The Big Gun Control Thread

The only thing I can add is while I support stronger gun measures, I've lived in really poor rural and urban areas where you need some sort of firearm to stay safe from coyotes, rattlers, or predators that walk on two legs. Passing judgement on people like me or Paleocon from your comfy gated community where the only dangerous animal is a raccoon and you have the local police chief on speed dial is incredibly presumptuous IMHO.

jdzappa wrote:

The only thing I can add is while I support stronger gun measures, I've lived in really poor rural and urban areas where you need some sort of firearm to stay safe from coyotes, rattlers, or predators that walk on two legs. Passing judgement on people like me or Paleocon from your comfy gated community where the only dangerous animal is a raccoon and you have the local police chief on speed dial is incredibly presumptuous IMHO.

As is presuming you know where everyone else is coming from.

Some of us live in some pretty not great areas, and still would like to see reforms made that made guns unnecessary along with stronger gun control measures.

Demosthenes wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

The only thing I can add is while I support stronger gun measures, I've lived in really poor rural and urban areas where you need some sort of firearm to stay safe from coyotes, rattlers, or predators that walk on two legs. Passing judgement on people like me or Paleocon from your comfy gated community where the only dangerous animal is a raccoon and you have the local police chief on speed dial is incredibly presumptuous IMHO.

As is presuming you know where everyone else is coming from.

Some of us live in some pretty not great areas, and still would like to see reforms made that made guns unnecessary along with stronger gun control measures.

Which is exactly what he just said he'd like to see, too. The "people passing judgment" is probably aimed at the people who think that people only own guns because of their ego and have no rational reason to own one.

HOLY f*ck, WILL YOU ALL JUST SHUT THE f*ck UP ALREADY?

Between paelo's quasi-racist Godwinning, and the rest of you f*cks trying to out-presume each other, this thread is a f*cking travesty.

I'm going to neogaf.

I'm throwing this out there:

Can we please stop using the word animal to describe, as jdzappa put it, "two legged predators"?

Seriously, I get it, I'm an animal, you're an animal, anyone reading this other than Skynet is an animal.

The word has other meanings due to this nation's history that are less than savory, and when we keep using it to describe PEOPLE, that's getting super troubling about the tone of this thread.

I actually quite like the use of "animal" to describe beings who act like Paleocon described. I use the exact same terminology when speaking of men who are *apparently* incapable of restraining their urge to have sex.

Much, much better than alternatives like "thug," or "hood rat" or "redneck".

Edit - this is a direct lifting of how Herbert used it in Dune.

jdzappa wrote:

The only thing I can add is while I support stronger gun measures, I've lived in really poor rural and urban areas where you need some sort of firearm to stay safe from coyotes, rattlers, or predators that walk on two legs. Passing judgement on people like me or Paleocon from your comfy gated community where the only dangerous animal is a raccoon and you have the local police chief on speed dial is incredibly presumptuous IMHO.

...eh? Did you live in a rabid animal preserve? I grew up on a farm in the middle of nowhere, in a river valley between two hills filled with rattle snake dens, coyotes, and a few wolves, and at no point was I ever in any real danger from predatory wildlife.

Well, except for the rattlesnakes, but guns are pretty sh*tty weapons against snakes. A shovel works far better.

Most wild animals tend to try to avoid humans, not come looking for trouble.

You'd need to be a better shot than me to shoot and hit a rattlesnake that's decided to attack.

Really though I'm having a hard time footing what I know about agricultural land with the Disney-fied version of farm life you just described. Did your farm not have sheep/chickens/cows you needed to protect from coyotes?

We had plenty of guns on the farm, and you know what we found most effective at keeping wolves/etc away from the livestock? A boombox and a mixtape of 80's hits. Apparently predatory animals hate hate hate "sunglasses at night."

ruhk wrote:

We had plenty of guns on the farm, and you know what we found most effective at keeping wolves/etc away from the livestock? A boombox and a mixtape of 80's hits. Apparently predatory animals hate hate hate "sunglasses at night."

That's...awesome, actually.

