Can we please just admit that maybe gun control is a good idea finally?

The assault weapon bans on the 1990s as passed was pretty useless, but that doesn't mean a properly designed set of restrictions around magazines, etc. around lethality reduction would be pointless.

That's true, but to me it sounds an awful lot like "we're going to make an example out of you", which again seems unfair to me. If you believe that punishment should be proportionate to the moral failing and, perhaps, the background of the offender, then it is hard to accept a disproportionate sentence even if that sentence has a socially useful outcome.

Watch out for unintended consequences. If you make attempted murder and murder have the same penalty, you get stuff like robberies where people will make damn sure that if they wound someone they definitively kill them before they run off. Less witnesses.

I think the reasoning is more of a rough "well if you killed someone you were doing it worse" approach. Kind of like how they fine you based on how much you were going above the speed limit.

It's simply a realistic approach to "how do we get across the point that both this in general is bad, and this in specific as an outcome is bad"

In our case, it's two laws. One, you drove drunk which is a flat penalty. Two, you killed someone/caused damage, which is a further charge. It's manslaughter because you killed someone without actually meaning to. But you still killed them. This is the same as if you hit two parked cars, you'd owe damages as an additional crime incurred.

We don't punish drunk drivers differently, they all get roughly the same sentence guidelines. It's just that we don't allow "I was drunk" as a pass for any further crimes committed. In the case of manslaughter, you killed someone and are a proven danger to society. Jail time and some rehabilitation (in an ideal country, not the US :P ) and you're back out. It wasn't on purpose, so far lower punishment than if you went "Ima run that bitch over" and then did it.

You may have committed the same moral failing as any other drunk driver and happened to hit someone, but this doesn't change the fact that while doing that same moral failing, you caused even more external harm.

My solution would be to punish all drunk drivers the same, because they all have done the same punishment-worthy act. This might mean punishing people who would otherwise only get a slap on the wrist. But if we aren't willing to punish those people, what are we really saying about the harm of drunk driving?

How do you handle property damage in that case, if we're not allowed to further punish drunk drivers who for example hit five cars while driving drunk? Does the state pay?

Ok, but how would you punish them? What's the punishment that's appropriate for both drunk driving and manslaughter?

We often make a determination of punishment based on outcomes. If you intend to kill a man and shoot him next to a hospital such that he receives immediate care and lives, you are likely to be tried for aggravated assault or attempted murder - 5-10 years (or out on parole in the same amount of time at the worst). Do the same thing a little further away and he goes into shock and dies - Murder One 25-Life.

Exact same intention, wildly different sentences based on outcomes.

There are plenty of laws that are not meant as punishments so much as behavior modifiers. Seat Belt laws for instance.

I don't really disagree, I just don't think external harm should figure into criminal punishments, especially in the case of negligent acts, for the reasons I tried to explain above: it leads to punishments that are disproportionate to the blameworthy act, which I see as basically unfair.

I would handle that in the civil law context, where the same principles of beyond a reasonable doubt and punishment don't apply. By all means compensate the wronged party, but as a rule the criminal justice system is not about compensating victims (and rightly so).

But it's entirely possible to use the idea of not punishing external harm in order to shield yourself from the consequences of actions. I do something bad, but happened to cause a bunch of shit as part of that. I'm responsible for the rest of that shit, even if it was unintentional. Giving me a pass on a dozen dead people because you totally gave me 2 months for drunk driving is.. bad. So is giving everyone 10 years for drunk driving in order to have it be a uniform punishment for both the drunk dude pulled over a foot from the bar, and the dude who slammed into a school bus.

At some point we need the sane middle ground where it's a moderate base penalty, modified by intent, outcome, and additional charges for other crimes committed.

But that's only true if you completely disregard the actually killing part, which is not at all the natural thing to do. Driving drunk is a blameworthy act. Running someone over with your car and killing them is another blameworthy act. Why would you ignore the second one?

Because they are not inseparable. My running over someone was a result of my driving drunk. It is the consequence of my act; it is not a separate act.

If I point a loaded gun at your head, three things can happen: I can blow your brains out, I can miss, or the gun can jam. The act to be deterred is pointing a loaded gun at someone's head. Killing you is not a separate act -- it is the consequence of the act. That is what my sentence should reflect. I should not get off easy because I'm a lousy shot or bought a cheap gun.

I'd love to see the whether the rest of the justices would go along with Scalia's reductio ad absurdum defense of our god-given right to own suitcase nukes.

Details about Nancy Lanza, why she took up sport shooting, and her struggles with her son.

I'm not sure. Do you think drunk driving as such is bad enough to send people to jail?

Just a side note - at least in my jurisdiction, manslaughter and criminal negligence are different things that have different levels of required proof of intention. I am only objecting to criminal negligence, not manslaughter. Criminal negligence allows punishment on a finding of objective fault (what the person should have known) rather than subjective fault (what the person actually knew or intended).

