The Perception of Gun Owners

[stephen426]

Some of you guys mention full-auto weapons as a red herring due to the NFA of 1934. If the NFA was never enacted and some of these shooters had access to full-auto weapons, do you believe the death toll would have been the same. For those of you that believe we should have access to any weapon that our military has, what do we do about organized groups of extremists that are able to pool their money to buy some serious fire power?

I was having a discussion with one of my friends about the right to own AR-15 type weapons. His argument was that the mass proliferation of these weapons greatly increases the likelihood that they will get in the wrong hands. I have never gone through the screening process for a FFL or owning NFA weapons so I don't know how stringent it really is. Since NFA weapons are almost never used in a crime, could we say that the screening has to be somewhat effective?

We are obviously gun enthusiasts or we wouldn't be on this site. If we don't try to be a part of the solution to curb mass shootings, the laws will change WITHOUT us.

 

[Mainah]

If my community wanted to pool the citizen's resources to purchase an armored vehicle...

The feds were handing out armored vehicles like candy after 9/11.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I was having a discussion with one of my friends about the right to own AR-15 type weapons. His argument was that the mass proliferation of these weapons greatly increases the likelihood that they will get in the wrong hands. I have never gone through the screening process for a FFL or owning NFA weapons so I don't know how stringent it really is. Since NFA weapons are almost never used in a crime, could we say that the screening has to be somewhat effective?

No. Since NFA weapons are almost never used in crimes, we can say with certainty that NFA weapons are almost never used in crimes. Whether or not they might be used in more crimes if the NFA did not exist is pure speculation. Speculation is not a valid basis for the abridgement of a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

 

[zukiphile]

P5 guy, my understanding is that prior to our poor performance in the War of 1812, before we moved to a more formal standing army system, units were privately funded. The fellow with the resources to purchase artillery was likely to be an officer.

I had a family member who resigned his federal commission for the purpose of exercising his state militia authority unimpeded. It sounds like it was an extremely loose system.

We are obviously gun enthusiasts or we wouldn't be on this site. If we don't try to be a part of the solution to curb mass shootings, the laws will change WITHOUT us.

If we succumb to an emotionally driven hysteria to do something, we are likely to participate in changes that make worse laws. It's a shame the Reichstag burned; that doesn't make policy in reaction to it constructive.

For those of you that believe we should have access to any weapon that our military has, what do we do about organized groups of extremists that are able to pool their money to buy some serious fire power?

What are you proposing we do about people with whom you disagree, are armed, have engaged in no criminal conspiracy and have hurt no one?

The planted axiom in your question is that we need to do something about them.

I was having a discussion with one of my friends about the right to own AR-15 type weapons. His argument was that the mass proliferation of these weapons greatly increases the likelihood that they will get in the wrong hands. I have never gone through the screening process for a FFL or owning NFA weapons so I don't know how stringent it really is. Since NFA weapons are almost never used in a crime, could we say that the screening has to be somewhat effective?

The other possibility is that someone who is willing to shell out a couple hundred dollars and wait for months just to get the approval to possess a rare toy has resources and foresight that make it unlikely he will shoot a 7-11 clerk for meth money.

Screening similarly for items in common use so that few will have the resources and patience to weather the process shouldn't be constitutional so long as the 2d. Am. is part of it.

 

[Metal god]

Yes we already tried it , but why . Dought it was because they thought it would save 10k lives a year . Im not even sure of your guys point . If that’s all we need is to show banning something won’t work then we should be gtg . You also just conveniently ignored my point . It didn’t work because the vast majority of the population did not want it and otherwise law abiding citizens were willing to break that law . My point was not enough people care if guns get restricted as apposed to not being able to drink , drive or have medical care .

 

[huntinaz]

Not every crisis calls for a "solution". People are sometimes going to do bad things and even taking away freedom doesn't stop them..

Sometimes you look at the situation, realize that any "solution" that would be likely to have a constructive effect on future similar incidents would result in unacceptable consequences...

As a society, we already do that in the face of tens of thousands of deaths each year due to [various causes of death]...

