Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[Loren Pechtel]

Rules applied to legally-owned guns do nothing about guns that aren't legally owned.

I think you are completely wrong here Loren.

Laws applied to legally owned guns - including their safe keeping and sale are absolutley fruitful in reducing gun deaths.

1. Making sure legally owned guns in stores don’t get marked as “missing” with no follow up. Research demonstrates that this is the source of thousands of “illegal” guns on the street. Legal guns that weren’t made to follow the rules.
2. Making sure legally owned privately held guns don’t end up “missing”. Again, research shows that if they were followed up, they would not end up on the street.

But how many are "missing" vs "stolen"?

The left is obsessed with straw purchaser arguments--but the street price of a gun is less than retail. Few people would buy high, sell low.

The only way you would have any effect is by reducing the number of guns stolen by criminals--and there's so many around that you're not going to accomplish much.

Again, not true. Illegal guns have a much shorter shelf-life than legal ones. They are discarded and destroyed to prevent implicating in crimes. The are “ditched.”

Research shows that when there are strict laws and sever penalties for being caught with an illegal gun, then people carry them around less, decreasing the opportunistic crimes and shortening the lifespan of the guns because it’s better to ditch it than be caught with it.

Any given illegal gun, yes--but there are so many out there that you're not going to do much about them.

I have no problem with a hefty penalty for felon-in-possession, but the problem is that they are rarely caught--a low probability of an adverse outcome isn't much of a deterrent.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We have a traffic problem. Let's solve it by banning cars. People can make do with trucks fine.

Not that canard again. Nobody is proposing a blanket ban on all firearms. The campaigns are about gun control, where firearms specifically designed to kill people are to be banned and people with a criminal record or mental problems are not allowed to own any of the others.

Note what I was referring to--an objection to semi-auto firearms. My point is that semi-auto (and effectively semi-auto) guns are to all guns as cars are to traffic.

It's not as though that is very different from motor vehicles. You need to qualify for a drivers license to operate one in public, the motor vehicle has to be registered to an owner, and it has to meet safety standards. You'll never be permitted to drive around in a privately owned tank or howitzer.

I have no problem with gun licenses so long as it's a shall-issue system. I think it would be a lot better than background checks at the point of sale.

However, to nitpick: It's perfectly legal to drive around in a privately owned tank. You can't take it on public roads (there's no way to make a tank roadworthy--visibility stinks) but so long as you're on private property with the owner's permission, go ahead--there are no restrictions. Now, the tank guns are another matter--they're way beyond .50 cal and thus highly restricted. You can't drive a howitzer in the first place, they have no engines. Being above .50 cal they are likewise highly restricted, but they are not prohibited. There is fully operational artillery in civilian hands--and not just as showpieces. The one I'm aware of around here is I believe a 105mm recoilless rifle rather than a howitzer, but the concept is the same--fully operational with live rounds. The ski lodge occasionally lobs a round into the mountains to trigger avalanches.

 

[Copernicus]

Rules applied to legally-owned guns do nothing about guns that aren't legally owned.

I think you are completely wrong here Loren.

Laws applied to legally owned guns - including their safe keeping and sale are absolutley fruitful in reducing gun deaths.

1. Making sure legally owned guns in stores don’t get marked as “missing” with no follow up. Research demonstrates that this is the source of thousands of “illegal” guns on the street. Legal guns that weren’t made to follow the rules.
2. Making sure legally owned privately held guns don’t end up “missing”. Again, research shows that if they were followed up, they would not end up on the street.

But how many are "missing" vs "stolen"?

The left is obsessed with straw purchaser arguments--but the street price of a gun is less than retail. Few people would buy high, sell low.

As many of us have tried to tell you, the problem in the US is that the majority of guns in the hands of criminals started out as legally purchased guns. Legal guns are the main source of criminal guns. It doesn't matter whether they are "missing" vs "stolen". The point is: rampant legal gun purchases are the root cause of criminal use. Any attempt to solve the problem by increasing the number of legal guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens is just going to drive up the supply for criminals.