In Canada, pointing a firearm (loaded or unloaded) at another person is a criminal offense.

Probably not, at least not for the first offense, but I'm also not trying to come up with a penalty that feels right for both offenses.

As I said above, I think that attempts should be punished with the same severity as completed acts. So in my view, attempted murder is just as serious a crime as successful murder, and should be punished accordingly.

From what I understand they banned "assault weapons" based on "military" parts like bayonet lug, pistol grips and collapsible stocks, which can be circumvented with thumb stocks.

The Washington Post looks at the 1994 assault weapon ban and its effectiveness.

From what I've seen in the US people use the terms a bit interchangeably, even though they're somewhat different crimes. Drunk driving will result in an involuntary manslaughter charge in more lenient areas (no willfullness, just "whoops, was doing something illegal and caused a serious fuckup". The good example is that we shouldn't give you a year in jail for running a red light, but if you run a red light and kill someone = manslaughter charges), and criminally negligent homicide usually requires a crazy high bar to be reached.

I say used interchangeably because of shit like this: http://www.wkow.com/story/19608406/texting-driver-receives-prison-sentence-in-negligent-homicide which is a negligent homicide charge that resulted in only 1 year in jail. Which is the sentencing you'd expect from involuntary manslaughter in most areas, and the crime as committed (hit someone while texting) is pretty textbook involuntary manslaughter. So I'm not sure if the reporter got the charge wrong, or if it means something different in that state.

In general, I have no problem with charging someone criminally for accidental damages on the basis that you still committed the act and are responsible for the consequences. It makes sense that the sentencing is far lighter than if you had acted with intent of course.

Well yeah, it was really dumb like he said. But you could make a similarly-purposed law that actually did make sense and wasn't trivial to circumvent, and I don't think that would be a bad idea (although it still does ignore that handguns, not assault rifles, are by far the biggest problem).

Why don't we privatize gun control?

Want to own a gun? Fine. Pay for the insurance, just like car-owners and homeowners. Don't have a lockable safe? Rates go up. Teenagers in the house? Rates go up. Take a safety class? Rates go down.

By that definition, is a revolver a semiautomatic? or does it not count because it doesn't use a clip or magazine?

By that definition they most certainly would be, as they reload automatically and fire each time the trigger is depressed.

Revolvers aren't considered semi-automatics even though both revolvers and modern semi-automatic pistols can be either single- or double-action. The distinction is that revolvers don't use the blow-back of the gases or recoil energy after a cartridge is fired to push the hammer back. There are automatic revolvers but they're the exception rather than the rule.

From a strictly theoretical perspective, it makes sense to have some randomized deterrent punishments. If you drive drunk and get arrested, you have a 10% chance of receiving a manslaughter charge even if nobody dies. But we don't do that, because it strikes most people as morally abhorrent to punish people for a crime they didn't actually commit, and leave the determination up to chance.

For similar reasons, it might be an effective deterrent to give all drunk drivers manslaughter charges, and it does somewhat reduce the element of external chance, but it means treating potential harm as identical to actual harm, and that is WAY too much power to give the legal system. Manslaughter sentences are for people who actually kill, not for people who are determined to have done something that could have gotten someone killed. At worst, the treatment of negligent behavior as manslaughter would be used to throw more black people and Latinos in prison on flimsy pretexts. At best, it would make juries reluctant to convict anyone of drunk driving!

Back on topic: by the same logic, people should be held responsible for their recklessness if they leave their guns where a lunatic or a child can get them, but unless they had some complicity or foreknowledge of the killing, they shouldn't be charged as shooters. Strict, clear, and consistent laws on how guns are to be stored could clarify the penalties for this and set a standard for lawful behavior.

Or, I guess, you could randomly give draconian penalties to 10% of the people who wound others in gun accidents. But again, that's not how our system works.

Random bonus penalties would be hilarious. Combine it with the powerball drawing.

re Second Amendment, District of Columbia v Heller, 554 US 570 (2008). Most recent 2nd Amendment case and most thorough in, well, forever.

DC had a total ban on handguns, and a requirement that permissible firearms such as long guns be licensed, and that guns in the home be kept nonfunctional (“unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device”). Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused, and he sued.

This is the Supreme Court's summary (not a direct quotation) but you can read it all at the link above.

So, unlike Canada, we are expressly expected to use firearms to defend our homes -- it is "the core lawful purpose of the 2nd Amendment."

Interesting, that they have specified the core lawful purpose and it's not resisting gov't overreaching.

Edit: reading Scalia's actual text (rather than the summary), it does not expressly state that home defense is the core lawful purpose. The summary is sort of over-condensing there. I take it back, it does say that. "We must also address the District's requirement (as applied to respondent's handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. "

Scalia also states "And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it [the Second Amendment] surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home."

