Is gun compromise possible?

[Dominus Atheos]

Like, it really is just a hobby for most gun enthusiasts, but not a very dangerous hobby, and getting rid of it wouldn't eliminate gun violence. Maybe we could try to work something out, like defining more dangerous guns that are most suitable for carrying out a mass shooting and be required to leave them at a licensed gun range under lock and key when not being used for hobbyist purposes. You coulds own a gun, check out your gun, use your gun, and then put your gun back when you are done.

Would everybody be able to agree to, if not that then some other compromise?

[Jub]

You know that most nations do some variation of this already, right? The US is unique in the rights afforded to gun owners especially when it comes to carrying them loaded and in public.

[Beowulf]

A: Where's the compromise? All I see from this is making things more difficult. Which is getting what you want, and not giving anything that gun owners want.

B. Not all hobbyist level shooting occurs at licensed gun ranges. Some of ranges are just a patch of land that the government says you can shoot in, without any sort of supervision. Some of them are people's private land. Some places don't have the concept of licensed gun ranges.

C. What if I want to shoot someplace other than where my gun is stored?

D. "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[Crazedwraith]

A: Where's the compromise? All I see from this is making things more difficult. Which is getting what you want, and not giving anything that gun owners want.

You have an odd definition of compromise. If Position A is 'no more restrictions' and Position B is 'Massive superheavy restrictions' then 'Moderate new restrictions' is a compromise between.

Now, you're right in the sense that threatening massive restrictions to get lighter ones in all stick no carrot.

But then the prospect of people not dying in mass shooting might be considered the carrot...

[The Romulan Republic]

Gun compromise ought to be possible with 80 or 90 percent of Americans, based on polling. Unfortunately, there's a hard core of about 10% who would take any regulation whatsoever as a casus belli. And about another thirty or forty percent who will be easily lead by the Republicans leadership and NRA into believing that any legislation put forward is a far more sweeping limitation of their rights than it really is, even if they'd agree with what the legislation is actually doing.

In other words, the electorate isn't the problem. The gun lobby/fifth columnists in the NRA are, and the politicians in their pockets. I keep hoping Mueller will find enough proof of the NRA funneling Russian money to put their entire leadership in prison. It would do the country so much good.

[Zwinmar]

What a lot of people do not seem to understand is that gun ownership in the US is a right assumed by the Constitution. Which means that the only real way to compromise on it would be a Constitutional Convention, anything else runs foul of the 2nd Amendment, which would open up a whole new set of problems. Instead of doing it the right/legal way, they keep attempting an end run around it.
One of the big ideological concerns is that they never stop with wanting new legislation, automatic weapons are already banned, have been since the 30's and they just keep tacking things onto it, many of which are completely nonsensical.

[Crazedwraith]

What a lot of people do not seem to understand is that gun ownership in the US is a right assumed by the Constitution. Which means that the only real way to compromise on it would be a Constitutional Convention, anything else runs foul of the 2nd Amendment, which would open up a whole new set of problems. Instead of doing it the right/legal way, they keep attempting an end run around it.
One of the big ideological concerns is that they never stop with wanting new legislation, automatic weapons are already banned, have been since the 30's and they just keep tacking things onto it, many of which are completely nonsensical.

I'm no expert (glances at location) but there has been plenty of gun control that has been deemed 2nd amendment compliant though?

And that's not even getting into the argument about how much the 'as part of a well-regulated militia' clause could be interpreted.

[The Romulan Republic]

What a lot of people do not seem to understand is that gun ownership in the US is a right assumed by the Constitution. Which means that the only real way to compromise on it would be a Constitutional Convention, anything else runs foul of the 2nd Amendment, which would open up a whole new set of problems. Instead of doing it the right/legal way, they keep attempting an end run around it.
One of the big ideological concerns is that they never stop with wanting new legislation, automatic weapons are already banned, have been since the 30's and they just keep tacking things onto it, many of which are completely nonsensical.

The Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms in the context of needing a "well-regulated militia". Nothing about unrestricted, unregulated possession of firearms. Quite the opposite, arguably. And the current interpretation that there is a virtually unlimited right to private gun ownership is a relatively recent judicial interpretation, IIRC.

In other words, the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. The specifics of that are largely a matter of interpretation, and the idea that any compromise, or any substantial restrictions on private ownership and use of firearms, would violate the Constitution and is illegal, is a very specific, far-Right interpretation of the Constitution.

Also, you are flat out wrong that changing it legally would require a constitutional convention. A constitutional convention means basically sitting down and rewriting the entire Constitution (which, if attempted now, would certainly end in the Trumpists trying to shove a Christo-Fascist state down our throats, probably followed by multiple secessions/uprisings from whichever side came out losers in the convention). All that changing or abolishing a single amendment would require, however, is... another amendment. We've never had a constitutional convention since the Constitution was written. We've had over twenty amendments, however.

[Lonestar]

Like, it really is just a hobby for most gun enthusiasts, but not a very dangerous hobby, and getting rid of it wouldn't eliminate gun violence. Maybe we could try to work something out, like defining more dangerous guns that are most suitable for carrying out a mass shooting and be required to leave them at a licensed gun range under lock and key when not being used for hobbyist purposes. You coulds own a gun, check out your gun, use your gun, and then put your gun back when you are done.

Would everybody be able to agree to, if not that then some other compromise?

You're describing gun rentals, not gun ownership. If you don't have it in your possession, you don't really own it. I'm opposed to off site storage, not the least because so called "especially dangerous guns" are also the best for home defense, and gun owners don't always go to the same range to shoot. Some go to other ranges, some go to private property, some own property, some shoot on public land.