Back in the 70's a lot of the farmers had dogs that roamed free. After a while, some of them formed a pack with some abandoned and escaped pets and started living in the woods nearby. They began attacking livestock and people. We had to stay inside for a few days while the older kids and their fathers got together and hunted them down.

I really think that would have been impossible without firearms. Maybe with bows, but there were some big dogs in those packs, and who trains with a bow anyway these days? And no way are the police going to spend a few days chasing down 30 or 40 wild dogs in the woods.

My grandfather also used a shotgun to run off the KKK recruiters, so that's another good use. It was loaded with salt, but still...

Robear wrote:

My grandfather also used a shotgun to run off the KKK recruiters, so that's another good use. It was loaded with salt, but still...

"Grandpa! Someone is at the door!"
"Who is it?"
"Either the KKK or a bunch of ghosts!"
"Get my salt shotgun son, that'll do the job either way. Nope, those are the silver pellets, wooden slug... holy water, nevermind, I'll do it."

The "rattlesnake defense" is a load of bullsh*t. That's like saying you need a gun at the pond because you're terrified of snapping turtles.

I'll grudgingly give you the pack of wild dogs example because we all know that Dingos eat babies.

So um. Wow. That happened.

In all that um... stuff... Paleocon and JDZappa, and just now Robear brought up some good counter examples to my hypothetical ban everything idea.

One thing I am wondering is how these cases are handled in other countries? Are any of those things compatible with thee US?

I don't want to be callous and start another um... thing. but it still sounds like some very limited circumstances where a gun is needed. Very small numbers involved compared to the cost to society. Mandatory seatbelt laws might kill a few but save far more. This is true of most things.

So... starting from scratch, who needs or should have a gun (outside a range say)?
So far I have law enforcement, armed guards, clerks in high crime areas, farmers.

Remember if you go back to my earlier post I am intentionally playing devils advocate my idea of decent gun laws is earlier in the thread and while I might have some additions from learning more from everyone here they are very different from this hypothetical.

On a completely different note.
How would the gun owners (or anyone else here) feel if a law was passed that said
Any firearms store with more than X% of sales are found used in crime is closed.
Any firearms store where more than Y guns sold (regardless of percentage) are found used in crime is closed
Owners of above can not reopen anywhere ever.

Controversial ---
The 3 worst stores for straw purchases/guns found in crime (some measure) in each state are closed each year
Unless the numbers are under X where X is the lower quartile cutoff for the current set of stores.
Same prohibition on reopening.

realityhack wrote:

On a completely different note.
How would the gun owners (or anyone else here) feel if a law was passed that said
Any firearms store with more than X% of sales are found used in crime is closed.
Any firearms store where more than Y guns sold (regardless of percentage) are found used in crime is closed
Owners of above can not reopen anywhere ever.

Controversial ---
The 3 worst stores for straw purchases/guns found in crime (some measure) in each state are closed each year
Unless the numbers are under X where X is the lower quartile cutoff for the current set of stores.
Same prohibition on reopening.

Problem is that you'll be punishing legitimate businesses for following the letter of the law (assuming that the sales of guns that are later used in crimes meet all the requirements for a lawful purchase).

The gun shop has no say in what the purchaser does with the gun once they leave the premises, right? There is literally no mechanism for the gun shop to be able to know whether a gun they're selling will be used in a crime. You may as well put me in jail because the guy I sold my car to ran over a bunch of kids in it.

By all means, come down like a tonne of bricks on gun shops that are flaunting the laws and regulations of operating that business, but that's not what you're suggesting.

realityhack wrote:

One thing I am wondering is how these cases are handled in other countries? Are any of those things compatible with thee US?

Australia has strict gun laws, but allows private citizens to own low-caliber rifles and breech-loading shotguns if they demonstrate a "Genuine Reason", and higher-caliber rifles if they have a "Genuine Need". I imagine ranchers and farmers can meet the "Genuine Need" requirement without too much trouble.

Australia, of course, is home to the scariest fauna. If it works for them it should work for the US, too.

Jonman wrote:

Problem is that you'll be punishing legitimate businesses for following the letter of the law (assuming that the sales of guns that are later used in crimes meet all the requirements for a lawful purchase).