And yet there are still people who believe you can change behaviors by banning things

We can go round and round all day but these really are good, simple points all boiled down. Human violence has always been prevalent and dynamic. People do bad things to each other and sometimes there isn't a readily implementable solution that will be meaningful that doesn't also carry unacceptable consequences. This is readily evident by multiple examples in current society like medicine and alcohol.

There comes a point where we do as much as we can until we hit the threshold where further restrictions or laws or "solutions" carry enough potential undesirable consequences that the risk outweighs the benefits. That doesn't mean we can't try new things or discuss new things or that it's not worthwhile to think about it but in this particular case, for people that value protecting rights outlined in the constitution, we've hit that point with restrictions on the second amendment (something that can be taken away) and human violence (something that has ever been thus)

 

[Aguila Blanca]

It [prohibition] didn’t work because the vast majority of the population did not wsnt it and even otherwise law abiding citizens were willing to break that law . My point was not enough people care if guns get restricted as apposed to not being able to drink , drive or have medical care .

True. And somehow our side is losing the public relations war, which is going to exacerbate the flow of public opinion against guns.

The Second Amendment is still part of the Constitution. IMHO, the best thing we could do is get Trump another four years as President, and hope that he'll be afforded the opportunity to appoint at least one, maybe two, more Supreme Court justices, as well as numbers of district and appellate court judges. If we could get a reliable pro-2A (or just pro-Constitution) bloc on the SCOTUS, then we could get a few more cases decided in favor of the 2A and eviscerate the anti-gun movement for at least a generation or two.

Right now they're pushing hard because they have the bit in their teeth and they smell blood. They'll probably never give up, but if they're handed a few high profile losses I think they'll slow down for awhile and turn their energies to other boondoggles, such as the "Green New Deal" and saving the planet by bankrupting the United States. Even politics goes in cycles, so we need to ride out the current cycle of anti-gun ascendancy as well as possible.

 

[44 AMP]

I was having a discussion with one of my friends about the right to own AR-15 type weapons. His argument was that the mass proliferation of these weapons greatly increases the likelihood that they will get in the wrong hands.

Mathematically true. The more of anything you have, the greater the chance of some of them being misused or abused.

Got any idea WHY there is such a "mass proliferation" of these weapons today?

I believe you can thank the Federal government, and specifically the Clinton administration for making them so popular.

Nothing encourages purchases and makes have one glamorous as much as the government says "you can't have that". Forbidden fruit is a powerful attractant.

Prior to the push that resulted in the 1994 AWB, military style semi autos were a small part of the firearms market. Few people bought them. Some collectors and hobbyists, mostly, they were more expensive, often heavier, and not in many calibers suited for deer hunting. Both the AR-15 and the FAL have been on the market since the mid 1960s. The government's attempt to ban/restrict them created a HUGE market that didn't exist before.

Since NFA weapons are almost never used in a crime, could we say that the screening has to be somewhat effective?

It's not that the screening process is any more effective, its that it is so complex and time consuming, along with the expense, that very few people bother to apply. Besides checking all possible records, the process requires the applicant to obtain written permission from their local chief law enforcement officer (Chief of Police or Sherriff, etc) and the cost of the NFA weapons has a built in increase, every time they change ownership.

it's a "transfer tax". Along with approval you must purchase the tax stamp which costs $200. Not a lot today, but a huge amount (more than most guns) in 1934. SO, in addition to all other possible market factors, the cost of an machinegun goes up $200 every time someone new becomes the owner. Here's the way it works, if I buy a machine gun for $400, I pay the owner $400 and the govt $200. When I sell it, I ask (at least) $600 to get my money back. The next buyer pays me $600 and the govt $200, so when he sells it he needs $800 to get his money back. And so on...

This is how these guns get to cost tens of thousands of dollars over time. PLUS since 1986 no new guns have been allowed to be added to the Federal registry. SO, the supply of legally transferrable guns is fixed. SO that adds even more cost/value to the guns.

People who are willing to go through the process in order to legally own a gun that will cost them possibly tens of thousands of dollars simply don't commit street crimes with them.

