The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[El_Machinae]

If you're right about straw-purchases being the overwhelming percentage, I'd agree it would be a priority. I mean, even if it was an underwhelming percentage, it would be a priority. I think it's fundamentally frustrating that criminals can get guns just by crossing state lines.

How can you limit the 'gun show loophole' without violating the 2nd Amendment? I'm supposed to fill out paperwork to get my rocket launcher?

 

[Commodore]

The easiest kluge is higher homeowners insurance if you don't have proper storage, I guess

Maybe, but that carries issues all its own. One being the question of whether citizens should be obligated to even report firearm ownership to a private corporation. If the current status quo holds that the government isn't entitled to such information, then corporations or other private organizations certainly shouldn't be entitled to it either.

 

[El_Machinae]

We will have different viewpoints on that. I'm a "freedom ain't free" kinda guy. I'm of the very strong opinion that people have to have liability insurance for their firearms, so that they can fully compensate any accidental victims of misuse. It's the same reason why I demand liability insurance for people who drive.

 

[IglooDame]

If you're right about straw-purchases being the overwhelming percentage, I'd agree it would be a priority. I mean, even if it was an underwhelming percentage, it would be a priority. I think it's fundamentally frustrating that criminals can get guns just by crossing state lines.

How can you limit the 'gun show loophole' without violating the 2nd Amendment? I'm supposed to fill out paperwork to get my rocket launcher?

It's not just a crossing state lines thing. There's a federal standard for buying firearms from an FFL (aka gun stores), and a NICS "instant background check" with the form. No felon can buy a gun via that route in any state, but their friend/relative/whoever buys them generally with the felon's cash. It just so happens that in some states there are state-level restrictions as well, like (in Mass) requiring a firearms ID card which has its own requirements. If I committed a crime in my home in NH, many of my guns would show as "out of state", acquired elsewhere and moved here when I did.

And shame, shame, for your sarcastic trolling. (edit: also ) Look, I think commercial transactions (like those at gun shows) are okay to require background checks for, akin to FFL transactions. And those transactions documents needing to be preserved by the seller, great, no problem. But the "every single transfer must be documented", like me giving my .22 rifle to my grandson for his birthday, isn't.

 

[Estebonrober]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thetrace.org/2017/06/physics-deadly-bullets-assault-rifles/amp/


Projectile weapons work by transferring kinetic energy to a target, which ripples out as a shockwave through tissue as the bullet plows through the body, leaving a cavity in its wake. The amount of energy a bullet radiates into a target is determined by a simple formula taught in high school: It’s the product of one half the projectile’s mass times the square of the velocity. The energy delivered to the target increases geometrically along with increases in mass, and exponentially with increases in velocity. The larger a projectile’s surface area, the greater its ability to transfer its energy to the target, instead of simply penetrating straight through.

I mean we can get into the exact metric I’m looking for but I know you guys understand my premise here. I’m not a firearms expert. I did not spend years killing people in Iraq. My kids spend one day a term going through mass shooter training though. So I do still get to have an opinion on the nightmare that is American mass shootings.

 

[Commodore]

How can you limit the 'gun show loophole' without violating the 2nd Amendment?

Well the main point of contention on that issue is whether or not those who aren't "in the business" of selling guns should have to bear the cost of doing background checks on those they sell guns to. One solution I see to this would be for the government to just eat the cost of those background checks and let people who aren't actual firearm dealers and just want to get rid of some guns to do those background checks for free.

I think that would eliminate a lot of resistance to closing the so-called "gun show loophole".

I mean we can get into the exact metric I’m looking for but I know you guys understand my premise here. I’m not a firearms expert. I did not spend years killing people in Iraq. My kids spend one day a term going through mass shooter training though. So I do still get to have an opinion on the nightmare that is American mass shootings

I wasn't trying to say you aren't allowed to have an opinion, nor was I trying to make you look stupid or anything like that. I know you aren't a firearms expert, which is why I tried to word my post in a way that was more informative than argumentative. I did say a while back that one of my reasons for participating in this thread so much was to educate as much as I am able to on the subject of firearms.

