Lowest common denominator on gun control

[JLee]

Well, I'm on board with all of those suggestions - they mostly seem like common sense things that don't require much technical firearms knowledge to get behind.

I apologize for the implication above. I've talked about this issue with many people who 'support gun control' but then when asked about it what they really seem to want is no appreciable change to the status quo.  Clearly you don't fit into that group.

You're right, not much technical knowledge is required - but as evidenced in this thread, there are plenty of people who are very willing to loudly spew their opinions when they don't know what's already illegal, or what specifically should be restricted.  I can't tell you how many times I've heard "People shouldn't be able to just walk into a store and buy a gun with no questions asked" -- and guess what? You can't.

[JLee]

Pro-2A people have been trained to immediately knee-jerk shut down the second they perceive someone has said something incorrect about a gun. It’s a tactic to shut down discussion that has been carefully honed and implemented by the NRA and the gun lobby, to keep the conversation from ever going anywhere productive.

You are correct that many pro-gun people use anti gun activists' incorrect terminology and statements as a means to shut down conversation. To quibble a bit, I would say that your use of the word perceive is inaccurate. I've been on a whole lot of gun conversations, and when people are called out, I've literally never seen the pro-gun person not be at least technically right.

I think that part of it is that gun control is highly technical and legalistic whether you like it or not. Don't believe me? Go read U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 44 section 922. How am I supposed to have a conversation about gun control without having words that mean things and common terminology? I have this radical idea that words mean things.

But, so what? Are you a legislator, or drafting counsel? People should be able to have conversations and reach consensus in plain language---about the vast range of topics to be regulated---and then much smaller groups should suffer the pain of precision.

So law abiding gun owners literally have to pay attention to U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 44 section 922, especially 922(r) and it pisses them off. Where you fire control group was manufactured is the difference between being legal and being a felony. Is that sensible gun control? Because that's what we've been living with for decades and would prefer to to see more of. I write that as someone who would love to see universal background checks and gun owner licencing, but not more bullshit like 922(r). But how do you have a conversation about gun control without talking about the gun control that we already have?

Yes; if you want to assemble a semiautomatic rifle identical to one that can’t be imported, don’t be surprised if there’s some regulation to establish US jurisdiction over the manufacture of the parts being used.

But I'm not a legislator or drafting counsel. Why should replacing a broken part in the rifle I purchased at Walmart be an exercise in lawyering?

Or why should rich people be able to buy a $25,000+ part and turn their WalMart rifle into a machine gun, but making a literally identical part is a felony?  Even if you're making that part to replace the $25,000+ one you had that broke?

[PDXTabs]

Pro-2A people have been trained to immediately knee-jerk shut down the second they perceive someone has said something incorrect about a gun. It’s a tactic to shut down discussion that has been carefully honed and implemented by the NRA and the gun lobby, to keep the conversation from ever going anywhere productive.

You are correct that many pro-gun people use anti gun activists' incorrect terminology and statements as a means to shut down conversation. To quibble a bit, I would say that your use of the word perceive is inaccurate. I've been on a whole lot of gun conversations, and when people are called out, I've literally never seen the pro-gun person not be at least technically right.

I think that part of it is that gun control is highly technical and legalistic whether you like it or not. Don't believe me? Go read U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 44 section 922. How am I supposed to have a conversation about gun control without having words that mean things and common terminology? I have this radical idea that words mean things.

But, so what? Are you a legislator, or drafting counsel? People should be able to have conversations and reach consensus in plain language---about the vast range of topics to be regulated---and then much smaller groups should suffer the pain of precision.

So law abiding gun owners literally have to pay attention to U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 44 section 922, especially 922(r) and it pisses them off. Where you fire control group was manufactured is the difference between being legal and being a felony. Is that sensible gun control? Because that's what we've been living with for decades and would prefer to to see more of. I write that as someone who would love to see universal background checks and gun owner licencing, but not more bullshit like 922(r). But how do you have a conversation about gun control without talking about the gun control that we already have?

Yes; if you want to assemble a semiautomatic rifle identical to one that can’t be imported, don’t be surprised if there’s some regulation to establish US jurisdiction over the manufacture of the parts being used.

But I'm not a legislator or drafting counsel. Why should replacing a broken part in the rifle I purchased at Walmart be an exercise in lawyering?

Or why should rich people be able to buy a $25,000+ part and turn their WalMart rifle into a machine gun, but making a literally identical part is a felony?  Even if you're making that part to replace the $25,000+ one you had that broke?

As a slight historical aside, because Ronald Reagan signed the Firearms Owners' Protection Act. Don't you feel protected?

