guns are always locked up when not in use. Your definition of "use" may differ from mine though. I always have one gun that is loaded and ready to use. It is always on me, except for when I'm sleeping, showering, or somewhere I can't carry. In the last case, it's locked up. In the other two cases, it's within arms reach of me. I don't have kids at home that can get to it without my knowledge. I have grandkids that are curious and they know I have it. When they're over, the gun is on me, and if they're staying the night, it gets locked up. With that said, since I don't have any curious little hands seeking it, why should I be required to keep it locked up at night thereby delaying any response that I might have to an intruder? Do I think keeping guns not necessary for immediate defense locked up is a good idea? Yes, I do. Do I think there should be a law requiring it? No, I don't. I think exercise and a healthy diet are good ideas also, but I'm not proposing that those ideas be enforced by law.

As you can see so far, everything proposed wouldn't affect criminal activity in the least, but would place create a great burden on law abiding gun owners. Also, none of the proposals would have prevented any of the mass shootings that have apparently reached "epidemic" proportions. Oh, wait. They haven't. They've actually declined since 1990 due in part to the significant increase in law abiding gun owners being allowed to carry firearms for defense of themselves and others.

And one more thing: Mr. Kristof proposes a "and a 10-year prohibition on possessing guns for anyone convicted of domestic violence, assault or similar offenses". Anyone convicted of domestic violence already has a lifetime prohibition on gun posession. The same goes for all felonies and violent misdemeanors. Changing it from lifetime to 10-years would be a step backwards and illustrates the naivete of Mr. Kristof.

I'm sure that will get deleted also, but hopefully some of her liberal friends will be able to read it before hand. They may need to seek a "safe space" if they're not used to opposing views.

Matt

barnbwt
October 26, 2015, 06:59 PM
"all weapons capable of using magazines that hold more than 10 rounds should be regulated as Class 3 Firearms."

Speaking of suicidal impulses...:rolleyes:

I think few antis understand what they are up against; hi cap mags are no longer uncommon, and they & their guns constitute a pretty significant value at this point. Nothing that was ever regulated as class III had those traits. Fewer antis understand what class III regulation even means; a year long wait for a handgun is tantamount to a ban, but worse, since some people will go to the trouble and become VERY effective propaganda against it in short order (assuming the de facto ban doesn't cause straight up rebellion/disobedience).

Pistols were too common to ban in the '30's, and they are far, far, far too common for that, now. I think it is impossible the antis don't know this. I think they realize they have lost, and the smartest ones are simply keeping the gravy train flowing by spouting increasingly crazy nonsense for attention (much like calls for repealling Obamacare after establishment leaders intentionally whiffed their three strikes)

TCB

gbran
October 26, 2015, 10:10 PM
I'm OK with prohibition against violent felons, but seriously, is anybody really worried Martha Stewart is gonna come gunning for them?

jerkface11
October 26, 2015, 10:13 PM
I'm OK with prohibition against violent felons,
Those people shouldn't be out of prison.

AlexanderA
October 27, 2015, 01:30 PM
This search for "alternative solutions" tells me that the gun-grabbers are flailing and desperate. Their traditional recipes -- registration, licensing, confiscation -- have run up against a brick wall of opposition. They know they can't get anywhere with those plans, because a majority of Americans oppose them. So they're trying an end run with new and deceptive innovations. Maybe some low-information types (including some gun owners) will bite.

We should see this all as good news for our side. The grabbers are losing, and they know it.

chipcom
October 27, 2015, 01:47 PM
I agree...if one has paid their debt to society then one should have all rights and privileges restored...and if one cannot be trusted with those rights and privileges, they should not be walking the streets.

MechAg94
October 27, 2015, 02:00 PM
Looking at the article title, None of these are "new" ideas.

I agree that the gun banners know that they are either losing support or at least not growing support.

Berger.Fan222
October 27, 2015, 02:21 PM
Electronic triggers could make guns much more accurate.

Electronic do fail but they can also be extremely reliable in harsh situations

Bikes are starting to get electronic derraileurs.


Will be interesting to see how they survive the market
The market (not the government) should decide the usefulness of new design features.