The gun shop has no say in what the purchaser does with the gun once they leave the premises, right? There is literally no mechanism for the gun shop to be able to know whether a gun they're selling will be used in a crime. You may as well put me in jail because the guy I sold my car to ran over a bunch of kids in it.

By all means, come down like a tonne of bricks on gun shops that are flaunting the laws and regulations of operating that business, but that's not what you're suggesting.

The reason I brought that up is that IIRC only a handful of stores are responsible fore the VAST majority of guns ending up on the street through straw purchases, or possibly illegal dealings. It could be very difficult to gather evidence for specific acts, but the evidence is already there that they are operating an unsafe business.

jonstock wrote:

Australia has strict gun laws, but allows private citizens to own low-caliber rifles and breech-loading shotguns if they demonstrate a "Genuine Reason", and higher-caliber rifles if they have a "Genuine Need". I imagine ranchers and farmers can meet the "Genuine Need" requirement without too much trouble.

Australia, of course, is home to the scariest fauna. If it works for them it should work for the US, too.

Good point but that doesn't cover the urban issue of store clerks etc.

On edit--
The vast majority of guns used in crimes are handguns so anywhere they are issued would presumably be a big deal.

IMAGE(https://24.media.tumblr.com/90d2d0176130eb3dd8b4652b52329cf6/tumblr_mv9w6dP9D91rbs1f8o1_500.jpg)

LMAO thanks tanglebones where on earth did you find that?

realityhack wrote:

LMAO thanks tanglebones where on earth did you find that?

Tumblr is a wondrous place

realityhack wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Problem is that you'll be punishing legitimate businesses for following the letter of the law (assuming that the sales of guns that are later used in crimes meet all the requirements for a lawful purchase).

The gun shop has no say in what the purchaser does with the gun once they leave the premises, right? There is literally no mechanism for the gun shop to be able to know whether a gun they're selling will be used in a crime. You may as well put me in jail because the guy I sold my car to ran over a bunch of kids in it.

By all means, come down like a tonne of bricks on gun shops that are flaunting the laws and regulations of operating that business, but that's not what you're suggesting.

The reason I brought that up is that IIRC only a handful of stores are responsible fore the VAST majority of guns ending up on the street through straw purchases, or possibly illegal dealings. It could be very difficult to gather evidence for specific acts, but the evidence is already there that they are operating an unsafe business.

So, are those stores following all the laws and rules when they sell those guns?

If no, then toss those f*ckers in jail already.
If yes, then punishing them for doing everything right is ludicrous, no?

The way to stop guns getting into the wrong hands is not to punish stores for putting them into the right hands (as defined by the law), it's to change the laws that correct which of those hands are right and wrong.

Jonman wrote:

Problem is that you'll be punishing legitimate businesses for following the letter of the law (assuming that the sales of guns that are later used in crimes meet all the requirements for a lawful purchase).

Well, that's kind of the point, isn't it. The letter of the law is quite evidently not enough to prevent the massive flow of firearm from FFLs to criminals so it needs to be changed.

There should also be laws that say when X percentage of crimes are committed with a particular brand/model of a firearm that the BATF can ban the import/production/sale of that weapon and multiple bans for an importer/manufacturer means those companies automatically get their FFL revoked.

Jonman wrote:

The gun shop has no say in what the purchaser does with the gun once they leave the premises, right? There is literally no mechanism for the gun shop to be able to know whether a gun they're selling will be used in a crime. You may as well put me in jail because the guy I sold my car to ran over a bunch of kids in it.

Sure there is. A central database of every gun purchaser that FFLs have to check before they sell a firearm to anyone.

You'd have to be a naive sonofabuck to assume that a person making multiple firearm purchase from multiple gun stores over a few days or weeks is doing so because they're just really big fans of the 2nd Amendment.

Tanglebones wrote:

IMAGE(https://24.media.tumblr.com/90d2d0176130eb3dd8b4652b52329cf6/tumblr_mv9w6dP9D91rbs1f8o1_500.jpg)

Hmm. I am pretty sure that is a Paraboa.

