|
Let's charge car manufacturers with accessory as well, don't they know people commit murder with cars every day???
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 06:30 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:This seems like a reasonable position though "active supervision" can mean a lot of different things (i.e., checking in with a probation officer once a week?). I think we can probably all agree that someone on probation after an armed robbery conviction probably shouldn't be owning a gun. Just make it against the law for that person to own the gun. If they are caught with the gun it is on them. It gets messy when you try to force citizens to enforce the law. Examples of this are cigarette and alcohol sales to minors. Store clerks shouldn't be required to enforce the laws. The law should only take effect with a prohibited person in possession of whatever item. As for probation if you're trusted with a car, knife, bats etc, I'm fine with you owning a gun. If they can't trust you to drive a car or own matches or knives, guns should be right out as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:I guess the GUN TALK alarm has been sent out. Why do this? Seriously, why? Is it such a bad thing for people interested in the discussion and have knowledge and something to lose to come in and discuss the subject?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:Just make it against the law for that person to own the gun. If they are caught with the gun it is on them. Yeah, ok, I think this is the agree to disagree point for me. It's not "on them"; it's on whoever is the victim of the crime they perpetrate with the firearm they're illegally holding. At some point, the government has to step in and actively prevent harm. If a ten year old walks into a liquor store and asks to buy a handle of Smirnoff, then drinks it, stumbles back out to a car, gets in, drives off, and strikes and kills some poor schlub because ten year olds shouldn't be driving drunk, I think it's perfectly justified to say "what the gently caress was the store clerk thinking" and to even have a law saying "store clerks should not sell alcohol to ten year olds." It's not enough to just say "well we'll just punish the ten year old!" because ten year olds are minors and not responsible and because someone's already died and sending the ten year old to jail won't bring them back. Similarly, people on probation for armed robbery probably shouldn't be allowed to buy or own firearms, and it makes sense to me to have a background check system in place to prevent that. Call me crazy I guess? The current system may need some reforms but it does not need to be abolished.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Let's charge car manufacturers with accessory as well, don't they know people commit murder with cars every day??? Are they smuggling cars to prohibited, unlicensed people who are prohibited by law from driving? Sure, why not. If we're going to keep pretending that a means of conveyance that can be used to kill someone is somehow the equivilent of a weapon designed explicitly for that purpose we may as well take this hyperbole train as far as it will go.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:Ahh so the CDC reporting diagnosed cases of syphilis is less trustworthy than a random sample of people responding to questions of "have you ever had syphilis" on the street? You know that CDC comparision is non-sensical, right? And I don't know much about statistics, but even I know the worthiness of random sampling over self-reported numbers, especially when one has a much larger data set than the other.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Similarly, people on probation for armed robbery probably shouldn't be allowed to buy or own firearms, and it makes sense to me to have a background check system in place to prevent that. Call me crazy I guess? The current system may need some reforms but it does not need to be abolished. No no no, don't you see? It's infringing on the  Liberty of domestic abusers awaiting trial to immediately purchase a handgun with no questions asked. What are you, some kind of commie-nazi-islamist?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Are they smuggling cars to prohibited, unlicensed people who are prohibited by law from driving? Sure, why not. If we're going to keep pretending that a means of conveyance that can be used to kill someone is somehow the equivilent of a weapon designed explicitly for that purpose we may as well take this hyperbole train as far as it will go. And the goalposts shift. Your prior post was lending your car to a friend you had to reason to suspect would use it illegally.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah, ok, I think this is the agree to disagree point for me. It's not "on them"; it's on whoever is the victim of the crime they perpetrate with the firearm they're illegally holding. Obviously a 10 year old is one thing but a guy that is 20 buying alcohol. Why should the store clerk be held at fault for selling it to a 20 year old? Non obvious prohibited persons make the laws ridiculous to enforce. And unless we're talking about branding criminals and sex offenders, it is far easier to just enforce it when they are caught breaking the crime with the items they aren't supposed to have. A computer hacker isn't supposed to own computers or tech equipment does that mean the guy at Best Buy should be held liable for selling him a computer that he uses to steal money from a bank later on? The onus should be on the person convicted of the crime. Not the rest of society.