Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[Loren Pechtel]

When you see news articles about misdeeds with machine guns they're either illegal imports or illegal conversions. Whether legal ones are available or not can't change what illegal ones do.

If fully automatic weapons were legally sold at Walmart we would likely see more crimes committed with them. Very often having something be illegal acts as a substantial barrier to crime.

I don't care where they are sold, I'm saying that the current level of checking prospective owners has proven adequate to avoid them falling into the wrong hands. I'm saying to keep the level of checking, just move it to a license rather than per item.

 

[Rhea]

Of course, being against this isn't about legal liability. It has fuck all to do with that. It has to do with the situation that if a guns dealer is liable for a mass murder committed by a person he just sold guns to... he is less likely to sell guns, which will mean less profit. And the gun lobby can't have that.

You're setting an impossible burden.

On the contrary.

That was the claim for those of us serving cocktails in the 70s and 80s who suddenly faced the changes brought about by Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the requirement that the people who made money by getting people drunk were suddenly liable if people left the building drunk and got behind the wheel.

You will notice all the bars and server jobs that survived this “impossible burden.”

 

[Shadowy Man]

When you see news articles about misdeeds with machine guns they're either illegal imports or illegal conversions. Whether legal ones are available or not can't change what illegal ones do.

If fully automatic weapons were legally sold at Walmart we would likely see more crimes committed with them. Very often having something be illegal acts as a substantial barrier to crime.

I don't care where they are sold, I'm saying that the current level of checking prospective owners has proven adequate to avoid them falling into the wrong hands. I'm saying to keep the level of checking, just move it to a license rather than per item.

So you’re saying it is ok to sell fully automatic weapons as long as they are licensed. Licensing is not an unreasonable infringement on second amendment rights?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course, being against this isn't about legal liability. It has fuck all to do with that. It has to do with the situation that if a guns dealer is liable for a mass murder committed by a person he just sold guns to... he is less likely to sell guns, which will mean less profit. And the gun lobby can't have that.

You're setting an impossible burden.

On the contrary.

That was the claim for those of us serving cocktails in the 70s and 80s who suddenly faced the changes brought about by Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the requirement that the people who made money by getting people drunk were suddenly liable if people left the building drunk and got behind the wheel.

You will notice all the bars and server jobs that survived this “impossible burden.”

Because they can see if somebody is drunk. Most crazies can pass for normal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When you see news articles about misdeeds with machine guns they're either illegal imports or illegal conversions. Whether legal ones are available or not can't change what illegal ones do.

If fully automatic weapons were legally sold at Walmart we would likely see more crimes committed with them. Very often having something be illegal acts as a substantial barrier to crime.

I don't care where they are sold, I'm saying that the current level of checking prospective owners has proven adequate to avoid them falling into the wrong hands. I'm saying to keep the level of checking, just move it to a license rather than per item.

So you’re saying it is ok to sell fully automatic weapons as long as they are licensed. Licensing is not an unreasonable infringement on second amendment rights?

Full auto weapons currently have an extensive background check requirement but there are hundreds of thousands of them in civilian hands legally. The rules work, the guns aren't causing a problem.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Full auto weapons currently have an extensive background check requirement but there are hundreds of thousands of them in civilian hands legally. The rules work, the guns aren't causing a problem.

It seems like you are agreeing with me and making my argument for me. If we apply the same standard to some additional classes of firearms then perhaps they won’t cause any problems either.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Of course, being against this isn't about legal liability. It has fuck all to do with that. It has to do with the situation that if a guns dealer is liable for a mass murder committed by a person he just sold guns to... he is less likely to sell guns, which will mean less profit. And the gun lobby can't have that.

You're setting an impossible burden.

On the contrary.

That was the claim for those of us serving cocktails in the 70s and 80s who suddenly faced the changes brought about by Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the requirement that the people who made money by getting people drunk were suddenly liable if people left the building drunk and got behind the wheel.

You will notice all the bars and server jobs that survived this “impossible burden.”

Because they can see if somebody is drunk. Most crazies can pass for normal.

As long as you don't talk to them, do an interview, or any other thing that might be worth considering before giving them a weapon that makes killing so much easier.