Jonman wrote:

So, are those stores following all the laws and rules when they sell those guns?

If no, then toss those f*ckers in jail already.
If yes, then punishing them for doing everything right is ludicrous, no?

The way to stop guns getting into the wrong hands is not to punish stores for putting them into the right hands (as defined by the law), it's to change the laws that correct which of those hands are right and wrong.

Do they follow the law? Actually we don't know but have strong circumstantial evidence that they do not.
Maybe you would agree that if they are the worst offenders in the state that is probable cause to tear apart their records for every single sale?
Do they have a choice about guns ending up in the wrong hands? Actually they have some limited control. They can deny any purchase because they suspect it is not legitimate. Better dealers reject more purchases.

The problem with straw purchases is that if you don't ask enough questions or don't care you won't spot them. Everything the dealer does is *technically* legal. But we know from statistics that certain stores don't really do as much as others to sell responsibly.

OG_slinger wrote:

There should also be laws that say when X percentage of crimes are committed with a particular brand/model of a firearm that the BATF can ban the import/production/sale of that weapon and multiple bans for an importer/manufacturer means those companies automatically get their FFL revoked.

Not sure about that. Popular guns commit more crimes. Remove them and something else becomes popular and is used in more crimes. I don't see a clear connection here that would reduce gun crime.

OG_Slinger wrote:

A central database of every gun purchaser that FFLs have to check before they sell a firearm to anyone.

Isn't that actually illegal? Somewhere between a quarter and a half of the population believes that government tracking databases are a sign of the End Times; good luck passing *that* law...

realityhack wrote:

Do they follow the law? Actually we don't know but have strong circumstantial evidence that they do not.

The problem is that the law has been specifically written to prevent the BAFT and law enforcement from ensuring that FFLs are entirely above board. Things like the Tiahrt Amendment specifically prohibits the BAFT from requiring that FFLs audit their firearm inventory and account for lost and/or stolen firearms. The law also prohibits local law enforcement from using gun trace data to investigate shady FFLs.

realityhack wrote:

Not sure about that. Popular guns commit more crimes. Remove them and something else becomes popular and is used in more crimes. I don't see a clear connection here that would reduce gun crime.

The research doesn't show that.

Crime Gun Risk Factors[/url]]
Cheap handguns, defined as those retailing for $150 or less (and commonly referred to as "Saturday night specials") were typically 58% to 98% more likely to be used in the crime than more expensive firearms and accounted for upwards of 20% of recovered guns.

....

There is substantial evidence that SNS handguns play a prominent role in illicit gun market and gun violence: they account for a number of guns most frequently used in crime and have the shortest time to crime; they are perhaps three to four times more common among crime guns than among the nation's civilian gunstock; and acquisition of SNS-type weapons is associated with past and present criminality.

realityhack wrote:

The problem with straw purchases is that if you don't ask enough questions or don't care you won't spot them. Everything the dealer does is *technically* legal. But we know from statistics that certain stores don't really do as much as others to sell responsibly.

OG_slinger wrote:

Well, that's kind of the point, isn't it. The letter of the law is quite evidently not enough to prevent the massive flow of firearm from FFLs to criminals so it needs to be changed.

That's exactly my point. Realityhack was suggesting that onerous punishments on gun sellers was a potential solution, and I was making the point that it isn't, because they're not doing anything wrong (in the eyes of the law).

OG_slinger wrote:
Jonman wrote:

The gun shop has no say in what the purchaser does with the gun once they leave the premises, right? There is literally no mechanism for the gun shop to be able to know whether a gun they're selling will be used in a crime. You may as well put me in jail because the guy I sold my car to ran over a bunch of kids in it.

Sure there is. A central database of every gun purchaser that FFLs have to check before they sell a firearm to anyone.

You'd have to be a naive sonofabuck to assume that a person making multiple firearm purchase from multiple gun stores over a few days or weeks is doing so because they're just really big fans of the 2nd Amendment.

Indeed, and you'd have to be a naive sonofabuck to think that that's a workable solution given the current political climate. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that it's an obvious and simple solution, just not a realistic one.