Deanimator
October 27, 2015, 06:29 PM
Gun rights are state issues, rural America has a different agenda than city slickers
I say the same thing to the Sanders supporters that I said to the Giuliani supporters:

"If the 2nd Amendment means something different in Manhattan, NY than it does in Manhattan, KS, does the 13th mean something different in Cleveland, TN than it does in Cleveland, OH?"

txblackout
October 27, 2015, 09:32 PM
Electronic trigger for example could potentially more easily be reprogrammed to full auto :)

It would also still use all the same mechanism except for the bolt release. There probably should be a manual override as well.

I still think that for many types of guns (hunting rifles, benchrest etc) electronic will be the wave of the future.

Revolver people were anti semi auto because of lack of reliability...

steelerdude99
October 27, 2015, 10:30 PM
Electronic triggers could make guns much more accurate.

Electronic do fail but they can also be extremely reliable in harsh situations

Bikes are starting to get electronic derraileurs.

Will be interesting to see how they survive the market

Modern electronics last only a few years due to a problem known as “tin whiskers”. Environmentalists have fought hard to get rid of lead from just about everything we have. But with "electronics 60/40 solder", they went too far. This is a 60% tin, 40% lead alloy solder. Solder in electronics which does not contain lead will spout tiny growths made of the primary element, tin, which causes shorts; resulting in failed components. That fingerprint reader or proximity circuit will fail within a just a few years. Without a costly repair, you now own a paper weight.

In computer field, when the manufacturer wants to consider the product obsolete, they no longer offer parts or repairs or make them cost prohibitive. They want to sell the newest stuff; not fix the old stuff. Again with planed obsolescence … you own a paper weight. Guns should last decades or more; NOT 5 or so years.

chuck

PS: The anti-gun folks would call that a benefit. The guns self-expire.

Deanimator
October 28, 2015, 09:02 AM
Guns should last decades or more; NOT 5 or so years.
+10,000

I've got at least one perfectly serviceable firearm that was made before my grandmother was born, and I'm fifty seven.

P5 Guy
October 28, 2015, 11:40 AM
Modern electronics last only a few years due to a problem known as “tin whiskers”. Environmentalists have fought hard to get rid of lead from just about everything we have. But with "electronics 60/40 solder", they went too far. This is a 60% tin, 40% lead alloy solder. Solder in electronics which does not contain lead will spout tiny growths made of the primary element, tin, which causes shorts; resulting in failed components.

Yep found that out when I worked for a relay and electronics manufacturer. To reduce tin whiskering, specially in vacuum of space 95/5 solder was all they used. That is 95% lead.
:what:

Neo-Luddite
October 28, 2015, 01:16 PM
I understand the 'whiskering' problem also afflicts older/early solid state from the 50's/60's---especially early consumer items from Japan. I'm glad you mentioned this--I didn't know it was also a by-product of the 'lead free' movement and a current/future issue.

benEzra
October 28, 2015, 05:50 PM
Guns should last decades or more; NOT 5 or so years.
The oldest gun I own is 110 years old this year, and still works as well as the day it was made.

steelerdude99
October 28, 2015, 08:03 PM
I understand the 'whiskering' problem also afflicts older/early solid state from the 50's/60's---especially early consumer items from Japan. I'm glad you mentioned this--I didn't know it was also a by-product of the 'lead free' movement and a current/future issue.

It's definitely a push from the enviro-nazi's. The whiskering problem was for many years solved by addition of lead to solder ... Until the push for "lead free" started. Now, it's becoming a problem again. I even "understand" the desire for "lead free" for copper tubing used for water in the home. But when it comes to mission critical, there is the risk of failure at the worst time. I have even heard, but don't have a reference, that satellite failures have been blamed on "whiskering".

Additionally "Lead free" solder is harder to work with in electronics and on plumbing. I still have some 60/40 for electronics soldering. But no thick wire 50/50 for plumbing. Maybe I should be melting some bullets to make some. (????) :D. Maybe after admitting to to possession of "old solder", the EPA will raid me. As a matter of fact, less than 15 years ago in a computer lab on a military base, we had a inspection specifically looking for solder and soldering irons.

Back to guns: I speculate that any attempts to make a smart gun "a conventional gun" will be illegal once smart guns are common. Even if it was broken.

chuck

If you enjoyed reading about "NY Times Op-Ed "A New Way to Tackle Gun Deaths"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!