 

[5whiskey]

Since NFA weapons are almost never used in a crime, could we say that the screening has to be somewhat effective?

Zukephile beat me to it somewhat, but it’s not the screening process per se. it’s the fact that it takes 6 months to a year, plus $200 over the cost of the item you are purchasing, to take possession of the item. As Zuke said, that level of patience and means is above what your typical tweaker possesses so it’s quite unlikely for an NFA weapon to be used in crime. Also the price of NFA items is higher because of lower demand, I.e. since so few are patient enough to go through the process fewer NFA items are sold. The lower a volume of an item sold, the higher the profit margin per item needs to be for a company to make xxx amount of money. Increase the demand and volume, those margins per product can fall some. Suppressors would be significantly less expensive if it weren’t for the paperwork and wait time, because volume of sales would increase 5 fold easily in the first year they were off the NFA. Prices my go up at first because demand will be greater than supply, but as companies ramped up and increased production prices would eventually fall as there is enough business volume for companies to begin undercutting other companies.

Add to this that, In the case of FA, prices are astronomical as no new FA firearms can be added to the registry. We’re left to compete and bid on a limited number of products manufactured pre 1986

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Add to this that, In the case of FA, prices are astronomical as no new FA firearms can be added to the registry. We’re left to compete and bid on a limited number of products manufactured pre 1986

IMHO, this is far more responsible for the lack of NFA firearms being used in crimes than the screening process. Whether the pool of prospective owners is static or expanding, the pool of NFA firearms is definitely static, and may even be diminishing. But it's certain that no more are being added to the pool.

That's very different from ordinary firearms, even so-called "assault weapon" firearms like the AR-15. Multiple manufacturers are churning them out every day. People are buying them every day. This will continue even if there is some sort of enhanced background check system put in place. People will keep buying them, and criminals will keep stealing them.

Even so ... the overwhelming majority of day-to-day "gun" crimes aren't mass shootings with "assault weapon" type rifles. Most "gun" crimes are stickups, and those are predominately carried out with handguns.

 

[stephen426]

Regarding the NFA background check, I should have said that the cost of NFA guns, plus the paperwork hurdles, plus the scarcity of transferable NFA guns, PLUS the NFA background check is probably why NFA guns are so rarely used in crimes.

You guys can say that it is pure speculation as to whether or not NFA weapons would be used for these mass shootings, but why would they use semi-automatic rifles with large magazines rather than handguns? My speculation would be that rifle rounds are more powerful than handgun rounds and larger mags require fewer mag changes. Would someone hell bent on massive casualties not opt for a machine gun if it was readily available to them at an affordable price?

How do we make sure that the laws that are already on the books get enforced? Why was Nikolas Cruz able to buy a AR-15 after all of the trouble he had gotten in? https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/timeline-parkland-shooter-nikolas-cruz/?noredirect=on

 

[zukiphile]

You guys can say that it is pure speculation as to whether or not NFA weapons would be used for these mass shootings, but why would they use semi-automatic rifles with large magazines rather than handguns?

Sometimes they do use handguns. Virginia Tech and the Long Island commuter train come to mind. If memory serves, Columbine involved pistol and shotgun rounds. The Tsarnaev brothers didn't even need a gun.

Why was Nikolas Cruz able to buy a AR-15 after all of the trouble he had gotten in?

Adults without an adult criminal record are generally entitled to buy long guns.


Stephen, if I could plausibly argue that trimming back 1st and 4th Am. protections could reduce "mass" murders, would you be open to violating those rights as they are generally understood?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

You guys can say that it is pure speculation as to whether or not NFA weapons would be used for these mass shootings, but why would they use semi-automatic rifles with large magazines rather than handguns? My speculation would be that rifle rounds are more powerful than handgun rounds and larger mags require fewer mag changes. Would someone hell bent on massive casualties not opt for a machine gun if it was readily available to them at an affordable price?

I don't disagree with your process or your conclusion but it is, by your own admission, still speculation.

The supposition that "machine guns" would be available at affordable prices is, of itself, speculation.