 

[Toni]

Point #6--the 72 hour time limit. On this one I'm going to take a hard no. The regulators need to get off their asses and fix whatever's slowing things down.

I agree. Frivolous applications to own a gun that has no real purpose - sport, hunting, or vermin control - should be denied quickly and without delay.

Applications to own a gun for personal protection or home defence should be automatically refused, not least because guns are absolutely unfit for these purposes, and anyone deluded enough not to understand that is not someone who should be trusted to have a gun license at all.

If you're planning to shoot inert targets, game animals, or pest animals, then perhaps you might be a fit person to own a firearm. If you're planning to shoot at humans, then you had better be joining the armed forces or the police. And if you aren't planning to shoot at all, you don't need a real gun at all.

I know you will argue that my reasonable suggestions are complete impossible to implement, because politics. But that's not actually true - 95% of humanity has done it, and there's nothing special about US public opinion in this regard. Where politics is directly antithetical to public opinion, politics can go fuck itself.

The problem is a tiny but cashed-up and vocal minority. In any kind of democracy, that's not a sufficient barrier to cause sane people to simply give up.

Really? Hunting and vermin control permits should be denied quickly and without delay? Spoken like a real city boy who lives half way across the world.

Written by someone who ate dinner every night because her family hunted well and whose family managed to not go broke due to loss of livestock and chickens killed by predators or who had to be euthanized due to broken legs caused by gopher holes. In my family, one was very much looked down upon as a coward and worse if one killed any game animal or fish that was not for the table or killed any predator or vermin not threatening your animals and so your livelihood.

 

[Elixir]

Deny permits to your heart’s content; there are already plenty of guns out there - legal and illegal - to meet the needs of every criminal and would- be criminal in America. Unless that is changed by force/confiscation (which it won’t be), no real change will be realized, regardless of legislation.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Deny permits to your heart’s content; there are already plenty of guns out there - legal and illegal - to meet the needs of every criminal and would- be criminal in America. Unless that is changed by force/confiscation (which it won’t be), no real change will be realized, regardless of legislation.

And yet so many of these mass shooters go out and buy brand new guns. Sometimes even on the same day as the shooting.

If there are already so many guns available then maybe make these fellows put in some effort to get them.

 

[Rhea]

Really? Hunting and vermin control permits should be denied quickly and without delay? Spoken like a real city boy who lives half way across the world.

I think you read his post backwards. He said permits *besides* hunting and being control.

 

[TomC]

Really? Hunting and vermin control permits should be denied quickly and without delay? Spoken like a real city boy who lives half way across the world.

I think you read his post backwards. He said permits *besides* hunting and being control.

I had to read it a couple of times myself to get that. It wasn't phrased with great clarity.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

Deny permits to your heart’s content; there are already plenty of guns out there - legal and illegal - to meet the needs of every criminal and would- be criminal in America. Unless that is changed by force/confiscation (which it won’t be), no real change will be realized, regardless of legislation.

And yet so many of these mass shooters go out and buy brand new guns. Sometimes even on the same day as the shooting.

If there are already so many guns available then maybe make these fellows put in some effort to get them.

That couldn’t hurt.
But putting a stop to “new“ sales would also create a (more) lucrative black market.
I really think the next step has to be requiring registration of ALL firearms and firearms transactions, and holding registered owners liable for anything done with that gun. After that, licensing, with competence testing and renewal requirements.

But again, reality disagrees.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Deny permits to your heart’s content; there are already plenty of guns out there - legal and illegal - to meet the needs of every criminal and would- be criminal in America. Unless that is changed by force/confiscation (which it won’t be), no real change will be realized, regardless of legislation.

And yet so many of these mass shooters go out and buy brand new guns. Sometimes even on the same day as the shooting.

If there are already so many guns available then maybe make these fellows put in some effort to get them.

That couldn’t hurt.
But putting a stop to “new“ sales would also create a (more) lucrative black market.

Like it has for automatic weapons? I understand the logic of why people would say this but it’s not clear to me that it would bear out.

If someone felt like they wanted to do a mass shooting but they couldn’t easily buy a gun and had to contact criminal elements to do so couldnt that be a substantial Barrier? Could they get one the same exact day as the shooting?