I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but the same day as the shooting in CT, police in OK arrested an 18-year-old who was planning to massacre students at his high school.

As a gun owner that is receptive to data-driven arguments for gun safety measures, I decided to map out some data from the FBI on firearms-related murders. There's total values for 1994 to 2011 (all I could easily find), and individual state values for 2004 to 2011. I decided to highlight which states have gone up and gone down by color.

It's important to note that these are absolute values while the US population has grown by ~18% in the same time frame. Equally important is to note that there's a lot of incidental stuff not covered by this: accidents, suicides, attempted murders, etc. This is only useful to look at firearms murders that made their way to the FBI database. I'd consider the FBI an authoritative source for national data, but if you've got better, let me know.

Gun control laws vary dramatically from state to state, with some states requiring background checks, permits and licences before firearms can be sold. Other states, particularly in south and midwest, have a much less stringent process in place for gun owners and dealers.

This interactive charts five gun laws – tracked by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence – alongside regional differences and political leanings.

Perhaps a tentative approach to tackling mass shootings would be to disallow firearms to be kept anywhere someone who is known to be mentally unstable (prone to 'episodes', compulsive violent/anti-social behaviour for example) could reasonably have access to them. In practice this would mean that if a member of your family or household fits this description you can't keep guns where that person could have access them, at least without extraordinary effort. You might still be able to have guns, but perhaps only at a local club. I'm not sure how to make a home safe secure from someone who lives there.

I mean forget legislation for a moment, surely that would be the personally responsible thing to do.

The Bill of Rights has plenty to say about bearing arms, but nothing at all about fingers.

I THINK I SOLVED THE PROBLEM!

Toronto Chief of Police makes no sense when he says that the number of gun seizures this past year has been 40% lower than last year is because of the demise of Canada’s long-gun registry.

Wait, what? The only people legally allowed to buy firearms in Canada are those who possible a valid PAL/RPAL (Possession & Acquisition License / Restricted Possession & Acquisition License) and they must show the license when purchasing firearms from a gun store or private dealer. If they are prohibited from buying firearms then it must mean they don't have a valid firearms license and thus can't get their (Restricted) firearms registered.

Criminals won't buy their guns legally nor register them.

The gun registry didn't stop gangbangers from shooting into a crowded Eaton Centre shopping mall, killing one man. Nor has it done much to track down the 428 pistols, shotguns and rifles police have lost.

Nope, it was ruined, he called the cops, they looked at it.

Well, it would probably have been a sledgehammer and prybar. But yeah, what passes for a safe legally here isn't really going to deter a thief long, and regulators have really dropped the ball there. Though at least it does aid in safety around children.

Eric, I'm assuming he meant people that had a gun but then became ineligible afterwards due to a conviction for something or other? Hopefully?

Mike Huckabee knows why the Newtown massacre happened.

God damn our culture of abortion pills!

Then they lose their gun license and can't legally buy any firearms or ammunition. The law works there so I don't see why he is whining about not seizing as many firearms this year -- the gun registry is only for legally purchased and owned firearms.

Looks like I'm coming in here fairly late to the game, and sorry if I don't have the patience to read all but the first and last page of this 16 page thread :)

Anyways, aren't in ALL states, the gun stores are set to require a background check before selling a firearm and also requires said stores have to be licensed to sell? I'm pretty sure the background check requirement for gun stores before selling a firearm is a federal law thing, not a state by state basis.

On to the wonderful subject of gun control and all that.

What sort of gun control law, that is entirely feasible for the United States, could have possibly stopped what happened in Newtown? I'd like to hear if there is such a law or regulation that could have stopped what happened. Or especially one that could have stopped that sick kid from taking even a single life. IMO, there isn't one.

You simply can NOT disarm the american people (by that I mean taking the guns they already have away). I sure as heck wouldn't want to be part of whatever people are in charge of gathering up peoples guns, I would fear alot of them would wind up shot with the guns they are going to take away. There are WAY too damn many guns already in the homes of americans. There are also millions of high capacity magazines already out there in circulation.

You got the whole "Ex post facto law" about making something illegal or unlawful that is already out there. So it may be difficult to regulate what is already in circulation, aka all of the high capacity magazines and all that.

You want to outlaw "Assault Rifles"? What is an "Assault Rifle"? Does it have to do with the looks of the gun (currently the trend)? Does it have to do with magazine capacity? Does it have to do with the type of bullet or size of bullet it fires? What if it's a pistol that fires rifle sized rounds? Is a Ruger 10/22 considered an assault rifle because it can have high capacity .22 rimfire magazines?

The real question I would like to see answered from those proponents of gun control, is what feasible gun control law could have been passed in the U.S. that would have prevented what happened in Newtown? IMO, there simply isn't one, the only thing that could have helped is better control, diagnosis, and treatment of mental illnesses.