Why was Nikolas Cruz able to buy a AR-15 after all of the trouble he had gotten in?

This is veering deeply into politics, so please do NOT discuss ... but do some follow-up research if you don't believe me. The reason is that the county and the school district had a program in place to reduce the number of minority students who were suspended or dismissed from school for disciplinary reasons. Cruz was one of the products of that system. You may have read that the school resource officer (SRO) had garnered commendations for his performance. His commendations were for being so adept at skewing the true statistics by downgrading serious criminal incidents into much less serious (sounding) charges. He and the superintendent were in lock step on this approach. The result was lots of students with a long history of incidents, but not much of a criminal record. A background check for buying a firearm doesn't look into your internal high school records.

This was written up and discussed extensively in the aftermath of the shooting.

 

[5whiskey]

How do we make sure that the laws that are already on the books get enforced? Why was Nikolas Cruz able to buy a AR-15 after all of the trouble he had gotten in?

I'm actually quite glad you've brought that up. This has actually come up several times here on TFL. I'll start by revealing the ultimate point... why on earth should we swallow any additional gun control before the current laws start being enforced en masse. I've seen statistics of prosecutions for lying on the 4473 (a federal felony). Despite there being 10s of thousands of NICs rejections every year (indicating that the person is prohibited), that person quite obviously fudged the 4473 as you must answer yes/no to all the prohibited questions. Now that we are in these weeds, I'll bring up stats and a source... There were over 8 million NICs checks in 2017, over 112k denials, over 12k ATF investigations into 4473 fraud, and 12 prosecutions. 12.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/694290.pdf

Now why am I going here? Well, The Sutherland Springs shooter absolutely should have been a NICs denial, but the Air Force dropped that ball by not reporting his previous sins. Same thing with the VA Tech shooter, where the state of Virginia should have reported him to NICs. The Aurora IL shooter should have failed a background check but didn't. The SC Church shooter could have been reported to NICs per FBI standards... well depending on who you ask at the FBI. The Parkland FL shooter was reported to the FBI twice, and there were numerous opportunities for local police to adjudicate him and make him a prohibited person. As AB said, deferred prosecution (repeatedly deferred apparently) stopped that. Lastly, the Pulse nightclub shooter was investigated by the FBI twice, being placed on the terror watch list, then again was reported by a gun shop who said his attempt to purchase a large quantity of ammo felt suspicious just a few weeks before the shooting.

With all these instances of the system dropping the ball, why on earth should we clamor for, or even accept, any new laws under the guise of "common sense." Common Sense gun control, at this point to me, is enforcing existing laws and actually expecting courts, the military, the FBI, and Mental Health professionals to do their job and report prohibited persons.

 

[Webleymkv]

For those who say that we need to be "part of the solution" or that "something" needs to be done, has it ever occured to you that the problem, and therefore the solution, is far deeper and more complex than the tool a mass murderer chooses to commit his/her murder with? It seems to me that the question that should be asked is not "how did this happen" but rather "why did this happen"

As has been pointed out, there are many other, and is some cases far more effective, tools with which mass murder can be perpetrated. Arson, explosives, and misuse of various vehicles are all well-documented tools used by mass murderers. It seems that many have been duped into believing that "gun violence" is the problem when in reality all violence is equally abhorrent.

If the history of firearms legislation in America has taught us anything, it's that no sooner than the ink in dry on the latest ban or hoop that law-abiding gun owners must jump through is the people who called such ban or hoop "reasonable" or "common sense" are clamoring for more because the previous law didn't go far enough. Most of the recent mass shooters acquired their guns legally through an FFL transfer at a licensed dealer, so "universal background checks" wouldn't have done a thing to stop them. Mass shootings have happened during the 94-04 AWB and/or with "non-assault weapons" like revolvers and pump-action shotguns, so an AWB won't stop them. Mass shootings have happened in states and localities with stringent licensing requirements, one-gun-a-month laws and other such draconian regulations so that doesn't stop it. Many of these mass shooters either had records that should have made them prohibited persons which were not properly reported to NICS or committed crimes for which they should have been made prohibited persons but were never prosecuted, so what good is a red-flag law if we're already unable or unwilling to enforce the existing laws to keep guns away from felons and the mentally unstable?