[Undecided]

Pro-2A people have been trained to immediately knee-jerk shut down the second they perceive someone has said something incorrect about a gun. It’s a tactic to shut down discussion that has been carefully honed and implemented by the NRA and the gun lobby, to keep the conversation from ever going anywhere productive.

You are correct that many pro-gun people use anti gun activists' incorrect terminology and statements as a means to shut down conversation. To quibble a bit, I would say that your use of the word perceive is inaccurate. I've been on a whole lot of gun conversations, and when people are called out, I've literally never seen the pro-gun person not be at least technically right.

I think that part of it is that gun control is highly technical and legalistic whether you like it or not. Don't believe me? Go read U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 44 section 922. How am I supposed to have a conversation about gun control without having words that mean things and common terminology? I have this radical idea that words mean things.

But, so what? Are you a legislator, or drafting counsel? People should be able to have conversations and reach consensus in plain language---about the vast range of topics to be regulated---and then much smaller groups should suffer the pain of precision.

So law abiding gun owners literally have to pay attention to U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 44 section 922, especially 922(r) and it pisses them off. Where you fire control group was manufactured is the difference between being legal and being a felony. Is that sensible gun control? Because that's what we've been living with for decades and would prefer to to see more of. I write that as someone who would love to see universal background checks and gun owner licencing, but not more bullshit like 922(r). But how do you have a conversation about gun control without talking about the gun control that we already have?

Yes; if you want to assemble a semiautomatic rifle identical to one that can’t be imported, don’t be surprised if there’s some regulation to establish US jurisdiction over the manufacture of the parts being used.

But I'm not a legislator or drafting counsel. Why should replacing a broken part in the rifle I purchased at Walmart be an exercise in lawyering?

Or why should rich people be able to buy a $25,000+ part and turn their WalMart rifle into a machine gun, but making a literally identical part is a felony?  Even if you're making that part to replace the $25,000+ one you had that broke?

Because a (conservative) federal appeals court (with an all-Reagan-appointee panel) already decided 922(r) was rationally related to Congress's (constitutional) regulatory authority.

[GuitarStv]

Well, I'm on board with all of those suggestions - they mostly seem like common sense things that don't require much technical firearms knowledge to get behind.

I apologize for the implication above. I've talked about this issue with many people who 'support gun control' but then when asked about it what they really seem to want is no appreciable change to the status quo.  Clearly you don't fit into that group.

You're right, not much technical knowledge is required - but as evidenced in this thread, there are plenty of people who are very willing to loudly spew their opinions when they don't know what's already illegal, or what specifically should be restricted.  I can't tell you how many times I've heard "People shouldn't be able to just walk into a store and buy a gun with no questions asked" -- and guess what? You can't.

Sure - as long as everyone plays by the honor system.

In the majority of states if you want to legally buy a gun with no questions asked you need to get it through a private sale, so a gun show or craigslist is your best bet.

But since roughly half of FFL'd retailers who are inspected are found to be violating the rules (https://www.fastbound.com/ffl-blog/atf-2019-audit-inspection-violations-1500-warning-letters-issued-1600-ffls-surrendered-or-revoked-in-2019/), and about 10% of those inspected have their licenses revoked for serious violations . . . coupled with the difficulty of investigation into gun retailer practices due to the legally mandated shitty record-keeping it seems pretty likely that you could find an FFL to sell you a gun with no questions asked if you dug around, doesn't it?

[PDXTabs]

Because a (conservative) federal appeals court (with an all-Reagan-appointee panel) already decided 922(r) was rationally related to Congress's (constitutional) regulatory authority.

And surely it is. Along those lines the 1980s had not yet seen the gun lobby completely take over the GOP and the NRA (it's a business, and they just want sales). If not perhaps we could see some compromise legislation similar to the 1986 Firearms Owners' Protection Act where "both sides" got something.

[JLee]

Well, I'm on board with all of those suggestions - they mostly seem like common sense things that don't require much technical firearms knowledge to get behind.

I apologize for the implication above. I've talked about this issue with many people who 'support gun control' but then when asked about it what they really seem to want is no appreciable change to the status quo.  Clearly you don't fit into that group.

You're right, not much technical knowledge is required - but as evidenced in this thread, there are plenty of people who are very willing to loudly spew their opinions when they don't know what's already illegal, or what specifically should be restricted.  I can't tell you how many times I've heard "People shouldn't be able to just walk into a store and buy a gun with no questions asked" -- and guess what? You can't.

Sure - as long as everyone plays by the honor system.

In the majority of states if you want to legally buy a gun with no questions asked you need to get it through a private sale, so a gun show or craigslist is your best bet.