Straw purchases actually happen to be a major source of criminal guns, although corrupt gun dealers are another major source. Thieves love to steal guns, but theft is actually a relatively small part of the problem. The street price of guns is high enough to make them valuable to thieves, but those acquired through straw purchases only have to be higher than the original legal purchase price to make a profit for the seller. They can sometimes be below market value in the locations being sold because of factors like higher taxes on legal purchases at point of sale. Usually, however, black market prices are much higher than retail prices. See:

Inside the Black Market for Guns​

 

[bilby]

But how many are "missing" vs "stolen"?

An appropriately secured firearm is very difficult to steal.

One constraint that applies everywhere else in the developed world is that licenced firearm owners are required to lock their guns away when they’re not in use.

Failure to report the loss or theft of a gun registered to you is also typically a serious offence.

 

[Jarhyn]

I am no fan of the NRA and the republican insanity on guns especially assaultl rifles, but they are not really the main problem.

Would Harris and Klebold have been problems if they didn't have access to firearms?

Pretty sure that if guns weren't an option, they would be perfectly fine developing and deploying more pipe bombs.

Pipe bombs are already illegal.

Which didn't stop them.

It does stop the large-scale availability of easy to use relatively safe explosive primers, due to liability, and the people who blow themselves up making them and are afraid to blow themselves up making them does stop pipe bombs in large part.

Klebold and Harris had pipe bombs. The illegality didn't stop them.

Most of the people it stops aren't those two people.

When it's the difference between walking into a Texas gun shop no questions asked and purchasing an untracked firearm, vs having to know a guy who knows frickin' Klebold and Harris, it's a different proposition.

The logistics to the thing just aren't the same.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Klebold and Harris had pipe bombs. The illegality didn't stop them.

You are saying what? I assume you mean that we should be able to buy pipe bombs like we do guns?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As many of us have tried to tell you, the problem in the US is that the majority of guns in the hands of criminals started out as legally purchased guns. Legal guns are the main source of criminal guns. It doesn't matter whether they are "missing" vs "stolen". The point is: rampant legal gun purchases are the root cause of criminal use. Any attempt to solve the problem by increasing the number of legal guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens is just going to drive up the supply for criminals.

Only relevant if you intend to basically ban guns.

Straw purchases actually happen to be a major source of criminal guns, although corrupt gun dealers are another major source. Thieves love to steal guns, but theft is actually a relatively small part of the problem. The street price of guns is high enough to make them valuable to thieves, but those acquired through straw purchases only have to be higher than the original legal purchase price to make a profit for the seller. They can sometimes be below market value in the locations being sold because of factors like higher taxes on legal purchases at point of sale. Usually, however, black market prices are much higher than retail prices. See:

Inside the Black Market for Guns​

Still doesn't address the issue of street guns being cheaper than retail guns.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Klebold and Harris had pipe bombs. The illegality didn't stop them.

You are saying what? I assume you mean that we should be able to buy pipe bombs like we do guns?

The point was a comment that if they didn't have guns they probably would have had more pipe bombs. Someone pointed out that pipe bombs are illegal--and I was pointing out that that didn't stop them. The illegality of pipe bombs didn't stop them.

 

[Copernicus]

As many of us have tried to tell you, the problem in the US is that the majority of guns in the hands of criminals started out as legally purchased guns. Legal guns are the main source of criminal guns. It doesn't matter whether they are "missing" vs "stolen". The point is: rampant legal gun purchases are the root cause of criminal use. Any attempt to solve the problem by increasing the number of legal guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens is just going to drive up the supply for criminals.

Only relevant if you intend to basically ban guns.

How do you figure that? Anything that deters casual same-day purchases would be a huge step forward. Registration, licensing, mandatory training, and insurance for gun owners would also tend to deter casual purchases. Bans on large capacity magazines are a no-brainer. There are lots of things that you can do short of a ban on guns, which is a rather obvious straw man argument on your part. Why do you oppose these measures and insist that it is all about banning guns? Compromises are possible, but compromise is unthinkable for your side of the argument. All you seem willing to consider are strengthening mental health services (always a good idea) and maybe a little more background checking? Those aren't serious proposals, and they won't have any noticeable affect on the level of gun-injuries that Americans suffer.

