Why gun control isn't the answer

[Loren Pechtel]

What gun laws would look like if the majority had their way.

The problem with that is the cases are simplified.

As they show, there's little objection to background checks on gun sales. The problem comes from non-sale transfers getting swept up also.

Also, the issue of taking guns when someone is determined to be a threat to self or others--I would have no problem with this assuming we can be confident of no abuse. We can't be, though. And note that this can also result in the person having to pay for background checks to get their own guns back! (The latter part of it I would address by saying that returning a gun should never be subject to a background check.)

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It seems the only way to keep the guns out of the hands of mass shooters is more scrutiny and making it more difficult for unhinged people to get a gun. In Paddock's case, it seems he had been collecting guns for a number of years but had recently been active in procuring guns. Was there anything unusual in Paddock's behavior that should have alerted the ATF/FBI or whatever that something was going on ? The gun control laws do seem particularly impotent in stopping the likes of Paddock.

If we knew that there would be another massacre like his every weekend, even that would not change the minds of people who wish to have guns. Their guns are more valuable to them than these other lives. That is simply accurate, and is where their thinking stops.

To your point there is certainly something we can do. Paddock's behavior should have been noted as worthy of investigation. If after such an investigation it was determined that he was no threat then okay. But that was never done and it should have been done.

If only gun owners were being killed by people like Paddock, gun owners might have a point. But we could have a million person massacre tomorrow by Paddock madmen and the stance of gun owners would not change. Forgotten in all this is my constitutional rights, which I assume includes not being killed by Paddock and other gun owners.

 

[TSwizzle]

It seems the only way to keep the guns out of the hands of mass shooters is more scrutiny and making it more difficult for unhinged people to get a gun. In Paddock's case, it seems he had been collecting guns for a number of years but had recently been active in procuring guns. Was there anything unusual in Paddock's behavior that should have alerted the ATF/FBI or whatever that something was going on ? The gun control laws do seem particularly impotent in stopping the likes of Paddock.

If we knew that there would be another massacre like his every weekend, even that would not change the minds of people who wish to have guns. Their guns are more valuable to them than these other lives. That is simply accurate, and is where their thinking stops.

This is just hyperbole.

To your point there is certainly something we can do. Paddock's behavior should have been noted as worthy of investigation. If after such an investigation it was determined that he was no threat then okay. But that was never done and it should have been done.

Then the FBI/ATF and policy makers should be looking at where "the system" is lacking and adjusting "the system". I read an interesting article on how gun purchases are recorded. It was quite an eye opener.

If only gun owners were being killed by people like Paddock, gun owners might have a point. But we could have a million person massacre tomorrow by Paddock madmen and the stance of gun owners would not change. Forgotten in all this is my constitutional rights, which I assume includes not being killed by Paddock and other gun owners.

More hyperbole.

 

[Malintent]

Zackly. It was to preserve military parity between the government and its citizens. That's why we all need to have nukes.

Let's be real: The government will always have the upper hand in any confrontation against its citizens.
Whether or not private citizens are permitted to have automatic assault rifles makes no difference to that equation. So the remaining issue is whether it's a good thing for citizens in general to allow other citizens such armaments.
The track record is not favorable.

Since government is completely made up of fellow citizens, it amounts to how bad said citizens want to maintain and dish out that upper hand in any confrontation.

You make it sound as if "individuals" act the same in any setting. They don't.. so equating a government official and a voter (for example) as both "citizens" is unfair. Groupthink, herd-mentality, and a plethora of other social effects makes a huge difference between an "individual", a "worker", a "member", an "official", etc...

 

[bilby]

What gun laws would look like if the majority had their way.

The problem with that is the cases are simplified.

As they show, there's little objection to background checks on gun sales. The problem comes from non-sale transfers getting swept up also.

Also, the issue of taking guns when someone is determined to be a threat to self or others--I would have no problem with this assuming we can be confident of no abuse. We can't be, though. And note that this can also result in the person having to pay for background checks to get their own guns back! (The latter part of it I would address by saying that returning a gun should never be subject to a background check.)

Oh Noes!

