IDS 2: IDS Firearm Policy Act of 2013 (Failed)

[Velasco]

Why should the IDS become a no license open carry region?

We are already a no-license concealed carry region, and open carry laws aren't a threat to public safety. Additionally, three states in our region (Tennessee, Georgia, and Mississippi) have the same open carry restrictions proposed here.

It's funny to see that you quote an opinion article instead of statistics showing people dead by fire arms and some comparisons with other countries where possession is strictly regulated, as it should be in the South and everywhere. Honestly, I hope some kind of opposition to the bill from my fellow legislators, because the indiscriminate use of guns is a threat for people's life, freedom and integrity.

[Velasco]

The Firearms Death Rates per 100,000 that I've found are a bit different.

Washington DC is on the top of the table with 31.2, followed by Alaska (20), Louisiana (19.5), Wyoming (18. and Arizona (18). Texas has a rate of 11, California a 9.8.  Hawaii (2. and New England states like Massachusetts (3.1) have the lowest rates.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

If we go into the murders totals by country:

#1 South Africa: 31,918 #2 Colombia 21,898 #3 Thailand 20,032 #4 USA 9,369 on the top of the list.

Some countries in the Western world:

#11 Germany 269 #14 Canada 144  #20 Spain 97  #28 Japan 47 #39 UK, Denmark 14.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

[Velasco]

Also, you can check the following analysis on states with the most gun violence. According to it, Hawaii and Massachusetts have more stringent legislation on gun purchasing and the lowest death rates. To the contrary, Louisiana, where limitations to purchase handguns didn't exist for the period between 2001 and 2010:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 http://247wallst.com/2013/04/15/states-with-the-most-gun-violence/

[Velasco]

You can feel free to cherry-pick misleading statistics, but here - this data is from the FBI's 2011 crime statistics, and the rankings are from the Brady campaign (the data shows violent crime per 100K people, and the rankings are top 3/bottom 3):

Don't you see the difference between "violent crime" and "firearms death rate"?  

Violent crime (copy and paste from FBI's site):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As you can see, violent crimes include not only murder (regardless if they are caused by firearms or by other means), but also rape, robbery and "aggravated assault". However, I'll give a try with the 'murder' category, even when to my understanding it's not strictly related with firearms (you can use knives, poison and many other means to kill someone).

Murder and non negligent manslaughter from 2011 FBI stats: Total (state population, thousands)

California: 1,792 (37,691); Massachussetts: 185 (6,587); New Jersey: 380 (8,821)

Arizona: 405 (6,482); Alaska: 29 (722); Utah: 54 (2,817); Louisiana 513 (4,574); Georgia 554 (9,815)

Per 100K

California 4.75; Massachussetts 2.81; New Jersey 4.31

Arizona 6.25; Alaska 4.02; Utah 1.92; Louisiana 11.22; Georgia 5.64  

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-5

Do you have something to say about the comaprison between murder rates between the USA and other developed countries? Don't you think it leaves the USA in a bad place?

Also, check the top ten states with the most gun violence (Louisiana is the number one, as FBI stats seem to confirm) in the analysis that I linked before. Stringent legislation on firearms is not the only solution but, in opposition with your argumentation, is helpful. Awful laws like the one in force in Louisiana only aggravate the problem.


The firearm death rate includes not only criminal assaults but suicides and accidents. It's not misleading but focused on the firearm topic (and this bill is about deregulating firearms). As for accidents, everybody knows that not everybody is able to handle a gun. Often things can go badly. Unfortunately some irresponsible parents, and with devotion to firearms, don't take the necessary precautions nor put weapons out of the scope of their children. Do I need to look for some news of domestic accidents involving children which occur from time to time and appear in the media? I watched in some documentary firearm fanatics instructing 5 or 6-year-old children. I think it's terrifying.

I think your highly deregulating proposal on firearms will bring more risks than supposed benefits.

[Velasco]

There is really no statistic that I care about less than the firearms death rate. The death rate from firearms is really pointless. The murder rate, sure, that's important - but there's no point in isolating out firearms other than to point out how countries with less firearms have less people killed with firearms. That's common sense, sure, but it's a meaningless factoid relative to the actual murder rate. For instance, Britain has far less gun-related homicides than the US does; it also has a higher rate of violent crime than the US does.