Straw purchases actually happen to be a major source of criminal guns, although corrupt gun dealers are another major source. Thieves love to steal guns, but theft is actually a relatively small part of the problem. The street price of guns is high enough to make them valuable to thieves, but those acquired through straw purchases only have to be higher than the original legal purchase price to make a profit for the seller. They can sometimes be below market value in the locations being sold because of factors like higher taxes on legal purchases at point of sale. Usually, however, black market prices are much higher than retail prices. See:

Inside the Black Market for Guns​

Still doesn't address the issue of street guns being cheaper than retail guns.

You did not read either of the links I provided, did you? Both address that issue squarely. Usually, the street guns are more expensive, although there are some circumstances where they are not. That was addressed by me in the actual post you quoted and denied it was addressed. I have boldfaced and colored the text above to help you identify it.

 

[bilby]

As many of us have tried to tell you, the problem in the US is that the majority of guns in the hands of criminals started out as legally purchased guns. Legal guns are the main source of criminal guns. It doesn't matter whether they are "missing" vs "stolen". The point is: rampant legal gun purchases are the root cause of criminal use. Any attempt to solve the problem by increasing the number of legal guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens is just going to drive up the supply for criminals.

Only relevant if you intend to basically ban guns.

Straw purchases actually happen to be a major source of criminal guns, although corrupt gun dealers are another major source. Thieves love to steal guns, but theft is actually a relatively small part of the problem. The street price of guns is high enough to make them valuable to thieves, but those acquired through straw purchases only have to be higher than the original legal purchase price to make a profit for the seller. They can sometimes be below market value in the locations being sold because of factors like higher taxes on legal purchases at point of sale. Usually, however, black market prices are much higher than retail prices. See:

Inside the Black Market for Guns​

Still doesn't address the issue of street guns being cheaper than retail guns.

Street guns in the UK are significantly cheaper than legal guns, in large part because nobody wants one. Certainly nobody wants to be caught in possession of one.

 

[bilby]

Klebold and Harris had pipe bombs. The illegality didn't stop them.

You are saying what? I assume you mean that we should be able to buy pipe bombs like we do guns?

The point was a comment that if they didn't have guns they probably would have had more pipe bombs. Someone pointed out that pipe bombs are illegal--and I was pointing out that that didn't stop them. The illegality of pipe bombs didn't stop them.

And anything short of perfection is no better than the status quo.

Oh wait.

Almost anything would be better than the status quo.

Pipe bombs are illegal and very rarely used. Guns are neither.

 

[Hermit]

We have a traffic problem. Let's solve it by banning cars. People can make do with trucks fine.

Not that canard again. Nobody is proposing a blanket ban on all firearms. The campaigns are about gun control, where firearms specifically designed to kill people are to be banned and people with a criminal record or mental problems are not allowed to own any of the others.

Note what I was referring to--an objection to semi-auto firearms. My point is that semi-auto (and effectively semi-auto) guns are to all guns as cars are to traffic.

Your reference to cars is still a canard. Cars are not primarily designed to kill humans. Semi-automatic assault style rifles and handguns are.

It's not as though that is very different from motor vehicles. You need to qualify for a drivers license to operate one in public, the motor vehicle has to be registered to an owner, and it has to meet safety standards. You'll never be permitted to drive around in a privately owned tank or howitzer.

I have no problem with gun licenses so long as it's a shall-issue system. I think it would be a lot better than background checks at the point of sale.

"Shall issue" ensures the US will be incapable of ridding itself of both the unacceptably high murder rate in general and the bizarrely high incidence of mass shootings in particular. As I mentioned here, for every murder in Australia there are 6.9 in the US. The difference is chiefly due to Australia's gun regulations. Hand guns are illegal since the end of WWII and semi-automatic firearms since 1996. The latter also almost halved the number of mass killings. Both make this statement of yours:

I think you’re wrong, Loren. Regulation of firearms reduced the number of gun homicides and suicides when it was put into effect.

People keep claiming this about Australia's actions--but the murder rate doesn't show it.

I do expect there is some effect on suicide

spectacularly wrong.