Now, you keep on saying "well we can compromise". The history of gun control has been one of "compromise" where gunowners don't actually "get" anything. e.g. NFA carved out several firearms types, GCA took away rights without extending any, FOPA was a rare actual compromise, even if the Hughes Amendment was of dubious legality, and the Brady Bill "compromised" by exempting private sales, which are now called "loopholes".

Like, an actual compromise means you're giving something up too, not "I'm just not getting everything I want", which is how the anti-RKBA has interpreted compromise. It's doggone Vader saying "I am altering this deal, pray that I do not alter it any further".

What is it you have in mind, in terms of restoring to gun owners in the name of compromise?

[Lonestar]

You have an odd definition of compromise. If Position A is 'no more restrictions' and Position B is 'Massive superheavy restrictions' then 'Moderate new restrictions' is a compromise between.

Now, you're right in the sense that threatening massive restrictions to get lighter ones in all stick no carrot.

But then the prospect of people not dying in mass shooting might be considered the carrot...

Cops in the US shot and killed more Americans in 2018 than all school shootings since 1980. You're gonna have to do better than "only the heavy handed racist and classist state should own guns" while pulling the "won't someone think of the children" card.

To reiterate, what compromise are you offering gun owners other than "well we want to ban firearms but we can't so we're doing the best we can to restrict ownership". What are you offering? Calling past gun control efforts "compromise" is akin to Virginia trying to severely restrict abortion using death of a thousand cuts but saying "let's compromise and just require it's done in a hospital with at least 400 beds". It's bullshit and you know it, but magically it isn't so when it's your bugaboo.

[Crazedwraith]

The compromise here is not between gun owners and gun control, it's between gun rights and safety.

The idea gun owners are some kind of coddled class that need to be appeased is silly to me.

Eta: that hospital beds thing would be compromise under my definition, yes. Don't speak for me on what I would accept, I don't believe I've stated my opinion on it.

Regardless, Lonestar what do you think could be offered to gun owners to make them accept more gun control?

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't really understand the whole "what needs to be offered to gun owners" argument. I'm not even being facetious, like are you literally saying that gun owners should be given free candy or something in return for any gun control laws? Could you give an example of what you actually mean?

[Formless]

I don't really understand the whole "what needs to be offered to gun owners" argument. I'm not even being facetious, like are you literally saying that gun owners should be given free candy or something in return for any gun control laws? Could you give an example of what you actually mean?

No, he's saying that the question "can there be compromise on gun control" is inherently contradictory with "we want to create further restrictions on gun owners". If one side of an issue gets everything they want and another side of the issue gets nothing they want, that's not a compromise; and if it turns out that both sides of an issue cannot both get something of what they want, then indeed no compromise is possible.

I would think this much should be obvious.

Still, I can think of a few things gun control advocates could offer that would make gun owners happy to see. For instance, some of the stupider classes of NFA regulated firearms and firearm accessories could be done away with because they are bloody stupid. For instance, somehow its actually easier to obtain a suppressor for a gun in most European countries than it is in the US, because the US legislators were or seem to still be under the misapprehension that suppressors in real life work like they do in the movies. Furthermore, if they did it would arguably be a good thing, since the reason they are easy to obtain in Europe is to make hunting safer on the ears of hunters and hunting dogs, and lower noise pollution in forests while they are at it. Similar story goes for short barreled rifles and shotguns. Up in Canada you can buy rifles and shotguns that have a barrel under 16 inches right out of the factory or a pistol with a stock on it (you aren't allowed to modify a rifle by cutting the barrel, however). But here you have to pay a 200$ tax stamp, which is literally an artifact of when the NFA was being written and the plan was to tax the ownership of pistols. That got taken off the law in order to get the NFA passed, but not the short barreled rifle and shotgun classes even though it no longer served a purpose anymore. And its especially annoying because these days you can buy AR15 pistols that have "arm braces" where the stock goes and its technically not a rifle, showing the utter futility of the classification.

You know, that kind of thing.

[The Romulan Republic]

The kind of gun owners who object to any regulation (and its mostly the NRA/gun lobby, not typical gun owners) are not going to be placated, because their whole argument is premised on their guns being an inalienable right and any attempt to restrict them, however small, being an attempt to institute dictatorship. For them, defending their guns is an existential struggle.

[TimothyC]

The kind of gun owners who object to any regulation (and its mostly the NRA/gun lobby, not typical gun owners) are not going to be placated, because their whole argument is premised on their guns being an inalienable right and any attempt to restrict them, however small, being an attempt to institute dictatorship. For them, defending their guns is an existential struggle.

TRR, you don't have to win those people, but you have to make a good faith effort (and be seen making a good faith effort) to reach a common ground with pro-RKBA individuals, which is something that a lot of people on both sides have ignored.

Gun nuts and gun grabbers: stop banging your head against the wall. It’s time to get results.
The gun debate: 5% gun nuts, 5% gun grabbers, and 300 million people who just want to move forward.

But we can’t move forward. Really can’t. Metaphysical can’t. Unstoppable-force-versus-immovable-object can’t. We’re stuck and that’s that.

The way we got here is simple: each side is trying to destroy the other. You win wars by force. And culture wars are no different. Each side fires their volleys, back and forth.

The NRA allied itself to all kinds of unrelated hot-button issues. New York State passed a 2013 gun ban that achieved 4% compliance and had effects like a father of three facing 15 years in prison for a pistol grip. The NRA made ads that alienated millions of people and ranted absurdly about “the clenched fist of truth”. Massachusetts banned bump stocks and sent a letter to every gun owner in the state saying, “Turn in your bump stocks by February 1, 2018 or face life in prison.”