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:You know that CDC comparision is non-sensical, right? And I don't know much about statistics, but even I know the worthiness of random sampling over self-reported numbers, especially when one has a much larger data set than the other. Random sampling of people self reporting if they are first time gun buyers vs the stats from the people who are actually selling guns year over year. If you can't see the issue here I can't help you. Seriously do a random sample of people and ask them something very personal like abortions or std infections. Then go to some place that has stats on those things like the CDC or planned parenthood. Who do you think is going to have better numbers on this? The people recording all the infections and abortions that go on under their watch or the random sample of people volunteering that data. The NSSF is literally a trade associate of companies that sell firearms. If it was just a case of only listening to them you'd have a point, but since ALL new guns sales have to have background checks the FBI has those stats from NICS checks over firearm sales.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:Obviously a 10 year old is one thing but a guy that is 20 buying alcohol. Why should the store clerk be held at fault for selling it to a 20 year old? In fairness, this is why most states have pretty specific laws about requesting ID.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:And the goalposts shift. Your prior post was lending your car to a friend you had to reason to suspect would use it illegally.  My post that led to that false equivalence was about lending your guns to unauthorized people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:You know that CDC comparision is non-sensical, right? And I don't know much about statistics, but even I know the worthiness of random sampling over self-reported numbers, especially when one has a much larger data set than the other. I think the problem here is that with multiple states now actively confiscating firearms, random sampling may lead to a lot of false negatives of people who own firearms but would rather not advertise that fact. As a single data point, the NSSF's self-reported study normally isn't as reliable as a random sampling, however combined with the above, and other data such as Illinois FOID card increases in the last few years, there does appear to be a disconnect between the random sampling and all other available data. Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, but I too have seen a huge increase in the number of people at the ranges around here, and a great many of them are relatively new. NRA approved instructors have shot up by 66% as well, and training classes are generally pretty drat full lately. everything but the random sample studies point to an increase of new owners, and there are reasons for people to lie on thee random sample studies, even though they have nothing to fear from them - just like people lie on the census even though it's illegal to use that data against them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:Obviously a 10 year old is one thing but a guy that is 20 buying alcohol. Why should the store clerk be held at fault for selling it to a 20 year old? This ignores the fact that people are regularly prosecuted, criminally, for giving alchohol to minors that later lead injuries or death. And this actually extends to adults being served, if the server had reason to note the person's intoxication.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
Watermelon City posted:Guys who are SUPER into guns believe they are Joe Average Gun Owner though. I'm just your average gun owner who spends hours online discussing guns. Folks would probably put me firmly into the category "SUPER into guns". Mainly because I own a few. My motivation is the wartime historic interest of the specific firearms (mainly WWII). Also I hunt. Also I love the precise marksmanship part. Are all those reasons cumulative, which would put me at a higher risk of going on a murderous rampage? Sorry for the car analogy, but is a collector of old cars who is really spergy knowledgeable about the specific autos, who also drives, who also likes nascar at a higher risk of driving his car through a crowd of kindergartners? "Gun Nut" is so far removed and irrelevant to the discussion of the vaaaaaaaaaast majority of gun crime, yet is laughably one of the first things blurted out in these discussions. Any wonder why the topic is so toxic?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:Random sampling of people self reporting if they are first time gun buyers vs the stats from the people who are actually selling guns year over year. I can't see if its random because I can't see the survey at all, or even articles from established journals or websites discussing it. I don't know how it was conducted, other than online, so if you could explain how the FBI confirms their findings I'd be curious to find out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