However, to nitpick: It's perfectly legal to drive around in a privately owned tank. You can't take it on public roads (there's no way to make a tank roadworthy--visibility stinks) but so long as you're on private property with the owner's permission, go ahead--there are no restrictions. Now, the tank guns are another matter--they're way beyond .50 cal and thus highly restricted. You can't drive a howitzer in the first place, they have no engines. Being above .50 cal they are likewise highly restricted, but they are not prohibited. There is fully operational artillery in civilian hands--and not just as showpieces. The one I'm aware of around here is I believe a 105mm recoilless rifle rather than a howitzer, but the concept is the same--fully operational with live rounds. The ski lodge occasionally lobs a round into the mountains to trigger avalanches.

We're talking about the regulation of vehicles on public roads, right? Well, I was anyway, when I listed how they were regulated and how their operators had to qualify to use them.

And meet the M109 howitzer.

Produced since 1963 there are thousands of them all over the world. Norway just donated 20 units to Ukraine.

 

[Hermit]

Up the mighty blues! Down the stupid moroons!

The Blues! Are you mad? Carn the Tigers!

Tell someone who cares about any footy code.

 

[Swammerdami]

I don't know why people bother to replace their tires when they become totally bald. Sure, it's inconvenient to suffer a blow-out at freeway speeds but that can happen even with brand-new tires. What if someone's left a plank overturned full of twenty-penny spikes? Your new tires won't save you then, will they?

Klebold and Harris had pipe bombs. The illegality didn't stop them.

That's right. And the Uvalde killer, instead of walking into a gun-store on his 18th birthday and walking out with an AR-15 and a crate of ammunition, might have recalled his Eagle Scout skills and built himself a bow-and-arrow set. He'd show up with some spare quivers and be able to take out quite a few 9 year-old combatants if he'd practiced his archery skills for a few weeks.

Or he could have made friends with a chemistry teacher and prepared some cyanide Kool-Aid. The idea that using guns — the sacred icon of our holy country — is the easiest way to kill people is just another liberal myth.

 

[Patooka]

The idea that using guns — the sacred icon of our holy country — is the easiest way to kill people is just another liberal myth.

Absolutely right. If I remember correctly, during the bin Laden raid Seal Team Six was equipped with Honda Civics.

 

[Derec]

Or he could have made friends with a chemistry teacher and prepared some cyanide Kool-Aid.

Or some explosives. If the teacher is Walter White.

Will be back to this thread tomorrow for some serious replies ...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Looks like the Senate is well on its way to negotiating a compromise bill that doesn't actually accomplish anything. The GOP is uncertain whether they'll ultimately support provisions that provide no actual action, saying that might be going too far.

I think we can all be assured that the next time an elementary school is shot up, there'll be more failed negotiations in the Senate (assuming the Dems have control of the chamber).

 

[Copernicus]

Looks like the Senate is well on its way to negotiating a compromise bill that doesn't actually accomplish anything. The GOP is uncertain whether they'll ultimately support provisions that provide no actual action, saying that might be going too far.

I think we can all be assured that the next time an elementary school is shot up, there'll be more failed negotiations in the Senate (assuming the Dems have control of the chamber).

All these moderate Democratic senators are doing is helping Republicans try to blunt the public outrage over years of obstructionism. As an added bonus, they may find a nice campaign contribution from the gun lobby, if their efforts to pass watered-down bills are successful.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

They can't pass legislation with less than 60 votes. Any legislation they pass with 50+1 votes (via filibuster elimination) would be repealed immediately, as would ACA, among other things.

Meanwhile, The Onion's take regarding schools practicing Non-Shooter Lockdown drills. And Texas' new 24-hour waiting period... for police engaging with mass shooter.

 

[Copernicus]

They can't pass legislation with less than 60 votes. Any legislation they pass with 50+1 votes (via filibuster elimination) would be repealed immediately, as would ACA, among other things.

Without a filibuster, voting patterns would change in the Senate. The ACA is not going to be repealed by the Senate without concurrence by the House and a presidential signature. Republicans and Democrats use the filibuster to provide cover for those members who feel a need to occasionally stray from party orthodoxy to win elections in purple states. If they didn't have that cover, then compromise legislation could emerge that would have a chance of making significant reforms and getting passed in that chamber. We could probably get a ban on large capacity magazines through the Senate very quickly. Right now, votes on such controversial bills are largely symbolic gestures, even though they have overwhelming public support.