But since roughly half of FFL'd retailers who are inspected are found to be violating the rules (https://www.fastbound.com/ffl-blog/atf-2019-audit-inspection-violations-1500-warning-letters-issued-1600-ffls-surrendered-or-revoked-in-2019/), and about 10% of those inspected have their licenses revoked for serious violations . . . coupled with the difficulty of investigation into gun retailer practices due to the legally mandated shitty record-keeping it seems pretty likely that you could find an FFL to sell you a gun with no questions asked if you dug around, doesn't it?

Ok, so new laws will fix the fact that current laws aren't being enforced? Brilliant solution! What's next, make heroin and cocaine illegal to prevent drug abuse?

[Undecided]

Pro-2A people have been trained to immediately knee-jerk shut down the second they perceive someone has said something incorrect about a gun. It’s a tactic to shut down discussion that has been carefully honed and implemented by the NRA and the gun lobby, to keep the conversation from ever going anywhere productive.

You are correct that many pro-gun people use anti gun activists' incorrect terminology and statements as a means to shut down conversation. To quibble a bit, I would say that your use of the word perceive is inaccurate. I've been on a whole lot of gun conversations, and when people are called out, I've literally never seen the pro-gun person not be at least technically right.

I think that part of it is that gun control is highly technical and legalistic whether you like it or not. Don't believe me? Go read U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 44 section 922. How am I supposed to have a conversation about gun control without having words that mean things and common terminology? I have this radical idea that words mean things.

But, so what? Are you a legislator, or drafting counsel? People should be able to have conversations and reach consensus in plain language---about the vast range of topics to be regulated---and then much smaller groups should suffer the pain of precision.

So law abiding gun owners literally have to pay attention to U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 44 section 922, especially 922(r) and it pisses them off. Where you fire control group was manufactured is the difference between being legal and being a felony. Is that sensible gun control? Because that's what we've been living with for decades and would prefer to to see more of. I write that as someone who would love to see universal background checks and gun owner licencing, but not more bullshit like 922(r). But how do you have a conversation about gun control without talking about the gun control that we already have?

Yes; if you want to assemble a semiautomatic rifle identical to one that can’t be imported, don’t be surprised if there’s some regulation to establish US jurisdiction over the manufacture of the parts being used.

But I'm not a legislator or drafting counsel. Why should replacing a broken part in the rifle I purchased at Walmart be an exercise in lawyering?

I don’t know your experience, but I’ve heard from some hobbyists (who, in fairness, are probably more the “I like to geek out on it” type than the “I’m defending the real America from a fake government” type) that compliance isn’t so difficult—that it’s like being able to easily and safely drive a car (without fear of prosecution) notwithstanding a lack of understanding of the details of the motor vehicle code.

[JLee]

I don’t know your experience, but I’ve heard from some hobbyists (who, in fairness, are probably more the “I like to geek out on it” type than the “I’m defending the real America from a fake government” type) that compliance isn’t so difficult—that it’s like being able to easily and safely drive a car (without fear of prosecution) notwithstanding a lack of understanding of the details of the motor vehicle code.

Generally speaking, if you don't touch anything you're fine.  If you modify something you really need to know what you're doing.

Real-life example - I have two shotguns that are of the same design (Remington 870).  If I were to take the old-school wood stock off of one and put it on the other, I've committed a felony.

[GuitarStv]

Well, I'm on board with all of those suggestions - they mostly seem like common sense things that don't require much technical firearms knowledge to get behind.

I apologize for the implication above. I've talked about this issue with many people who 'support gun control' but then when asked about it what they really seem to want is no appreciable change to the status quo.  Clearly you don't fit into that group.

You're right, not much technical knowledge is required - but as evidenced in this thread, there are plenty of people who are very willing to loudly spew their opinions when they don't know what's already illegal, or what specifically should be restricted.  I can't tell you how many times I've heard "People shouldn't be able to just walk into a store and buy a gun with no questions asked" -- and guess what? You can't.

Sure - as long as everyone plays by the honor system.

In the majority of states if you want to legally buy a gun with no questions asked you need to get it through a private sale, so a gun show or craigslist is your best bet.

But since roughly half of FFL'd retailers who are inspected are found to be violating the rules (https://www.fastbound.com/ffl-blog/atf-2019-audit-inspection-violations-1500-warning-letters-issued-1600-ffls-surrendered-or-revoked-in-2019/), and about 10% of those inspected have their licenses revoked for serious violations . . . coupled with the difficulty of investigation into gun retailer practices due to the legally mandated shitty record-keeping it seems pretty likely that you could find an FFL to sell you a gun with no questions asked if you dug around, doesn't it?