Why should anyone give a shit that gun owners might suffer the minor inconvenience of having to get frequent background checks? Are we obligated to make everything easy for them as a matter of course?

Why should non-sale transfers NOT be subject to the same restrictions as sales? If they are not, then that creates an easily exploited workaround for any controls placed on sales, and renders those controls impotent.

Having controls on sales, but not on any other form of transfers, would be like having password security on a computer system with a bypass button for people to click saying "I already logged in earlier today" that gets them in without the need to re-type their password. Can you not see how that renders the password protection futile?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem with that is the cases are simplified.

As they show, there's little objection to background checks on gun sales. The problem comes from non-sale transfers getting swept up also.

Also, the issue of taking guns when someone is determined to be a threat to self or others--I would have no problem with this assuming we can be confident of no abuse. We can't be, though. And note that this can also result in the person having to pay for background checks to get their own guns back! (The latter part of it I would address by saying that returning a gun should never be subject to a background check.)

Oh Noes!

Why should anyone give a shit that gun owners might suffer the minor inconvenience of having to get frequent background checks? Are we obligated to make everything easy for them as a matter of course?

Why should non-sale transfers NOT be subject to the same restrictions as sales? If they are not, then that creates an easily exploited workaround for any controls placed on sales, and renders those controls impotent.

Having controls on sales, but not on any other form of transfers, would be like having password security on a computer system with a bypass button for people to click saying "I already logged in earlier today" that gets them in without the need to re-type their password. Can you not see how that renders the password protection futile?

The problem is more with temporary transfers. Under the mess that was passed here you could share a gun with a spouse--but not other family members. That's the sort of thing I'm objecting to being swept up in the quest for background checks. Older background check laws were reasonable about such things but almost nobody proposes a reasonable gun law these days.

Since it got stomped on by the Attorney General I don't know if there were other issues. It seems to me that taking your gun to a gunsmith for any repair that couldn't be performed promptly would also trigger a transfer--and then another to return it. Think that's reasonable?

 

[bilby]

Oh Noes!

Why should anyone give a shit that gun owners might suffer the minor inconvenience of having to get frequent background checks? Are we obligated to make everything easy for them as a matter of course?

Why should non-sale transfers NOT be subject to the same restrictions as sales? If they are not, then that creates an easily exploited workaround for any controls placed on sales, and renders those controls impotent.

Having controls on sales, but not on any other form of transfers, would be like having password security on a computer system with a bypass button for people to click saying "I already logged in earlier today" that gets them in without the need to re-type their password. Can you not see how that renders the password protection futile?

The problem is more with temporary transfers. Under the mess that was passed here you could share a gun with a spouse--but not other family members. That's the sort of thing I'm objecting to being swept up in the quest for background checks. Older background check laws were reasonable about such things but almost nobody proposes a reasonable gun law these days.

Why should anyone be allowed to share a gun with anyone?

Since it got stomped on by the Attorney General I don't know if there were other issues. It seems to me that taking your gun to a gunsmith for any repair that couldn't be performed promptly would also trigger a transfer--and then another to return it. Think that's reasonable?

Yes. I do. Why wouldn't it be?

These are not toys; It is perfectly reasonable to regulate them very tightly to ensure that people who should not have them don't get them.

 

[Malintent]

In NYS, It is illegal to so much as TOUCH another person's gun... even if you yourself possess a legal carry. Your license lists the serial numbers of the guns that are registered to you, and any other gun you have made physical contact with would be an illegal act.

This is problematic for several reasons, not the least of which is simply the ability to teach someone gun safety, or show a safety feature on your gun to another gun owner.

It would be like your driver's license is only valid for vehicles that are both owned and registered to you.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Oh Noes!

Why should anyone give a shit that gun owners might suffer the minor inconvenience of having to get frequent background checks? Are we obligated to make everything easy for them as a matter of course?

Why should non-sale transfers NOT be subject to the same restrictions as sales? If they are not, then that creates an easily exploited workaround for any controls placed on sales, and renders those controls impotent.

Having controls on sales, but not on any other form of transfers, would be like having password security on a computer system with a bypass button for people to click saying "I already logged in earlier today" that gets them in without the need to re-type their password. Can you not see how that renders the password protection futile?