Round it goes. The gun controllers feel like the gun rights crowd will never give an inch. The gun rights crowd feels personally threatened — “If that father of three is facing 15 years for a pistol grip, I could be next.” And both sides just dig in deeper.

Then we try rational arguments and fire off statistics, but the truth is nobody cares. Each side has their arguments, each side has their stats, and none of it ever moves the needle. You convince a few people, they convince a few people. It’s a wash.

So then each side gives up on persuasion and tries to ram their laws through. But no matter which side you’re on, the other side is strong enough to block your laws. Sure, you win some state-level battles here and there. But that only hardens the opposition, and they win their share of state-level battles too.

Both sides sell their donors the same pipe dream: “We’re going to slowly change minds. Raise money, pass state-level laws, run PR campaigns, support good politicians. And one day, finally, we’ll get 60 votes in the Senate to pass our dream federal gun law.” If you understand only one thing about American gun politics, understand this: that will never happen.

For decades we’ve pretended not to know that. But these scorched earth tactics aren’t working, and worse, they’re tearing the country apart. Kids get murdered and we’re too busy grabbing each other by the throat to even grieve, let alone to show the grace and love that the greatest among us model. It’s nauseating.

It is high time for a fresh approach.

The other side isn’t powerful enough to pass their laws, but they are powerful enough to stop you from passing yours. So if we accept the truth, that we will never agree, we have to ask a new question: how can we move forward even while everybody still disagrees? How can we write a law that neither side wants to block? The answer is going to test whether you’re honestly willing to do what it takes to fix this stalemate.

People in this debate often use the word “compromise”. But what they usually mean is, “Fine, let’s compromise: we’ll do none of what you want and only half of what I want.” Neither side is dumb enough to fall for that. An honest path forward means something very different: each side gives some things, and each side gets some things.

So let’s take the honest path, which is the only one that has any chance of happening. A path that advances gun rights and addresses people’s concerns about guns in the wrong hands. I've talked to dozens of people about this in person, and hundreds online. They ranged from people who would literally join a civil war against gun control, to people who want a flat-out ban on gun ownership, to every shade in between. Almost every one of them said they’d support this proposal in a heartbeat. The entire political spectrum is up for this.

Now it’s time to see if the politicians and each side’s big lobbying groups are up for it. It’s fun to bluster and preach to your side. But when the time comes to actually do something, when there is a real path forward on the table, that’s the true test. Your pressure on the politicians and lobbying groups will determine what they do next.

The Specifics of the Path

For the gun control side

1. Swiss-style universal background checks:
   Yup, the big enchilada. Gun rights people often worry that UBCs will turn into the government tracking (and later confiscating) everybody’s guns, so this system staves off those fears while still making absolutely sure that every gun buyer is checked. It’s modeled closely on Switzerland’s system. Here’s how it works:
   1. Any gun buyer can log into the NICS background check system and enter their personal information. The system gives them an ID number that expires in 1 week. (For reference here is ATF Form 4473, the background check form.)
   2. The buyer can then buy firearms from any legal seller. They have to meet face-to-face (or ship the gun to a licensed dealer for the buyer to do the check with), and the buyer shows the ID number. The seller enters that number and the buyer’s identification info into the NICS system, and the system returns just one word: “approved” or “denied”. If the check is approved, they can proceed with the sale.
   3. The system doesn’t collect any information at all on the items being sold/transferred (type, make, model, quantity, etc.) — its only job is to run a comprehensive check on whether the buyer is legally allowed to purchase firearms. After one week, when the ID number expires, the system doesn’t retain any records. (That information is already archived for 20 years on the Form 4473 for all gun shop sales, and that would stay the same.) The system collects no information about the seller, as it’s designed to work perfectly without knowing the seller’s identity.
   4. Transfers between family members are exempt. Non-commercial firearm loans of up to 14 days are also exempt — this is just to accommodate a situation where, say, two people are on a backcountry hunting trip and one needs to lend the other a gun during the trip. They need some way to do that without committing a felony.
2. Certain kinds of red flag laws:
   These laws allow a government to temporarily seize weapons from people who a court finds are plotting a violent act. These laws can be prone to abuse if written in a punitive, overly broad way (which has happened in a number of states), but well-written ones would likely have prevented some of the horrible mass shootings we’ve seen. Congress doesn’t have the power to create federal red flag laws, but it can pass a law that incentivizes states to create their own. The columnist David French wrote an excellent outline of what a good law looks like:

   1. It should limit those who have standing to seek the order to a narrowly defined class of people (close relatives, those living with the respondent);
   2. It should require petitioners to come forward with clear, convincing, admissible evidence that the respondent is a significant danger to himself or others;
   3. It should grant the respondent an opportunity to contest the claims against him;
   4. In the event of an emergency, ex parte order (an order granted before the respondent can contest the claims), a full hearing should be scheduled quickly — preferably within 72 hours; and
   5. The order should lapse after a defined period of time unless petitioners can come forward with clear and convincing evidence that it should remain in place.

