The Perception of Gun Owners

[Tom Servo]

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."

This has long been a gripe of mine. When I was a dealer, I had several instances in which I shut down a suspect sale, called the ATF, and was told it wasn't their responsibility to deal with it. I actually had a file with copies of the 4473, a note with the names and numbers of the agents with whom I'd spoken, and a copy of the video of the incident just in case something happened.

During the post-Newtown feeding frenzy, there were congressional hearings on background checks. The Baltimore chief of police testified about how we needed more background checks and bans. A senator pointed out that there were only 52 prosecutions for violations of the Brady Act between 1998 and 2013 and asked why his department wasn't more aggressive in pursuing that. His response was, "those are paper crimes. We don't have time to go after those."

Remember, this isn't about public safety. It's about being seen passing laws.

 

[zukiphile]

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

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.

Do you sense any tension between these observations?


The problem with predicting a long term political result within a few days of a highly covered event is that the milieu doesn't endure. Recall Newtown. For a couple of weeks, much of the public conversation in response to the shock had a tenor like "we have to do something right away even if it's stupid". Over the next several weeks it resolved to "maybe we understand that doing something that won't really do any good just to make people feel better is a bad way to shape laws".

No crystal ball here. Breyer seems energetic currently, but that doesn't mean he will do this until his mid 80s. RBG is the one many expect to vacate. Thomas isn't terribly old at only a year or two older than Alito, but he carries some extra weight.

 

[Mainah]

.trump is all in(it seems..it WAS on TV) on redflag laws, 21 YO purchase and UBC.

Unless he's talking about immigration, trade, or himself nothing he says means much. I've read that he's been talking to Wayne. This will be an interesting test of Wayne's ability to rally the troops.

 

[Metal god]

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.

As much as I agree with your point and it's a valid one . I'd think the simple answer is there were no real ways to stop them legally with the laws in place at the time . I hate to say it but "if" the RED FLAG laws were in place allowing the authorities to actually legally do something . Could you have wrote that same post ? Sure just all speculation here but thinking reasonably , I'd think at least one if not several of those would have been prevented . No there is no proof but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence . ( FWIW I love that line )

 

[rickyrick]

One of the things about gun control that has been touted (accurate or not) is UK type gun control has drastically reduced gun violence on the island(s).
The reason that I’m told that it works is that there is supposedly a police officer on every corner. My mind says that we’d need a similar police presence, more cops for public safety and a lot more cops to find guns and enforce the gun laws. So the political subgroups that tend to be for gun control has expressed an extreme level of disdain and distrust for law enforcement officers. So I’m not sure how it’s gonna work.

 

[zukiphile]

One of the things about gun control that has been touted (accurate or not) is UK type gun control has drastically reduced gun violence on the island(s).

That may be accurate. Statistical arguments across jurisdictions can be tricky, but I've seen data that suggests most parts of Canada have fewer firearm deaths. They also have much higher assault and occupied home invasion rates.

At some level most people are rational actors. If someone planning a home invasion in the UK is pretty confident that he won't be shot over it, he may not wait for the residents to leave.

I went to school with a fellow from western Europe. He was a brawler, at least having been on a police naughty list for nearly beating a fellow to death. When I explained to him that americans don't need any sort of special government license to get a gun, he was dismayed. But then if you go to the discoteque, you cannot **** with another man's girl because he might just shoot you?

Well, not really but yes, and that's sort of the point. A virtual prohibition on firearms in a civilian population may reduce firearm deaths (not itself a sensible goal), but it may provoke a range of other undesirable conduct.

 

[Mainah]

No. Since NFA weapons are almost never used in crimes, we can say with certainty that NFA weapons are almost never used in crimes.

If I were proposing additional gun control I'd latch right onto that.

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.

That's true... to an extent. There was some marketing involved too. Mona Charen has been a pretty reliable conservative, and this caught my attention today: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/limit-some-guns-for-cosmetic-reasons/

It's kind of a clumsy piece for her. But it's where I see the debate heading.

 

[stephen426]

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.

Let's take these things one by one:
Arson: Potentially very deadly, especially if spreads like in California
Explosives: Not available to regular buyer. Making one yourself takes knowledge and
online research could trigger alerts to the authorities.
Vehicles: Has been used and potentially deadly, but much more expensive than a rifle.

You can buy AR-15s for around $500. Magazines are about $15. A box of .223/5.56 is down to about $6.50. Do the math. An 18 year old can legally buy one after the mandated cooling period. Military surplus AK-47s can be had for much cheaper.

 

[Tom Servo]

Mona Charen has been a pretty reliable conservative, and this caught my attention today

She's admitting that cosmetic bans don't work, then calls for cosmetic bans. Huh.

These kinds of appeals to the masculine ego are more irresponsible today than in the past because we have more borderline young men.

Well, maybe we should ask why we're producing more "borderline young men."

 

[44 AMP]

That's true... to an extent. There was some marketing involved too.

Well, of course!! With it looking like the government is going to ban future sales, no good capitalist is going to miss making a buck or three while they CAN.

Get it NOW, BEFORE it's BANNED!!!!

I'm thinking that sold a lot of guns to a lot of people who hadn't previously been interested in those particular types.

 

[zukiphile]

Vehicles: Has been used and potentially deadly, but much more expensive than a rifle.