The problem is more with temporary transfers. Under the mess that was passed here you could share a gun with a spouse--but not other family members.

And this is a problem WHY?

I mean, if I have my driver's license suspended for a DUI, my dad can't legally allow me to drive his car. And in many states, if I get drunk and run over someone in a car that isn't mine, the owner of the car is partially liable for the damage, especially if he knew I wasn't licensed in the first place.

So why is a gun owner not responsible for making sure he doesn't give his gun to someone irresponsible?

It seems to me that taking your gun to a gunsmith for any repair that couldn't be performed promptly would also trigger a transfer--and then another to return it. Think that's reasonable?

VERY reasonable. Considering a gunsmith probably has a gun owner's license as well as a business license that you can easily verify by looking at them if you wanted to be sure. If there are gunsmiths out there who can't pass a criminal background check well enough to get licensed to even own a gun in the first place... well, that's a much bigger problem, innit?

 

[sharon45]

Since government is completely made up of fellow citizens, it amounts to how bad said citizens want to maintain and dish out that upper hand in any confrontation.

You make it sound as if "individuals" act the same in any setting.

I don't.

They don't.. so equating a government official and a voter (for example) as both "citizens" is unfair.

No, it is fair.

Groupthink, herd-mentality, and a plethora of other social effects makes a huge difference between an "individual", a "worker", a "member", an "official", etc...

All made of individuals. Trump is one example of an individual at the top of government. He heavily influences people in government and out, and he is still heavily influenced by others in government and out.

 

[TSwizzle]

In NYS, It is illegal to so much as TOUCH another person's gun... even if you yourself possess a legal carry. Your license lists the serial numbers of the guns that are registered to you, and any other gun you have made physical contact with would be an illegal act.

This is problematic for several reasons, not the least of which is simply the ability to teach someone gun safety, or show a safety feature on your gun to another gun owner.

I think this is an example of a gun law that has no practical purpose. What was the purpose of passing this law ?

 

[beero1000]

In NYS, It is illegal to so much as TOUCH another person's gun... even if you yourself possess a legal carry. Your license lists the serial numbers of the guns that are registered to you, and any other gun you have made physical contact with would be an illegal act.

This is problematic for several reasons, not the least of which is simply the ability to teach someone gun safety, or show a safety feature on your gun to another gun owner.

I think this is an example of a gun law that has no practical purpose. What was the purpose of passing this law ?

That's because it's bullshit. There is no such law.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In NYS, It is illegal to so much as TOUCH another person's gun... even if you yourself possess a legal carry. Your license lists the serial numbers of the guns that are registered to you, and any other gun you have made physical contact with would be an illegal act.

This is problematic for several reasons, not the least of which is simply the ability to teach someone gun safety, or show a safety feature on your gun to another gun owner.

I think this is an example of a gun law that has no practical purpose. What was the purpose of passing this law ?

In theory, I would presume to create an additional charge for guns used in a crime... if a gun isn't the property of the offending criminal, then they are also guilty of that as well.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think this is an example of a gun law that has no practical purpose. What was the purpose of passing this law ?

In theory, I would presume to create an additional charge for guns used in a crime... if a gun isn't the property of the offending criminal, then they are also guilty of that as well.

That's a good idea. If the idea of a murder charge isn't enough to dissuade someone from killing, the $50 fine for using an unregistered gun most certainly will.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In theory, I would presume to create an additional charge for guns used in a crime... if a gun isn't the property of the offending criminal, then they are also guilty of that as well.

That's a good idea. If the idea of a murder charge isn't enough to dissuade someone from killing, the $50 fine for using an unregistered gun most certainly will.

I'm assuming it'd be a larger charge than that. I would also presume it would be easier to prove in court, so it gives the prosecutor more leverage on the suspect. Though, now that I think about it, it might be more about sweeps that people caught in a crime. Sweep someone up, and you have something they can be charged with. But this is all hypothetical.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That's a good idea. If the idea of a murder charge isn't enough to dissuade someone from killing, the $50 fine for using an unregistered gun most certainly will.