   Narrowly tailored, abuse-proof red flag laws cover a gap that the mental health system does not. The reality is that the focus on “mental health” does two catastrophic things:
   1. It shames and stigmatizes people with psychiatric diseases, which makes them less likely to seek the very treatment they need.
   2. It doesn’t even address the problem. Very few people with mental illness will ever become violent, and most mass shooters don’t actually have any diagnosable mental illness. But most would-be killers do throw up exactly the kinds of red flags that a specifically designed law will catch.
3. Classify bumpstocks as machine guns, banning them from sale:
   The purchase of new machine guns has been banned in the US since May 1986. The way the law defines “machine gun” is very specific, and it doesn’t cover bump stocks. Therefore bump stocks can’t legally be banned by executive action. (The ATF has been ordered by the Attorney General to ban them anyway, but that rule is unlikely to survive a challenge in court.) Congress will have to pass a law that classifies bump stocks as machine guns. Because the ATF specifically approved bump stocks for sale in 2010, those people who bought one in good faith while it was legal should be allowed to register their bump stock with the ATF, subject to the same strict regulations as a machine gun, or to particpiate in a buyback program.

For the gun rights side

1. Put silencers in the same legal category as handguns, not grenade launchers:
   Because of an 84-year-old law (the National Firearms Act, or NFA), silencers (also called suppressors or mufflers) are currently in the same legal category as grenade launchers. To buy one, you pay a $200 tax to the ATF, and then you wait. Currently the average wait time is 7 months. Many people incorrectly believe that the long wait is for some kind of secret James Bond background check that takes 7 months to do. It’s not; silencers are subject to the exact same background check as all firearms are. The 7-month wait is literally just for the ATF to work through its paperwork backlog. Also, if you loan your silencer to a family member who’s going on a hunting trip, that loan is a felony punishable by 10 years in federal prison. To stay out of jail, you’d have to do the $200 tax + 7-month wait again just to loan the silencer to your dad. Then when he gives it back to you? $200 tax + 7-month wait again.
   
   o what do silencers do? Well, apart from an explosion or a rocket launch, a gunshot is quite simply the loudest sound in the human world. It is deafeningly, dangerously loud, around 165 debicels. Decibels are a logarithmic scale, so every 10 dB is 2x as loud. A jackhammer is 115 dB. A jet airplane taking off 25 yards away is 130 dB. The OSHA standard for sound that will instantly damage your hearing is 140 dB. Guns are another 4-6x louder than that OSHA cutoff.
   
   A silencer lowers a gunshot to about 130 dB. Contrary to what you see in movies, that’s still 3x louder than a jackhammer. Extremely loud, but just quiet enough to not instantly damage your hearing. Gunshot detection systems like ShotSpotter still pick up silenced gunshots, because they listen for sound signature in addition to volume. Silencers are the only way to avoid hearing damage in situations where there’s no chance to put on hearing protection — that's why in countries like Norway and New Zealand, silencers are completely unregulated and it’s considered unsafe to hunt without one.
   
   This proposal is much more modest than that: simply change silencers from a Title II firearm to a Title I firearm. Instead of putting them in the same legal category as grenade launchers, put them in the same category as handguns — available to adults who pass a NICS background check, denied to those who don’t.
2. Repeal Depression-era barrel length laws:
   Because of the same 1934 law that affects silencers (the National Firearms Act, or NFA), rifles and shotguns in the US must have a minimum barrel length (16" and 18", respectively). So you can go to the store, pass a background check, and buy a rifle with a 16" barrel. But possessing that same exact rifle with a 15" barrel is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in federal prison.
   
   As an illustration of how arbitrary that is, the well-meaning gun owner who recently went on Facebook and cut his gun in half unknowingly broke this law — his video shows him red-handed doing what the NFA describes as “illegally manufacturing a short-barreled rifle”. For the harmless act in that video, he can be jailed for 10 years. It’s only legal to cut your barrel below NFA length if you go through the $200 tax + 7-month wait process described in the silencer section above. Same process for all NFA items.
   
   Contrary to popular belief, the barrel length law has nothing to do with dangerousness; the shorter the barrel on a rifle or shotgun, the less powerful and less accurate it is. The law is actually an interesting relic of how the NFA came to be. The first draft of the NFA included all handguns — in 1934 the $200 tax was equivalent to $3700 today, and it was designed to effectively ban all concealable weapons.
   
   The bill’s writers added the barrel length rules to stop people from buying a rifle, cutting down the barrel and the stock to make it almost as short as a handgun, and then saying, “It’s a rifle, not a handgun.” There was only one problem: there was no political support to include handguns in the NFA. The law wouldn’t pass in that form. So the writers removed handguns from the NFA, but they never removed the barrel length rules that were only there to close the handgun loophole. That is why today a 16” barrel is fine while a 15” barrel is 10 years in federal prison.
   
   This is a proposal to remove the barrel length rules from the NFA, moving those guns from Title II to Title I. Instead of putting them in the same category as grenade launchers, common sense dictates treating them like handguns (which are far more concealable) — available to adults who pass the NICS background check, denied to those who don’t.
3. Concealed carry permit reciprocity that respectful of state law:
   Carry laws vary dramatically from state to state. What’s legal in one state might be a felony just over the border. That’s how we get cases like that of Shaneen Allen, a Pennsylvanian who was pulled over while driving in New Jersey. She was carrying a gun with her Pennsylvania permit, which New Jersey does not recognize. As a result, the New Jersey police charged her with a felony that carries a three-year mandatory minimum sentence. Only a pardon from the governor saved her, and that was after the single mother of two had already spent 48 days in jail. Pardons are very rare. Hundreds like Shaneen across the country never get one. And for every person that gets caught, there are likely dozens who are similarly at risk but just haven’t been pulled over.
   