Ok, so new laws will fix the fact that current laws aren't being enforced? Brilliant solution! What's next, make heroin and cocaine illegal to prevent drug abuse?

I was pointing out where the misconceptions about buying guns may come from.  It's legally possible to buy a gun most places without any questions asked (craigslist, gun show), and it's a very common occurrence for FFL holders to break the rules when selling weapons.

But which laws aren't being enforced?

The FFL holders are being inspected (they appear to be rife with dishonesty and people breaking rules though).  Makes sense, as it's costly and difficult for police to investigate FFL holders.  To me, that indicates one of several things:
- it's probably much too easy for a person to apply for and receive their FFL
- the penalties aren't significant enough to deter people from breaking the rules (jail time rather than fines or license revocation would make sense)
- we need to make inspections simpler and easier for police (a national searchable gun registry would make it a trivial matter to immediately track and catch people who are selling guns without background checks, or who are acting as straw purchasers for criminals . . . and would make prosecution very straight forward).

So yes, it would probably make sense to implement new laws to fix the problems with the current ones that make enforcement so difficult for police.  Is that not reasonable?

[JLee]

I was pointing out where the misconceptions about buying guns may come from.  It's legally possible to buy a gun most places without any questions asked (craigslist, gun show), and it's a very common occurrence for FFL holders to break the rules when selling weapons.

But which laws aren't being enforced?

The FFL holders are being inspected (they appear to be rife with dishonesty and people breaking rules though).  Makes sense, as it's costly and difficult for police to investigate FFL holders.  To me, that indicates one of several things:
- it's probably much too easy for a person to apply for and receive their FFL
- the penalties aren't significant enough to deter people from breaking the rules (jail time rather than fines or license revocation would make sense)
- we need to make inspections simpler and easier for police (a national searchable gun registry would make it a trivial matter to immediately track and catch people who are selling guns without background checks, or who are acting as straw purchasers for criminals . . . and would make prosecution very straight forward).

So yes, it would probably make sense to implement new laws to fix the problems with the current ones that make enforcement so difficult for police.  Is that not reasonable?

Local police don't investigate FFL holders - that's specifically the ATF's jurisdiction.  I'm not sure where you got "costly and difficult" from, given it's not something traditional police are able to do at all.  Again, "police" don't do inspections. ATF does.

And on that note:

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/rethinking-atfs-budget-prioritize-effective-gun-violence-prevention/

[Michael in ABQ]

I was pointing out where the misconceptions about buying guns may come from.  It's legally possible to buy a gun most places without any questions asked (craigslist, gun show), and it's a very common occurrence for FFL holders to break the rules when selling weapons.

But which laws aren't being enforced?

The FFL holders are being inspected (they appear to be rife with dishonesty and people breaking rules though).  Makes sense, as it's costly and difficult for police to investigate FFL holders.  To me, that indicates one of several things:
- it's probably much too easy for a person to apply for and receive their FFL
- the penalties aren't significant enough to deter people from breaking the rules (jail time rather than fines or license revocation would make sense)
- we need to make inspections simpler and easier for police (a national searchable gun registry would make it a trivial matter to immediately track and catch people who are selling guns without background checks, or who are acting as straw purchasers for criminals . . . and would make prosecution very straight forward).

So yes, it would probably make sense to implement new laws to fix the problems with the current ones that make enforcement so difficult for police.  Is that not reasonable?

This would be possible with new gun sales, basically impossible with all existing guns. It would be like trying to create a database from scratch with the VIN of every car - including the ones hidden away in some barn under a tarp. Actually, it would be even harder as there are an estimated ~400 million guns in the us vs. ~275 million cars. And the vast majority of those are hidden away in people's homes, not out for anyone to see like most cars. I can guarantee that any laws attempting to create such a registry for existing firearms would have very low participation, even if the penalties were severe. There's just no way to put the toothpaste back into the tube.

[PDXTabs]

I was pointing out where the misconceptions about buying guns may come from.  It's legally possible to buy a gun most places without any questions asked (craigslist, gun show), and it's a very common occurrence for FFL holders to break the rules when selling weapons.

But which laws aren't being enforced?

The FFL holders are being inspected (they appear to be rife with dishonesty and people breaking rules though).  Makes sense, as it's costly and difficult for police to investigate FFL holders.  To me, that indicates one of several things:
- it's probably much too easy for a person to apply for and receive their FFL
- the penalties aren't significant enough to deter people from breaking the rules (jail time rather than fines or license revocation would make sense)
- we need to make inspections simpler and easier for police (a national searchable gun registry would make it a trivial matter to immediately track and catch people who are selling guns without background checks, or who are acting as straw purchasers for criminals . . . and would make prosecution very straight forward).