It's not pointless at all, especially regarding murder and avoidable accidents. Homicide is the worst of crimes in qualitative terms, for obvious reasons. Countries with less firearms have less people killed in total magnitudes.

551 homicides reported in 2012 (including murder, manslaughter and infanticide) in England and Wales. Murder rate in the UK is around 1 per 100,000.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jul/14/crime-statistics-england-wales

14,612 cases reported by FBI in 2011 as murder and non negligent manslaughter. Murder rate was 4.7, down from 9.3 in 1992, but still much higher than in the United Kingdom and other countries with gun restrictions.

Also, according with FBI firearms were used in 67.8% of murder offenses.

Given that you don't care about the firearm death rate, let's follow with FBI murder rates for the top ten states in gun violence. Statistics on firearm homicide death, firearm aggravated assaults and violent crime rate are provided in the article.

#1 Louisiana: 11.22  #2 Alaska 4.02  #3 Alabama 6.27  #4 Arizona 6.25  #5 Mississipi 8.03 #6 South Carolina 6.85 #7 New Mexico 7.49 #8 Missouri 6.09 #9 Arkansas 5.52 #10 Georgia 5.64

I think it's noticeable that in all cases except Alaska, murder rates are higher than in California (not to mention Hawaii or Mass.), even when in many cases violence rate is lower. None of the states of the list above require permit to purchase handguns. Why in states with lower criminality murder is at a higher rate? 6 out of 10 states in the list belong to the South region. Shouldn't we take measures to regulate the possession of firearms instead of legislating in order that anyone could carry them wherever? Preventing accidents and suicides by firearms is not important?

[Velasco]

Shouldn't we take measures to regulate the possession of firearms instead of legislating in order that anyone could carry them wherever?

Okay, okay, I get it that you have a lot of data as to why 'guns are bad'. I have lots of data as to why guns are good, some of which I've presented already, and to be quite honest this could go on for days or weeks without much getting accomplished.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But here's an amendment. Does that make it a bit more palatable?

I'd say neither your data nor your argumentation are convincing enough. Those numbers, in their apparent coolness, show that there's some correlation between gun control or deregulation and the amount of violent deaths. Your ammendment makes point #3 slightly less awful, but it's far away from being enough. Gun licenses, granted under conditions strict enough (lack of criminal record and psychological examinations are examples that come to my mind), a regional register for all weapons and carry limited to private properties and homes (besides some security measures mandatory for gun owners inside their properties in order to prevent accidents), would be a more palatable firearm policy. Point #4 is unacceptable as well.

[Velasco]

Your ammendment makes point #3 slightly less awful, but it's far away from being enough. Gun licenses, granted under conditions strict enough (lack of criminal record and psychological examinations are examples that come to my mind),

People who have had their right to bear arms suspended for committing a crime are already banned from carrying.

It's the minimal thing. However, in the point #2 you reject gun licenses. I think licenses are important in order to ensure that nobody with criminal records or without being mentally capable is legally a firearm owner. Psycophysical evaluation seems to me to be fundamental. Also, the owner should keep the firearm in a safe place (a room or a cupboard that they could close with key, for example) and out of the minors' scope. Nothing is said about hunters. There should be hunting licenses issued by the regional authorities, limitation of age, not necessarily the same in force for other firearms, etcetera.

As for the regional register, it might be useless existing a federal one, as you say. However, gun licenses would ensure that all legal firearms are conveniently registered, which could be very useful in order to make the work of security forces easier.

There's no issue in allowing people carry their firearms in vehicles, since they are private properties, but I don't see the need to carry them in a visible place. When someone is crossing the region's territory, it's logical to think regional laws on carry and possession are in force.

Well that's just a recipe for more mass shootings (like the ones in Winnemucca in 08, or Pearl high School in '97, or Edinboro in '98, or Appalachian School of Law in '02).

I don't see your point. All mass shootings that you mention were perpetrated in public spaces like schools and bars. I think allowing people to carry indiscriminately firearms in public spaces makes the work of mass shooters easier.

[Velasco]

Not a lot of time for a detailed response, but I think this should satisfy most of your concerns.

Thank you. I'll come back with time.

[Velasco]

Any more debate? If not I'll open voting later today

I thought SJoyce went on holiday, and I'm not visiting the Forum every day.

My vote on this bill is Nay.

I hope we could debate a better bill in another time.