I really think the next step has to be requiring registration of ALL firearms and firearms transactions, and holding registered owners liable for anything done with that gun. After that, licensing, with competence testing and renewal requirements.

But again, reality disagrees.

I agree with licensing, training and registration. These are sensible gun laws.

 

[TomC]

Putting a stop to “new“ sales would also create a (more) lucrative black market.
I really think the next step has to be requiring registration of ALL firearms and firearms transactions, and holding registered owners liable for anything done with that gun.

This is kinda the rub.

Guns are more like drugs than cars. People will pay a lot for something easy to smuggle and nearly impossible to trace.
Tom

 

[Toni]

Really? Hunting and vermin control permits should be denied quickly and without delay? Spoken like a real city boy who lives half way across the world.

I think you read his post backwards. He said permits *besides* hunting and being control.

Ah. My sincere apologies @bilby

 

[bilby]

Really? Hunting and vermin control permits should be denied quickly and without delay? Spoken like a real city boy who lives half way across the world.

I think you read his post backwards. He said permits *besides* hunting and being control.

Ah. My sincere apologies @bilby

That's OK, I have a tendency - lamentable and foolish - to insert parenthetical commentary in my posts, which can make them difficult to parse.

I am certainly not opposed to hunting, nor to guns; I have enjoyed deer-stalking in Scotland, and grousing in Yorkshire. Hunting for food is not something that I think should be curtailed, and appropriately licensed and managed guns for that purpose are obviously not something that should be prohibited.

Something that the gun lobby in the US should note is that such things are NOT banned in places like the UK, where gun controls are very strict indeed, nor in Australia, where our government famously succeeded in imposing controls after the Port Arthur massacre that have prevented any recurrence.

Australia has plenty of dangerous wildlife. Those of us outside major cities have a clear need for various firearms. But we do not need them for home defence purposes, and if you apply for a licence on that basis, you will be refused.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course, being against this isn't about legal liability. It has fuck all to do with that. It has to do with the situation that if a guns dealer is liable for a mass murder committed by a person he just sold guns to... he is less likely to sell guns, which will mean less profit. And the gun lobby can't have that.

You're setting an impossible burden.

On the contrary.

That was the claim for those of us serving cocktails in the 70s and 80s who suddenly faced the changes brought about by Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the requirement that the people who made money by getting people drunk were suddenly liable if people left the building drunk and got behind the wheel.

You will notice all the bars and server jobs that survived this “impossible burden.”

Because they can see if somebody is drunk. Most crazies can pass for normal.

As long as you don't talk to them, do an interview, or any other thing that might be worth considering before giving them a weapon that makes killing so much easier.

Most crazies can pass for sane. Only the total whackadoodles will be found by simply talking to them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Deny permits to your heart’s content; there are already plenty of guns out there - legal and illegal - to meet the needs of every criminal and would- be criminal in America. Unless that is changed by force/confiscation (which it won’t be), no real change will be realized, regardless of legislation.

And yet so many of these mass shooters go out and buy brand new guns. Sometimes even on the same day as the shooting.

If there are already so many guns available then maybe make these fellows put in some effort to get them.

Mass shooters are a different category than most criminals.

Banning firearms will pretty much stop the mass shooters. It will do almost nothing to the criminals, though, and will almost certainly increase the criminal death toll because people won't be able to defend themselves. (Hint: Self defense killings exceed mass shooting killings and self defense cases are less likely to actually kill.)

 

[Shadowy Man]

Deny permits to your heart’s content; there are already plenty of guns out there - legal and illegal - to meet the needs of every criminal and would- be criminal in America. Unless that is changed by force/confiscation (which it won’t be), no real change will be realized, regardless of legislation.

And yet so many of these mass shooters go out and buy brand new guns. Sometimes even on the same day as the shooting.

If there are already so many guns available then maybe make these fellows put in some effort to get them.

Mass shooters are a different category than most criminals.

Banning firearms will pretty much stop the mass shooters.

Thanks for agreeing to that point at least.

It will do almost nothing to the criminals, though, and will almost certainly increase the criminal death toll because people won't be able to defend themselves. (Hint: Self defense killings exceed mass shooting killings and self defense cases are less likely to actually kill.)

Banning all firearms may be like that but that Isn’t what I, nor most moderates, are suggesting.