 

[Bugfatty300]

And shame, shame, for your sarcastic trolling. (edit: also ) Look, I think commercial transactions (like those at gun shows) are okay to require background checks for, akin to FFL transactions. And those transactions documents needing to be preserved by the seller, great, no problem. But the "every single transfer must be documented", like me giving my .22 rifle to my grandson for his birthday, isn't.

NC requires a permit for anyone to take possession of a handgun. There's virtually no compliance outside of formal transfers.

 

[IglooDame]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thetrace.org/2017/06/physics-deadly-bullets-assault-rifles/amp/


Projectile weapons work by transferring kinetic energy to a target, which ripples out as a shockwave through tissue as the bullet plows through the body, leaving a cavity in its wake. The amount of energy a bullet radiates into a target is determined by a simple formula taught in high school: It’s the product of one half the projectile’s mass times the square of the velocity. The energy delivered to the target increases geometrically along with increases in mass, and exponentially with increases in velocity. The larger a projectile’s surface area, the greater its ability to transfer its energy to the target, instead of simply penetrating straight through.

I mean we can get into the exact metric I’m looking for but I know you guys understand my premise here. I’m not a firearms expert. I did not spend years killing people in Iraq. My kids spend one day a term going through mass shooter training though. So I do still get to have an opinion on the nightmare that is American mass shootings.

Everyone is allowed to have an opinion, of course. But I think scrutiny of proposed solutions, especially as you note you're not familiar with firearm technology, is reasonable and perhaps even helpful, don't you agree?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

But the "every single transfer must be documented", like me giving my .22 rifle to my grandson for his birthday, isn't.

What if it were easy? Like logging into a government website or app? If it is not a painful process to do, I do not think it is an unreasonable ask.

And I think @Commodore's compromise on requiring checks but having the government subsidize that is a good idea.

 

[Bugfatty300]

What if it were easy? Like logging into a government website or app? If it is not a painful process to do, I do not think it is an unreasonable ask.

And I think @Commodore's compromise on requiring checks but having the government subsidize that is a good idea.

Better, but a lot people wouldn't bother because there'd be no way to enforce it and historically speaking most spree killers would pass a background check so we'd be in the same position.

 

[Estebonrober]

Everyone is allowed to have an opinion, of course. But I think scrutiny of proposed solutions, especially as you note you're not familiar with firearm technology, is reasonable and perhaps even helpful, don't you agree?

The problem with this is highlighted by the next quote.

Better, but a lot people wouldn't bother because there'd be no way to enforce it and historically speaking most spree killers would pass a background check so we'd be in the same position.

Every possible idea that might help but does not resolve one problem or another is disregarded by enthusiasts. The real issue I have is that you all are outnumbered 4:1 and still manage to hold sway over congress. Also when a state legislature like Virginia decides to do something even small the response is armed insurrection.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Every possible idea that might help but does not resolve one problem or another is disregarded by enthusiasts. The real issue I have is that you all are outnumbered 4:1 and still manage to hold sway over congress. Also when a state legislature like Virginia decides to do something even small the response is armed insurrection.

I've offered my ideas of gradual changes rather than outright bans. I haven't touched a legal private gun in years. Guns are my profession, not an enthusiast.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Better, but a lot people wouldn't bother because there'd be no way to enforce it and historically speaking most spree killers would pass a background check so we'd be in the same position.

We should be studying the issue to figure out what kinds of controls are enforceable. I refuse to believe there really is no solution to this particular issue. Congress did finally lift the ban on researching gun violence, maybe that can carry over to researching smart ways to do gun control?

 

[El_Machinae]

everything below is quotes

The common refrain is that Congress banned research on gun violence, but that’s not correct. The real obstacle is a lack of funding.