No, I think if we want a solution we need to attempt to understand why these people felt compelled to do what they did. A good place to start is by examining commonalities in the lives and personalities of mass shooters. It seems to be common for mass-shooters to be described as "isolated" or "loners." It also seems to be common for their bad behavior to continue to escalate with little or nothing done about it until they commit mass murder.

Now, I'm not a psychologist or psychiatrist, but I do work in the medical profession and have had more that my fair share of exposure to patients with various psychological issues. Something very commonly encountered is what we refer to as "attention-seeking behavior" and, to someone who isn't familiar with it, it can be truly amazing what some people are willing to do in order to get attention be it good, bad, or otherwise. Often, this attention-seeking begins with relatively minor things like frequently pushing their call light button for menial things, but if the desired amount of attention isn't attained it can quickly escalate to behaviors like faking serious medical symptoms like chest pain, inappropriate comments, inexplicable fits of anger, false accusations against staff, elopement, self-harm, and violent outbursts. Also, as most medical professionals will tell you, rewarding attention-seeking behavior with attention usually begets more attention-seeking behavior.

I cannot help but see parallels between the attention-seeking behaviors of patients I've seen over the years and many of the reported behaviors of mass-shooters in the the months and years leading up to their crimes. I also note that many of these mass-shooters seem to be fascinated with previous mass-shootings and mass-shooters. I cannot help but believe that the constant media coverage of mass-shootings, particularly the incessant repetition of the shooter's name and picture, is likely to inspire other disturbed individuals to do the same in the name of attention or some warped sense of "fame." It seems to me that a good first step in preventing future mass murders would be to stop rewarding those who commit such heinous acts with the attention and infamy they seem to crave. If we make it known that committing mass murder ensures that your name will be forgotten and you will never be spoken of again, I think it would discourage a sizable number of the people who are inclined to perpetrate such atrocities in the name of attention.

 

[Webleymkv]

continued

I also think that the rise of the internet, and in particular social media, is also contributing not only to mass murder, but many other huge societal problems. While the internet and social media can be very beneficial and used for many good works, it can also be very harmful and harnessed for great evil if misused. While TFL and other sites like it strive and usually succeed in being places for rational, polite discourse, the same cannot be said for every corner of the internet. It doesn't take much looking to find message boards, chat rooms, or even the comments section of articles and videos to find people who are willing to verbally attack and berate others in a manner so vicious that one can scarcely believe what they're reading all over a minor difference of opinion. I've seen people savagely attacked and berated over things as trivial as fashion sense and grammar. Most people would not even dream of saying such things to someone in person, but hiding behind a keyboard seems to encourage bravery of the worst sort.

Also, one does not have to look very hard to find areas of the internet and social media in which a person's most depraved desires and fantasies are not only tolerated, but accepted and even encouraged. Even if the discount the outright illegal, tales of psychological torture, and vicious revenge for the most trivial of perceived slights, and other depravity not even worthy of mention are celebrated in a manner that can truly turn the stomach.

Add on top of this a culture in which one's value is measured not by the content of one's character or personal achievements, but by their number of Facebook likes, Instagram followers, and retweets. Our society has come to idolize not those who do good works and make the world a better place, but rather those who are most physically attractive, flaunt their wealth in the most outlandish way, or shout down those who disagree with them in the most obnoxious fashion.

We then throw into this cesspool people who have been raised in broken, dysfunctional families, abused and/or neglected by the people who were supposed to care for them most, taught that they are inherently guilty or evil because of some "privilege" of race or gender as judged by people who've never met them and know nothing of their lives, and then told that they can be absolved of all personal responsibility if they identify with this group or that. Is it any wonder that so many people have such a warped sense of reality and identity? Is it any wonder that some of them act out in such extreme ways in order to attain the attention they so crave?