   State-level and local-level carry laws can be so complicated, and interact in such unpredictable ways, that there are lawyers who base their entire practice on advising people on these issues. There are valid state-rights concerns here about some expansive reciprocity law that nullifies all state and local carry laws. That’s not what this is. This proposal is for a narrowly-tailored reciprocity law that simply aims to protect the Shaneen Allens of the world from being accidentally ensnared.
   
   To be covered by the law, a person would need to have a legal carry permit from their home state and be traveling temporarily in a different state. Nonresident permits would not qualify (e.g. a New York resident wouldn’t be able to use a Utah nonresident permit to carry in New York). Being in a different state not temporarily (for example spending months at your vacation house) would also not qualify.

For everybody
Mass shootings are a media contagion. The press can help stop it with the same anti-copycat guidelines they already use for suicides.

Even amidst the fractal squabbling that poisons this whole debate, there is one idea that nearly everybody agrees on: mass shootings are a media contagion. There’s a large body of research on the subject, and it indicates that saturation media coverage of these horrors likely causes additional mass shootings.

Let’s begin with the evidence on suicide reporting, which is subject to similar contagion effcts. (All bold emphasis below is mine.)

This paper reports a field experiment concerning mass-media and suicide. After the implementation of the subway system in Vienna in 1978, it became increasingly acceptable as means to commit suicide, with the suicide rates showing a sharp increase. This and the fact that the mass-media reported about these events in a very dramatic way, lead to the formation of a study-group of the Austrian Association for Suicide Prevention (ÖVSKK), which developed media guidelines and launched a media campaign in mid-1987. Subsequently, the media reports changed markedly and the number of subway-suicides and -attempts dropped more than 80% from the first to the second half of 1987, remaining at a rather low level since.

Avoiding sensational coverage of suicides can prevent copycat suicides, a new federally endorsed guide for the media says. US Surgeon General David Satcher, along with academics and suicide experts today issued recommendations calling on the media not to give graphic details about suicides, and not to portray them as heroic or romantic or present them as inexplicable acts of healthy people.

Given those very compelling results, researchers have applied the same analytical techniques to the study of mass shootings.

If the mass media and social media enthusiasts make a pact to no longer share, reproduce, or re-tweet the names, faces, detailed histories, or long-winded statements of killers, we could see a dramatic reduction in mass shootings in the span of one to two years. Even conservatively, if the calculations of contagion modelers are correct, we should see at least a one third reduction in shootings if the contagion is removed. Given the profile of mass shooters, we believe levels of mass murder could return to a pre-1970s rate, where it becomes a truly aberrant event that although not eradicated, is no longer a common option that goes through the mind of every bullied, depressed, isolated, somewhat narcissistic man.

We need to be thinking ahead to the mass-shooters-in-waiting — the copycats who will use the Las Vegas murders as a template for their own horrific schemes. And we have good reason to believe that the more publicity the Las Vegas shooter garners, the greater the motivation of copycats to “dethrone” him with the next mass shooting. (The reader will note that I do not use the Las Vegas shooter’s name in this piece).

Findings indicate that the mass killers received approximately $75 million in media coverage value, and that for extended periods following their attacks they received more coverage than professional athletes and only slightly less than television and film stars. In addition, during their attack months, some mass killers received more highly valued coverage than some of the most famous American celebrities, including Kim Kardashian, Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, Johnny Depp, and Jennifer Aniston. Finally, most mass killers received more coverage from newspapers and broadcast/cable news than the public interest they generated through online searches and Twitter seems to warrant. Unfortunately, this media attention constitutes free advertising for mass killers that may increase the likelihood of copycats.

Researchers at Arizona State University analyzed news reports of gun-related incidents from 1997 to 2013. They hypothesized that the rampages did not occur randomly over time but instead were clustered in patterns. The investigators applied a mathematical model and found that shootings that resulted in at least four deaths launched a period of contagion, marked by a heightened likelihood of more bloodshed, lasting an average of 13 days. Roughly 20 to 30 percent of all such violence took place in these windows.

What [Columbine killers’ names] are doing is laying out a script so precise that it makes it possible for kids with really really high thresholds to join in …. They’re making this particular “riot” more accessible.

[Name of a thwarted school shooter] is not a psychpath. He’s a nerd. And 40 years ago he’d be playing with his chemistry set in the basement and dreaming of being an astronaut. Because that was the available cultural narrative of that moment…. Now he’s dreaming of blowing up schools. He did not come up with that himself. He got it from the society of which he’s a part, and we’re responsible for that.

The perverse truth is that this senselessness is just the point of mass shootings: It is the means by which the perpetrator seeks to make us feel his hatred. Like terrorists, mass shooters can be seen, in a limited sense, as rational actors, who know that if they follow the right steps they will produce the desired effect in the public consciousness.

Part of this calculus of evil is competition. [Dr. Paul Mullen] spoke to a perpetrator who “gleefully admitted that he was ‘going for the record’”.

Aside from the wealth of qualitative evidence for imitation in massacre killings, there are also some hard numbers. A 1999 study by Dr. Mullen and others in the Archives of Suicide Research suggested that a 10-year outbreak of mass homicides had occurred in clusters rather than randomly. This effect was also found in a 2002 study by a group of German psychiatrists who examined 132 attempted rampage killings world-wide. There is a growing consensus among researchers that, whether or not the perpetrators are fully aware of it, they are following what has become a ready-made, free-floating template for young men to resolve their rage and express their sense of personal grandiosity.

My aim here is not to blame the media: such events have undeniable news value, and there is intense public interest in uncovering their details. But it's important to recognize that such incidents are not mono-causal, and sensational news coverage is, increasingly, part of the mix of events that contributes to these rampages.