I'm assuming it'd be a larger charge than that. I would also presume it would be easier to prove in court, so it gives the prosecutor more leverage on the suspect. Though, now that I think about it, it might be more about sweeps that people caught in a crime. Sweep someone up, and you have something they can be charged with. But this is all hypothetical.

Well, just so long as you do the sweeps in black neighbourhoods, I think that would be fine.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why should anyone be allowed to share a gun with anyone?

It's very common for a household to have only one copy of a tool even if multiple people in the household use it. Why should guns be treated any different?

Since it got stomped on by the Attorney General I don't know if there were other issues. It seems to me that taking your gun to a gunsmith for any repair that couldn't be performed promptly would also trigger a transfer--and then another to return it. Think that's reasonable?

Yes. I do. Why wouldn't it be?

These are not toys; It is perfectly reasonable to regulate them very tightly to ensure that people who should not have them don't get them.

How can you consider this bureaucracy reasonable? You just added at least $30 to every repair bill and at least half an hour of people's time over a pair of transactions that have basically no chance of being wrongful.

There are about 15,000 gunsmiths in the US and they typically work a 40 hour week. Thus that's about 30,000,000 gunsmith/hours of labor. Lets say (guessing, I'm not finding data) a typical repair take 4 hours. That means we are looking at 7,500,000 repairs/year. $225,000,000 minimum cost for this nonsense. You probably saved zero lives--but if you had spent the same money on useful ways to help people you would probably have saved something like 100 lives. (Safety measures that cost under $1 million/life are generally done. Those that cost over $10 million/life are usually only done when people are paranoid about a tiny risk. $2 million/life is something like middle of the road.)

Thus you are sacrificing 100 people/year on your fear of guns.

Obviously, the number is based on the average hours per repair but it's obvious that for any reasonable value that you are sacrificing a lot of people.

In the real world there is such a thing as being too safe because you can't have perfect safety in all respects--spending too much effort on one thing means there isn't enough effort available on something else.

- - - Updated - - -

In NYS, It is illegal to so much as TOUCH another person's gun... even if you yourself possess a legal carry. Your license lists the serial numbers of the guns that are registered to you, and any other gun you have made physical contact with would be an illegal act.

This is problematic for several reasons, not the least of which is simply the ability to teach someone gun safety, or show a safety feature on your gun to another gun owner.

It would be like your driver's license is only valid for vehicles that are both owned and registered to you.

I didn't realize any place went that nuts about it, I thought you could always grant fully supervised access.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is more with temporary transfers. Under the mess that was passed here you could share a gun with a spouse--but not other family members.

And this is a problem WHY?

I mean, if I have my driver's license suspended for a DUI, my dad can't legally allow me to drive his car. And in many states, if I get drunk and run over someone in a car that isn't mine, the owner of the car is partially liable for the damage, especially if he knew I wasn't licensed in the first place.

So why is a gun owner not responsible for making sure he doesn't give his gun to someone irresponsible?

But if you have a valid license should your dad be prohibited from letting you use the car? That's the case I am talking about!

It seems to me that taking your gun to a gunsmith for any repair that couldn't be performed promptly would also trigger a transfer--and then another to return it. Think that's reasonable?

VERY reasonable. Considering a gunsmith probably has a gun owner's license as well as a business license that you can easily verify by looking at them if you wanted to be sure. If there are gunsmiths out there who can't pass a criminal background check well enough to get licensed to even own a gun in the first place... well, that's a much bigger problem, innit?

Very reasonable to pay the at least $15 transfer fee each way??

(Now, I would have no problem with a gunsmith business license requiring the owner and all employees to pass the gun background check.)

 

[bilby]

It's very common for a household to have only one copy of a tool even if multiple people in the household use it. Why should guns be treated any different?

Probably because nobody has ever killed dozens of schoolchildren or concert goers with an orbital sander.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think this is an example of a gun law that has no practical purpose. What was the purpose of passing this law ?

That's because it's bullshit. There is no such law.

Sure of that? New York is pretty nuts about guns. It appears that the only way to get a gun license there is to bribe the officer that has to sign off on it.