Gun owners don't want to have any responsibility attached to their decision to own a gun. The concept that yes, you are responsible for this thing you owned is just too much to beat for some reason. Guns are for self defense or hunting or killing King George or whatever, but that doesn't mean you can just give one to whoever you want. Yes, there should be a burden on giving it to somebody else and restrictions on how you get rid of a gun does not, of course, place any restrictions whatsoever on owning it because you inherently need to own the gun in the first place if you're want to give/lend/whatever it. We arrest parents who give their kids alcohol Also, gun culture is just weird. You don't see lumberjacks buying their kids little chainsaws or poo poo. e: so yes, background checks for every transfer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Gun owners don't want to have any responsibility attached to their decision to own a gun. The concept that yes, you are responsible for this thing you owned is just too much to beat for some reason. Guns are for self defense or hunting or killing King George or whatever, but that doesn't mean you can just give one to whoever you want. Yes, there should be a burden on giving it to somebody else and restrictions on how you get rid of a gun does not, of course, place any restrictions whatsoever on owning it because you inherently need to own the gun in the first place if you're want to give/lend/whatever it. We've been asking for *YEARS* to open up NICS to the general public. also painting all gun owners with a broad brush of "You don't want to take any responsibility" is rather dishonest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:
Thank you for making certain your opinions in here are worthless to the discussion. Doccers posted:We've been asking for *YEARS* to open up NICS to the general public. That and personally I'd be fine if mental health records were in the system. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:
Hahaha, they don't even pursue current straw purchase offenses. Also hilarious that you think this would have even the slightest of impact on gun crime. Fog Tripper fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:
I thought they were supposed to be already?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:Folks would probably put me firmly into the category "SUPER into guns". Mainly because I own a few. My motivation is the wartime historic interest of the specific firearms (mainly WWII). Also I hunt. Also I love the precise marksmanship part. Are all those reasons cumulative, which would put me at a higher risk of going on a murderous rampage? Sorry for the car analogy, but is a collector of old cars who is really spergy knowledgeable about the specific autos, who also drives, who also likes nascar at a higher risk of driving his car through a crowd of kindergartners? You sound pretty reasonble thus far. The problem with "gun nuts" isn't that they're likely to commit crimes, it's that they want to make it easier and more anonymous to obtain, carry and brandish; While also claiming that anyone who supports the laws in place (background checks, waiting periods) is some sort of commie fascist out to "get them". That is what makes someone a "gun nut". I love guns, especially old WWII rifles. I'd rather prefer if Bloomberg and co. don't manage to pass a stupid law that would take them away, just as much as I don't want people out on bail for a violent crime able to wander into a store and purchase a weapon. Talmonis fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
Doccers posted:I thought they were supposed to be already?  Were they? I thought there was still debate whether or not it was constitutional or some such. Talmonis posted:You sound pretty reasonble thus far. The problem with "gun nuts" isn't that they're likely to commit crimes, it's that they want to make it easier and more anonymous to obtain, carry and brandish; Laws do not deter those who would commit crimes to obtain, carry and brandish. They only make it possible to prosecute after the crime has been committed. Adding laws on top of already unenforced laws (read: straw purchases) is only effecting the law abiding folks. Again, the vast majority of folks committing crime are not going to be thwarted by yet more laws. Just to get this out of the way: - Relax/legalize drug enforcement - Tax the hell out of it - Use the collected taxes to combat mental illness issues Fog Tripper fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
Doccers posted:I think the problem here is that with multiple states now actively confiscating firearms, random sampling may lead to a lot of false negatives of people who own firearms but would rather not advertise that fact. Articles on the GSS have brought up that precise point, that people have an incentive to under report. Though the counter argument is that they did so also in the previous time periods recorded, i.e. 1980s, the 1970s. We agree at least in the worth of anecdotal evidence. Just a question, what region of the US are you in? That NY times article has me curious. Ultimately, even if we take the NSSF has holy truth, it only shows a slight uptick in one demographic over two years, versus a long running survey covering decades. Guess which one I tend to give more creedence to?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:
The issue is anti-commandeering. You can't force unwilling states to give up their records.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
Doccers posted:I thought they were supposed to be already? Depends on where you are. Federal govt can't make states give that information to federal and state agencies responsible for background checks, so many states do not volunteer the information.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:just as much as I don't want people out on bail for a violent crime able to wander into a store and purchase a weapon. I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Articles on the GSS have brought up that precise point, that people have an incentive to under report. Though the counter argument is that they did so also in the previous time periods recorded, i.e. 1980s, the 1970s. I'm in colorado, so the backlash to the new laws here (seen pretty universally as "Bloomberg's dictation") may have us at a bit of a higher rate than elsewhere. I don't place any single survey as holy truth - ever. But that's also why I'm dubious of the GSS survey - it's also only one survey that seems to disagree with the others.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:Thank you for making certain your opinions in here are worthless to the discussion. Except for the guy who was posting "wah wah state's rights what if I want to give my kid a gun" Also if only the gun lobby didn't lose its shot every time any enticement happens with "you could be next" bullshit
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:I don't think anyone would disagree with that. You would be surprised. Arguing with various Libertarians has blown Poe's Law out of the water on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:Folks would probably put me firmly into the category "SUPER into guns". Mainly because I own a few. My motivation is the wartime historic interest of the specific firearms (mainly WWII). Also I hunt. Also I love the precise marksmanship part. Are all those reasons cumulative, which would put me at a higher risk of going on a murderous rampage? Sorry for the car analogy, but is a collector of old cars who is really spergy knowledgeable about the specific autos, who also drives, who also likes nascar at a higher risk of driving his car through a crowd of kindergartners? Nobody cares about how harmless or wonky we try to make our hobby out to be. Guns are for killing, we practice killing. It's OK. People don't collect old machining equipment and enjoy drilling a series of holes for no reason (not a lot of people, anyway). Gun fetishism is loaded with the veneration of combat, as you yourself allude to by mentioning your interest in military surplus. Let's not behave as though our hobby is harmless, it's not supposed to be harmless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:I can't see if its random because I can't see the survey at all, or even articles from established journals or websites discussing it. I don't know how it was conducted, other than online, so if you could explain how the FBI confirms their findings I'd be curious to find out. The FBI keeps a log of how many NICS checks were made each year. That number has been on an ever upward trend for the last decade especially since 2008. The FBI doesn't have to confirm anything. Anyone who wants to buy a new gun in many states has to pass a background check. Some exceptions are for states that opt out of NICS or conceal carry permit holders exempted because they already passed an FBI check. NSSF trade members post how many new guns they sold. That number correlates to what the FBI background checks say. Meaning they aren't fudging gun sales numbers to look good. Of this number the NSSF reports how many customers are saying they are first time gun buyers. There isn't a chance to lie about being a gun owner as they are buying a gun, only lying about if it is their first time buying a gun. Unlike a random survey asking if you own guns or are a new gun owner. That number being reported by the NSSF and the FBI is increasing year over year and does not reflect the amounts recorded in straw polls and Gallup polls at all. It is inherently more reliable because they are based off of records created when the guns are being purchased as opposed to some guy down the line randomly sampling you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Doccers posted:We've been asking for *YEARS* to open up NICS to the general public. I, too, remember when the NRA came ou in favorof mandatory background checks
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Agreed. I think the main issue people have with the "universal background checks" isn't the theory, it's the implimentation. As I've said we've been asking for years for the government to open up NICS to the general public so we can be sure that we're not selling a gun to someone bad. Personally when I've sold guns to people, I've made sure it was only people I know to be non-felons, people I know. It would have been nice if I had been able to run a background check to get a green light, but that simply wasn't available to us. So instead of doing that, we now have a law requiring all sales go through an ffl - and the state limited the amount an FFL can charge to do it, to the point where it loses money for them. So good luck finding an FFL dealer that will actually do private transfers. So now if you want to sell a gun legally to someone else, you pretty much can't do it through legal means, because there aren't any dealers that will do it. Well played. So things like this are where the resistance against background checks come from - not because we don't want a background check, but because the forms it has taken are nonsensical at best and blatently designed to "stick it to gun owners" at worst. Just open up NICS for fucks sake.