You can buy AR-15s for around $500. Magazines are about $15. A box of .223/5.56 is down to about $6.50. Do the math. An 18 year old can legally buy one after the mandated cooling period. Military surplus AK-47s can be had for much cheaper.

If you plan to fly an airplane into a building, the cost of the airplane isn't a genuine consideration. A rental van drives down a crowded sidewalk as well as any car one can buy.

Who is selling "military surplus AK-47s"? Who is selling them for much less than $500? The AK market I see in the US involves some US manufacture and prices are around $1,000 new. $200 Chinese AKMs are an historical footnote.



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?

 

[zukiphile]

Mona Charen has been a pretty reliable conservative, and this caught my attention today:

She is a generally intelligent and sensible woman, and illustrates the danger of writing about something to which little thought or understanding is allotted.

Okay, but isn’t it possible that cosmetics matter? Certainly gun manufacturers act as if they do. They’ve designed guns to look more and more like weapons of war. They are advertised with images of heavily armored soldiers. Some gun ads use language exquisitely attuned to men’s desire for respect and even dominance. “Forces of opposition, bow down,” said one. The AR-15 Bushmaster was marketed with the slogan “Consider your man card reissued.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/limit-some-guns-for-cosmetic-reasons/

The TLDR version: We should ban arms with certain cosmetic features because dangerously unstable men are drawn to those features and advertising that promises power and authority. Her gripe is actually with free speech.

Guns have been designed to look more and more like weapons of war? I think that's false, and obviously false to anyone familiar with the civilian AR market. A pinch-lock Zev handguard doesn't show up in pictures of guys in Iraq. I've never seen those awful 40 round plus magazines anywhere but a 3 gun match. Show up with an A2 rifle at the range and you'll get a thumbs up for going "retro". Wear woodland camo and you'll look about as cool as a civil war re-enactor.

A4s are the government cheese of rifles.

She's a good writer; she wrote an awful article.

 

[Mainah]

Get it NOW, BEFORE it's BANNED!!!!

Just track the prices related to who is in the White House and current events. Part of the issue is that Sandy Hook sold a bunch of these guns, but prices have been stable lately.

 

[rickyrick]

I honestly think that the country is so saturated with ARs not too many people will purchase as a panic buy.

I’ve got a few that I don’t even have a use for.

Even if banned tomorrow, I don’t have any interest in buying more.

There’s no way of knowing if any potential bans will allow grandfathering.

Might be a run on ammunition, but I’ve lost count on how much ammunition I have long ago. I have a lot. I bought ammunition every week for years when it became available after the 2008 panic.

 

[Mainah]

I honestly think that the country is so saturated with ARs not too many people will purchase as a panic buy.

I agree. And I think that with parts so avaialble and with advances in 3D printing it'll be a moot point. Does that make new regulations more palpable?

 

[rickyrick]

I personally don’t want new regulations, but, I am resolved that they are a part of our modern world. I certainly don’t want to go to jail so I will comply, even if I don’t like the regulations.

 

[Metal god]

Anybody see this today . Looks like we had a win today that seems to go to some of are concerns about red flag laws . A quick glance seems to say the plaintiff was deemed a prohibited person for life just because he went through a red flag type of law or procedure once but was not found a mental defect or involuntarily committed .

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-...dium=email&utm_source=firearmspolicycoalition

 

[44 AMP]

A quick glance seems to say the plaintiff was deemed a prohibited person for life just because he went through a red flag type of law or procedure once but was not found a mental defect or involuntarily committed .

Glad to see some "common sense" prevail. Abuse, either intentional or accidental is one of the big issues with the "red flag" laws.

This was the same kind of issue that created headlines early in the Trump administration when they reversed a flaw in the previous administration's handling of the issue of firearms ownership by people who were "mentally challenged" but NOT adjudicated mentally defective under existing laws.

I am referring to those people who APPLIED for benefits from Social Security due to mental issues, and were put on the prohibited person's list, because of it.

The definition used by Social Security to qualify for benefits was not, and is not the same used by the FBI, ATF, and other LEO portions of government. It is NOT the definition in law, it is an internal organizational definition as to whether or not someone meets their requirements, and means NOTHING outside of the Social Security Administration.

The 1968 GCA spells out a specific legal process that must be followed to declare a mentally challenged person prohibited from possessing firearms. Anything NOT meeting those standards is not legal.

Deeming anyone a prohibited person (which is a permanent classification) solely due to the (questionable) exercise of a Red Flag law is simply NOT LEGAL.

Glad to see the Penn court system recognizing that.

 

[LeverGunFan]

The Firearms Policy Coalition story posted by Metal God in post #97 has a link to join the Firearms Policy Coalition - it's not very expensive to join and they do good work for our 2A rights.

 

[rickyrick]

A lot of the politicians do not know what we have been through, they don’t understand what motivates us, no clue as to how we live our lives or even what our morals and values are... or they do know and they simply don’t care. Either way, no meaningful forward progress can be made by flinging false accusations at a good portion of the working class. I donate 10-20% of my income in CASH to charity, mostly to the local food banks. I help people out when I can. I treat everyone that I come in contact with respect and kindness. Worst thing I do in life is troll a firearms forum haha. I even let the government keep my tax refunds when I’m due a refund. But yet, the media, politicians and elected officials accuse people similar to me of disgusting things and call us disgusting names. But whatever, I guess.