Playing right into the memetic contagion, CNN has been heavily promoting a “fact sheet” it made, which is literally a grotesque mass murder scoreboard. Fox News, the New York Times, Breitbart, MSNBC, take your pick, nearly every big news organization feeds this contagion.

All responsible press organizations should adopt the following set of guidelines by professor Adam Lankford, variations of which are echoed, according to a report from Vox, by the FBI, researchers at Texas State University, The I Love U Guys Foundation, and other groups across the country.

1. Don’t name the perpetrator.
2. Don’t use photos or likenesses of the perpetrator.
3. Stop using the names, photos, or likenesses of past perpetrators.
4. Report everything else about these crimes in as much detail as desired.

Now, This isn't where I'd start negotiations from - I'd likely start my negotiating position with something like a repeal of the Hughes Amendment (why? Because it's something I'm for happening, and it gives the pro-RKBA side something to give up so that the anti-RKBA side can feel that they got something out of it), but the point would be for honest people to have an honest and good faith discussion, which can't happen when both sides won't give the other any room.

[Dominus Atheos]

I don't really understand the whole "what needs to be offered to gun owners" argument. I'm not even being facetious, like are you literally saying that gun owners should be given free candy or something in return for any gun control laws? Could you give an example of what you actually mean?

They don't feel that there should any new gun control laws at all, so they don't have to agree to anything at all. It's basically sticking their heads in the sand and ignoring the clear direction the country is going: Americans aren't going to stand for too many more school shootings before they starting "gun grabbing".

It would be a really good idea to start thinking "what do I want to do with my guns, and how can we allow those things while still preventing mass shootings with these guns that everybody else is so scared of."

Of course, if the answer to the first part of the question is "hug my guns tightly and stroke them lovingly while imagining how I could totally reenact Red Dawn if the gubmint ever tries to confiscate my guns and that I definitely don't have a small penis" then compromise may be impossible.

[Zixinus]

Americans are going to stand by more school shootings, because that's what they already do. The USA has simply accepted school shootings and mass shootings mostly as a fact of life. There is always outcry, yes, and it always dies down eventually until the next one.

Gun control only ever comes up when there is a media sensation about a shooting. Then it dies down. There are few persistent lobbysists vs pro-gun lobbysists, who continue to entrench itself. It is one of the main reasons why gun control has been mostly a failure.

[Highlord Laan]

Gun compromise ought to be possible with 80 or 90 percent of Americans, based on polling. Unfortunately, there's a hard core of about 10% who would take any regulation whatsoever as a casus belli. And about another thirty or forty percent who will be easily lead by the Republicans leadership and NRA into believing that any legislation put forward is a far more sweeping limitation of their rights than it really is, even if they'd agree with what the legislation is actually doing.

In other words, the electorate isn't the problem. The gun lobby/fifth columnists in the NRA are, and the politicians in their pockets. I keep hoping Mueller will find enough proof of the NRA funneling Russian money to put their entire leadership in prison. It would do the country so much good.

Lets not forget the people that would like nothing more than a total ban and criminalization of gun ownership, and use every advance, no matter how sane and well implemented, as a step towards that, shall we?

I'm part of the 90% you mentioned. I'm all for stricter laws and better controls. Too bad I know exactly the kind of people behind the curtain on the other side of the argument.

[The Romulan Republic]

Gun compromise ought to be possible with 80 or 90 percent of Americans, based on polling. Unfortunately, there's a hard core of about 10% who would take any regulation whatsoever as a casus belli. And about another thirty or forty percent who will be easily lead by the Republicans leadership and NRA into believing that any legislation put forward is a far more sweeping limitation of their rights than it really is, even if they'd agree with what the legislation is actually doing.

In other words, the electorate isn't the problem. The gun lobby/fifth columnists in the NRA are, and the politicians in their pockets. I keep hoping Mueller will find enough proof of the NRA funneling Russian money to put their entire leadership in prison. It would do the country so much good.

Lets not forget the people that would like nothing more than a total ban and criminalization of gun ownership, and use every advance, no matter how sane and well implemented, as a step towards that, shall we?

I'm part of the 90% you mentioned. I'm all for stricter laws and better controls. Too bad I know exactly the kind of people behind the curtain on the other side of the argument

I don't talk about those people very much because they are probably far fewer, and certainly have far less power, than the Right makes them out to be. They're an inflated threat that already gets more attention than they warrant. No one serious is promoting a total ban on private gun ownership, much less in a position to try to make it happen.

[MKSheppard]

Maybe we could try to work something out, like defining more dangerous guns that are most suitable for carrying out a mass shooting and be required to leave them at a licensed gun range under lock and key when not being used for hobbyist purposes. You coulds own a gun, check out your gun, use your gun, and then put your gun back when you are done.

Would everybody be able to agree to, if not that then some other compromise?

Supreme Court has ruled that you can't do that bullshit with handguns

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_ ... _v._Heller

Handguns are responsible for like 95% of all murders in maryland and were used in some of the most prolific mass shootings, such as:

Fort Hood Shooting (2009) in which shooter used a FN Five Seven to kill 14 and wound 32

Virginia Tech Shooting in which shooter used a Glock 19 (9mm) and Walther P22 (22 LR) to kill 32 and wound 17.

So, nope.

[MKSheppard]

Now, you keep on saying "well we can compromise". The history of gun control has been one of "compromise" where gunowners don't actually "get" anything. e.g. NFA carved out several firearms types, GCA took away rights without extending any, FOPA was a rare actual compromise, even if the Hughes Amendment was of dubious legality, and the Brady Bill "compromised" by exempting private sales, which are now called "loopholes".