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Hmm. It occurs to me that this thread could use some pictures. And since I already have them... (This is the GSS data I mentioned upthread.) Historical household gun ownership partitioned by age/race/sex:  You can see that, for example, OWM (old, i.e. over-40, white men) have remained almost the same, while YWM have dropped a lot. (Like I said, the p-values for the coefficients are much more significant, at the e-05 level.) "O" in the "race" field means, unfortunately, "other" - back in the 1970s, where the GSS started, there was no distinction between various minorities. This has since been amended, in that there is a second racial variable, but because I wanted to include historical data, and sample sizes for these categories are small, I had to use the original "White/Black/Other" $race variable. Personal gun ownership (as you can see, I dropped "other" race already):  Women own personally around 30-40% of the guns they report in households, men around 90%. There is a fun correlation between marital status and household gun ownership for young white women, but not men. In this plot, e.g. YWF.S means "young white female, single", i.e. never married, widowed or divorced:  Moving to young white men, since they had the most interesting/significant drop, here's the drop by region:  Political views:  Party self-identification:  Finally, homicide rates vs. gun ownership among young men:  The same thing, but as correlation plots, with gun ownership rates for over-40 men for comparison (left/right => white/black):  And finally, for shits and giggles, the relationship between age/race/sex/gun ownership buckets and the percentage of positive replies to the question whether a house owner can be compelled by law not to racially discriminate against a house buyer:  And yes, that drop at the end is statistically significant. Like I said, the GSS has some fun data. To those who think that there may be a problem with people underreporting, please remember that this is a biennial study that was last done in 2012. I think that this year's edition has not yet been conducted, or properly preprocessed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:
But I'm not arguing for more laws. I'm arguing to keep the laws we have, and to shore them up where they are ineffective and unenforced. Waiting periods and background checks do give a layer of deterrant that is likely stopping otherwise normal people from doing something rash while their blood is up. Your average person isn't a criminal mastermind, complete with gun running contacts who they can purchase an illegal gun from.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Nobody cares about how harmless or wonky we try to make our hobby out to be. Guns are for killing, we practice killing. It's OK. People don't collect old machining equipment and enjoy drilling a series of holes for no reason (not a lot of people, anyway). Gun fetishism is loaded with the veneration of combat, as you yourself allude to by mentioning your interest in military surplus. what do you think of archery?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:Folks would probably put me firmly into the category "SUPER into guns". Mainly because I own a few. My motivation is the wartime historic interest of the specific firearms (mainly WWII). Also I hunt. Also I love the precise marksmanship part. Are all those reasons cumulative, which would put me at a higher risk of going on a murderous rampage?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
Watermelon City posted:Yeah, probably. You choose weapons rather than stamp collecting as a way to unwind. I'd posit that stamp collection leads to more suicides than firearms enthusiasm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:But I'm not arguing for more laws. I'm arguing to keep the laws we have, and to shore them up where they are ineffective and unenforced. Waiting periods and background checks do give a layer of deterrant that is likely stopping otherwise normal people from doing something rash while their blood is up. Your average person isn't a criminal mastermind, complete with gun running contacts who they can purchase an illegal gun from. But when they moved to instant checks down from the three day or one week waiting period there was no increase in crime. Implying they don't give a deterrent. Also where states removed registries or loosened firearm restrictions didn't see an increase in crime. It seems gun laws have no effect good or bad on crime in general.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 06:30 |
|
|
Doccers posted:what do you think of archery? It's certainly caught on since Katniss started shooting people with arrows on the silver screen. Death fuels our interest in weapons, as it should be. We're humans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 17:09
|
|