In 1996, Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) attached an amendment to the annual appropriations bill for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, stipulating that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” This has appeared in every CDC spending bill thereafter.

The Dickey amendment does not ban research; it bans the CDC from advocating gun-control policies. Those are two distinct things.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...de2128-2c4d-11e8-8ad6-fbc50284fce8_story.html

Congressional leaders reached a deal to fund research on gun violence for the first time in more than 20 years

The deal — still pending final approval as congressional negotiations continue over a must-pass, end-of-year spending bill — would send $25 million to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health to study gun violence, with each agency receiving $12.5 million

https://www.washingtonpost.com/heal...und-gun-violence-research-first-time-since-s/

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The common refrain is that Congress banned research on gun violence, but that’s not correct. The real obstacle is a lack of funding.

That reporter is being pedantic! Edit: Eh, I guess that kind of is their job. I get mad when Judy Woodruff uses poor phrasing and subtly shifts the meaning of something that someone has done while reporting the news. It doesn't happen often and it usually only happens with relation to complex situations but it's frustrating nonetheless so I shouldn't rag on that reporter for clarifying.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, I don't think it's pedantic, it's accurate. Congress is trying to fund gun violence research now. Plus, a few shifts in the words you use show that you are hip to what's actually going on. See also: magazine vs. clip, battle rifle vs. assault weapon, silencer vs suppressor.

I'm a biologist, and stem cells was a loooooong discussion. The States didn't 'ban' human embryonic stem cell research, they just refused to fund it with federal dollars. Strictly so. In comparison, Canada banned the research. So the difference with banning and 'refusing to fund' was actually really important.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Well, I don't think it's pedantic, it's accurate

It's both though. Now I'm being pedantic but whether Congress did not approve funds or outright banned the research doesn't matter much when the end result is the exact same. But he is technically correct and I appreciate the precision.

I'm a biologist, and stem cells was a loooooong discussion. The States didn't 'ban' human embryonic stem cell research, they just refused to fund it with federal dollars. Strictly so. In comparison, Canada banned the research. So the difference with banning and 'refusing to fund' was actually really important.

The situation is different because there is actually a natural market for biomedical research that exists outside of government funding. The same isn't really true of gun research but I could be wrong on that.

 

[El_Machinae]

The same isn't really true of gun research but I could be wrong on that.

Well, providers of insurance have the motivation. If an insurance agency was 'on the hook' for damage from a shooting (such as when homeowner's insurance is), then they'd want to know what changes to recommend (or insist upon) in their insurance contracts.

This is why countries with national health insurance have an 'obvious' motivation for funding large-scale studies that cannot be commodified. In the States, because you have competing insurance agencies they individually don't really have incentive to run the studies. Hence, NIH (etc.) does so much real research and insurance agencies don't. It's not just a subsidy, it's correcting a market failure.

BUT, that's because funding some types of research hard. Funding the research just puts you out-of-pocket on information that then the other insurance agencies make use of. But some research is easy, and obvious to do.

A ban on research would mean that insurance agencies would not be allowed to, even if they wanted to. I mean, it's pedantic, but it's also accurate. We have a ban on hESC research up here, even if insurers would want it done.

 

[Commodore]

The Dickey amendment does not ban research; it bans the CDC from advocating gun-control policies. Those are two distinct things

And it's entirely reasonable too. Government agencies should not be in the business of advocating for policies that would limit Constitutional rights.

Also, I never liked the idea have having the CDC involved in this issue anyway. It implies that gun ownership is some sort of disease and gun owners are somehow "sick" and need to be "cured". Studies of gun violence would be more appropriately handled by law enforcement agencies such as the FBI or ATF.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, it's part of the collective defense. If guns are hurting people, then it makes a lot of sense to figure out what is causing the guns to hurt people. Like any unknown system, there could be a few obvious tweaks that make a big difference