Like, an actual compromise means you're giving something up too, not "I'm just not getting everything I want", which is how the anti-RKBA has interpreted compromise. It's doggone Vader saying "I am altering this deal, pray that I do not alter it any further".

Speaking of FOPA, gun owners "compromised" away long term affordable automatic weapons:

(you can still buy Machine guns, but only those made before 1986, so that means limited supply that shrinks each year due to accidents, and prices go up up as an increasing population wants em -- basically, a slow motion rolling ban -- you can't affordably buy a M1918 BAR if it costs $42,000 -- the Hughes amendment was no such compromise. It was a poison pill snuck in by voice vote at the last minute to try and torpedo the bill)

in exchange for:

The ability to buy long guns out of state again -- as a Maryland resident I can now buy in Virginia or Pennsylvania; or hell, in California if I was there.

The ability to have ammunition shipped to me via mail again -- I can go online and order 1,000 rounds of cheap 4.6mm and have it shipped to my door via UPS.

Eliminating the requirement for pistol ammunition to be "registered" at the point of purchase in a "bound book" of sales. The original gun control act of 1968 had rifle ammunition also in the "bound book" of ammo sales. That was removed a few years later because of the fudd outcry.

Gaining lawful transportation protections -- basically, if you are driving from state A to State B and passing through states C and D; states C and D can't do shit to you if your weapons are illegal to own in states C and D, but legal in States A and B.

So.............."compromise"........

New Jersey has long ignored FOPA's lawful transportation protections; basically if you like your guns, avoid that state.

Maryland Democrats are trying to pass a bill for long guns (rifles and shotguns) that initially started out with the purchase of one requiring a "Long Gun QualificatioN License" issued by the Maryland State Police to purchase one in MD; making it extremely difficult for out of state visitors to MD to purchase a long gun, unless they planned well in advance to acquire a LGQL. The LGQL portion was shot down by vigorious protests; but they are trying to keep that bill going as a zombie bill eliminating private sales of long guns in maryland.

California passed a bill saying ammunition sales starting in 2019 must be face to face (phsyically present) between a FFL or an "ammunition licensee", and that a background check by the CA DOJ must be conducted as well (At a cost of $1 for the background check).

This means that Ammo in CA must be shipped specifically to a FFL or Ammuntion Vendor (https://palmettostatearmory.com/califor ... ying-guide), where a background check is done.

So.....

With that shining example of "compromise", the 1986 FOPA, where we "gave up" machine guns (in the long term), in exchange for that bunch of stuff....only to see that taken away, the fuck should we compromise anymore?

The well has been so poisoned by now that it's carcinogenic.

[MKSheppard]

I don't talk about those people very much because they are probably far fewer, and certainly have far less power, than the Right makes them out to be. They're an inflated threat that already gets more attention than they warrant. No one serious is promoting a total ban on private gun ownership, much less in a position to try to make it happen.

Your statement

No one serious is promoting a total ban on private gun ownership, much less in a position to try to make it happen.

is proven false by

A FAREWELL TO ARMS
The Solution to Gun Violence in America
Maryland Attorney General’s Special Report
J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General
October 20, 1999

(http://alternatewars.com/Politics/Firea ... o_Arms.pdf)

For those of you who don't know MD politics, Curran was Maryland's Attorney General from 1987-2007 before he retired. The report was available for a long time on the Maryland State AG's website, before being eventually taken down. This planning paper pretty much has everything that’s been proposed over the years to stop “gun violence” from intensive background checks to suing the manufacturers and dealers into oblivion.

Quoth the report:

The common justification for widespread civilian gun ownership is two-fold: the hunting and shooting sports, and self-defense. Neither provides justification for the millions of handguns circulating in our neighborhoods. Hunters and sports shooters do not generally use handguns, and the notion that we are safer with guns in our homes to defend ourselves is false. Study after study shows that guns are rarely used successfully in self-defense, and the chance of a family member dying from a firearm-related injury is far greater in homes with guns.

For me, therefore, the answer is easy. I have added up the costs, and they outweigh the benefits. As a grandfather, I am ready to say enough children have died. In short, I believe that we should no longer allow unrestricted handgun ownership. More effective laws and vigilant enforcement can reduce criminal firearm injury. Increased safety and child-proofing features on handguns can prevent unintentional shootings. Personalized guns can prevent teen suicides and injury from stolen guns. Yet even all these measures would still leave untouched thousands of preventable handgun injuries and deaths every year. We would still be left mourning the multitude of deaths and disabling injury which result from the adult suicide attempts and domestic assaults which occur in homes across America every day.

Thus, our public policy goal should be to restrict the sale and possession of all handguns to those who can demonstrate a legitimate law enforcement purpose or can guarantee that the use of such guns will be limited to participation in a regulated sporting activity. Handgun ownership that advances reasonable law enforcement purposes must be permitted. Individuals with a professional need to have a licensed gun - law enforcement officers, gun collectors, some business owners and certain other professional groups - will continue to keep handguns on business premises or for use on the job. The rest of us, however, must give them up. The cost has simply become too great.

We must begin to work toward this goal immediately. We must institute a plan that will move us to the point where people are ready to accept the end to unrestricted private handgun ownership. This plan must reflect the several dimensions of gun violence, so that it begins to reduce specific categories of firearm deaths and injuries.

Thus, I recommend the following three-step plan to make Maryland the first state in the country to close the door on the widespread handgun ownership that has contributed to so much preventable tragedy and suffering.