As I said, it's a complex problem and therefore there isn't an easy solution. No law we can pass, be it banning guns, censoring media, or punishing certain groups of people for the crimes they might commit will solve it. No, what is needed is a cultural shift. Society as a whole must recognize these depravities for what they are and shun them long before it comes to mass murder. Unfortunately, so long as we value popularity and fame over interpersonal relations, so long as we are afraid to speak out against cruelty, rudeness, and depravity for fear of being labeled "intolerant," "bigoted," or "closed-minded," and so long as we're willing to gawk at the suffering of others while allowing media and politicians to turn it into campaign slogans nothing will be solved.

 

[Mainah]

I also think that the rise of the internet, and in particular social media, is also contributing not only to mass murder, but many other huge societal problems.

I agree. I think that technology is advancing faster than the ability of many to process, especially those with mental health issues. And we're dealing with the first generation of people who have grown up with no context outside of this reality.

 

[USNRet93]

True. And somehow our side is losing the public relations war, which is going to exacerbate the flow of public opinion against guns.

The Second Amendment is still part of the Constitution. IMHO, the best thing we could do is get Trump another four years as President, and hope that he'll be afforded the opportunity to appoint at least one, maybe two, more Supreme Court justices, as well as numbers of district and appellate court judges. If we could get a reliable pro-2A (or just pro-Constitution) bloc on the SCOTUS, then we could get a few more cases decided in favor of the 2A and eviscerate the anti-gun movement for at least a generation or two.

Right now they're pushing hard because they have the bit in their teeth and they smell blood. They'll probably never give up.

Been watching the news..of any political spectrum? There is no more 'us and them' in congress..trump is all in(it seems..it WAS on TV) on redflag laws, 21 YO purchase and UBC..Lindsey Graham was on TV pushing a RFL..

I think the 'us vs them' rhetoric doesn't serve well...

I'll predict again..'some' restrictions on .223/.556 ammunition...

In the “do something” camp are the governors of Ohio and Texas, Mike DeWine and Greg Abbott, both Republicans. DeWine, under pressure from Ohioans to take action, said on Tuesday that he’ll push for tough background checks and “red flag” laws, among other responses, while Abbott held a meeting with Texas officials on Wednesday and emerged with a plan for more discussions, possibly this month

“I’m looking to do background checks,” the president added, noting that he is consulting with House and Senate leaders about potential legislation. “I think background checks are important. I don’t want to put guns into the hands of mentally unstable people or people with rage or hate, sick people.”

Nonetheless, the majority leader has turned to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and two other GOP leaders to seek a bipartisan compromise on federal “red flag” legislation, which would allow authorities to obtain a type of protective order — known as an extreme risk protection order, or E.R.P.O. — to remove guns from people deemed to be dangerous.

 

[zukiphile]

trump is all in(it seems..it WAS on TV)

Perhaps even more than with his predecessors, I'd be loathe to take this exec's immediate responses to anything as a reliable indicator of policy. Note the specific mechanism Aguila Blanca described:

...hope that he'll be afforded the opportunity to appoint at least one, maybe two, more Supreme Court justices, as well as numbers of district and appellate court judges. If we could get a reliable pro-2A (or just pro-Constitution) bloc on the SCOTUS, then we could get a few more cases decided in favor of the 2A and eviscerate the anti-gun movement for at least a generation or two.

That mechanism and the staffing that surrounds it is less likely to reflect a mercurial nature.

I would expect that there will be three vacancies on the Sup Ct over the next five years.

 

[USNRet93]

Perhaps even more than with his predecessors, I'd be loathe to take this exec's immediate responses to anything as a reliable indicator of policy. Note the specific mechanism Aguila Blanca described:

I predict two things..Mitch will protect trump and not bring any gun control anything to the floor, regardless of support..and if it does and passes..I doubt trump will sign it..as it will really rile his base. In spite of being small, trump's loathe to upset them.

Nice to crystal ball the SC, but state's will move on this..many with GOP governors..

I would expect that there will be three vacancies on the Sup Ct over the next five years.

Perhaps but nothing until Jan 21, 2021...