Buried in this 67 page document is this lede:

1. Firearm Fingerprint Licensing and Training:

We should impose at least the same requirements on people wishing to own and operate firearms as we do on those wishing to own and operate motor vehicles. Even more to the point, we already require anyone wishing to carry a concealed firearm for protection to obtain a permit. The requirements for this permit are considerably more stringent than those necessary to pass a background check when buying a gun. In addition to never having been convicted of a felony, a person must be found, on the basis of an investigation, not to have exhibited a “propensity for violence or instability which may reasonably render his possession of a handgun a danger to himself or other law-abiding persons.” The applicant must also provide fingerprint identification and satisfactory evidence of being qualified and trained in the use of handguns.

There is no reason why the same should not be required of people wishing to own handguns. Is it no less important for a person with a handgun under his mattress not to have a “propensity for violence” than it is for a person carrying the gun to work? Why should we allow people to own handguns without knowing how to operate them safely when we do not allow the same for people driving cars? We should end this nonsensical paradox and require anyone buying a gun to obtain a fingerprint license.

It took them fourteen years, but they eventually got that, with the Maryland Handgun Qualification License (HQL) in the 2013 Firearm Safety Bill that was passed after the Newton Shootings; which in addition to banning "assault weapons", also created the HQL.

Not surprisingly, the HQL has done shit to stop the flow of murders in Bodymore.

Baltimore Sun report on 2017 Gun Trace

2,871 handguns used in crimes in MD were bought in MD.
533 from VA
309 from PA.

Best part is, PA has handgun registration -- no private sales of handguns, everything has to go through a FFL and the FFL has to fill out a form that is sent to the PA State Police.

Yet, PA continues to provide crime handguns to MD.

So, 2 out of the top 3 sources of handguns in MD are 100% handgun registration states (MD and PA).

[Lonestar]

Regardless, Lonestar what do you think could be offered to gun owners to make them accept more gun control?

You have a strange idea of a compromise when you think that "well we are putting negatives on what you want and you are getting no positives out of it" is a "compromise". I really have no idea where to being if you thing a two column score board where the home team is 0 but the visitor is 1 instead of 2...but has also won every other game this season by 1 or 2 points represents a compromise.

Anyway, I would do universal background checks in exchange for nationwide carry, for example. I would do GVROs removal of silencers from the NFA.

Honestly, there's a lot of restrictions I agree with in principle but I oppose in practice because the anti-RKBA side has shown itself to simply use it for step one of helping things along further down the road. Heck, you only need to look at every UBC proposal that comes down the pike in the US to see it. No one proposes anything other than something that leads to a individual gun registry, and given that I can think of twice since the 90s when a registry was used for confiscation later, I am 100% opposed to it.

And you know what? People shrug their shoulders and go "YEP" when folks like Joe Biden go "well we can't do anything about straw purchases". People ignore that something like 1% of gun stores account for 6 in 10 gun crime traces. No one goes "hmm maybe the cops go pay the guy a visit" if a prohibited person trips the NICS background check(Oregon is currently the only state that does this, IIRC).

Fuck, we KNOW economic anxiety issues work in deep red states(think recent initiatives like MW increases in MO and Ark, decriminalization of MJ, even as Dem politicians did poorly in those places), stuff targeting the lowering of the Gini would be even better for reducing violent crime.

Like, this is the sort of low hanging fruit we should be going after, but instead every time, like clockwork, it's "why don't you gun owners just COMPROMISE and cede more rights while not get any back?". Why would I believe that you(the generic you) are sincere about safety when you aren't screaming about stuff that should be easy, and instead are saying "lol turn in your 15 round mag you ammo sexual"?

Oh right, because it's because if you aren't someone who values the RKBA, writing a law to really stick it to the Other is the "easy" answer in your mind.

[MKSheppard]

People ignore that something like 1% of gun stores account for 6 in 10 gun crime traces.

Irrevelant. These stores properly filled out the 4473s and received a go ahead from NICS to proceed with the sale.

No one goes "hmm maybe the cops go pay the guy a visit" if a prohibited person trips the NICS background check(Oregon is currently the only state that does this, IIRC).

Sure hope your name doesn't end with "Smith", "Garcia", "Rodriguez", "Hernadez", "Martinez" or "Johnson"; as you likely can get tripped up by shitbag 5 states across from you with the same name and DOB tripping you into an initial "disproved", forcing you to get a UPIN to make NICS understand that you aren't shitbag 21 through shitbag 54.

[Lonestar]

Irrevelant. These stores properly filled out the 4473s and received a go ahead from NICS to proceed with the sale.

No it isn't. Gun store employees are def able to deny a sale on the basis of a gut feeling, and if a small set of gun stores are acting as pipelines then it stretches the bounds of imagination they don't know what they are engaging in.

Sure hope your name doesn't end with "Smith", "Garcia", "Rodriguez", "Hernadez", "Martinez" or "Johnson"; as you likely can get tripped up by shitbag 5 states across from you with the same name and DOB tripping you into an initial "disproved", forcing you to get a UPIN to make NICS understand that you aren't shitbag 21 through shitbag 54.

I get held up every time and my last name isn't especially common, once I had a 10/22 hold for 3 days. It's probably because my name is the same as that of a journalist for a lefty newsppaer in Austin, right down to him having the same gmail address off by one charecter(guess who has gotten emails from Julian Castro's campaign staff in the last few months).

So, I know how it feels. Put in your SSN and be done with it.

But in VA, the VSP does the check. Dipshit with the same name but not the same SSN or address seems to be a fairly low, easily cleared threshold.