So yes, it would probably make sense to implement new laws to fix the problems with the current ones that make enforcement so difficult for police.  Is that not reasonable?

This would be possible with new gun sales, basically impossible with all existing guns. It would be like trying to create a database from scratch with the VIN of every car - including the ones hidden away in some barn under a tarp. Actually, it would be even harder as there are an estimated ~400 million guns in the us vs. ~275 million cars. And the vast majority of those are hidden away in people's homes, not out for anyone to see like most cars. I can guarantee that any laws attempting to create such a registry for existing firearms would have very low participation, even if the penalties were severe. There's just no way to put the toothpaste back into the tube.

As a mostly academic exercise I'll point out that firearms didn't require serial numbers until 1968. There are plenty kicking around in closets without them, and a lot are true collectors items. You are going to have some angry grandpas if you try to install serial numbers at this point.

[GuitarStv]

I was pointing out where the misconceptions about buying guns may come from.  It's legally possible to buy a gun most places without any questions asked (craigslist, gun show), and it's a very common occurrence for FFL holders to break the rules when selling weapons.

But which laws aren't being enforced?

The FFL holders are being inspected (they appear to be rife with dishonesty and people breaking rules though).  Makes sense, as it's costly and difficult for police to investigate FFL holders.  To me, that indicates one of several things:
- it's probably much too easy for a person to apply for and receive their FFL
- the penalties aren't significant enough to deter people from breaking the rules (jail time rather than fines or license revocation would make sense)
- we need to make inspections simpler and easier for police (a national searchable gun registry would make it a trivial matter to immediately track and catch people who are selling guns without background checks, or who are acting as straw purchasers for criminals . . . and would make prosecution very straight forward).

So yes, it would probably make sense to implement new laws to fix the problems with the current ones that make enforcement so difficult for police.  Is that not reasonable?

Local police don't investigate FFL holders - that's specifically the ATF's jurisdiction.  I'm not sure where you got "costly and difficult" from, given it's not something traditional police are able to do at all.  Again, "police" don't do inspections. ATF does.

And on that note:

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/rethinking-atfs-budget-prioritize-effective-gun-violence-prevention/

Since we're needlessly splitting hairs here, I didn't mention 'local police' in my post.  Please feel free to read through and double check.  As a civil force of a national or local government responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the maintenance of public order, the ATF meets the general definition of 'police'.

The article you posted includes some of the reasons that this is so expensive

ATF operates the National Tracing Center (NTC), which is the only tracing facility in the United States capable of identifying the origin of a firearm recovered at a crime scene.

That's phenomenally dumb.  There should be an easily searchable database of guns and registered owners that any law enforcement officer can use to instantly identify where a gun came from.

This would be possible with new gun sales, basically impossible with all existing guns. It would be like trying to create a database from scratch with the VIN of every car - including the ones hidden away in some barn under a tarp. Actually, it would be even harder as there are an estimated ~400 million guns in the us vs. ~275 million cars. And the vast majority of those are hidden away in people's homes, not out for anyone to see like most cars. I can guarantee that any laws attempting to create such a registry for existing firearms would have very low participation, even if the penalties were severe. There's just no way to put the toothpaste back into the tube.

I don't think 'but we've been doing it wrong for so long that it's hard to do it right' is a valid argument against.

Make it a legal requirement that any gun sold or transferred starting tomorrow has to be registered with the database.  Make severe penalties for failure to comply, and have some police posing as buyers on craigslist.  Sure, it won't instantly solve the problem but with minimum of fuss within a generation or so the vast majority of firearms will be accounted for.  All this while imposing no real change to legal firearm owners.

Also, I keep hearing from gun nuts about how the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding and rule following.  Well, is that the case or not?  You seem to be implying that they are all just waiting for the slightest reason at all to start breaking the law en-masse, and would reject the law when it's even mildly inconvenient.

[JLee]

I was pointing out where the misconceptions about buying guns may come from.  It's legally possible to buy a gun most places without any questions asked (craigslist, gun show), and it's a very common occurrence for FFL holders to break the rules when selling weapons.

But which laws aren't being enforced?

The FFL holders are being inspected (they appear to be rife with dishonesty and people breaking rules though).  Makes sense, as it's costly and difficult for police to investigate FFL holders.  To me, that indicates one of several things:
- it's probably much too easy for a person to apply for and receive their FFL
- the penalties aren't significant enough to deter people from breaking the rules (jail time rather than fines or license revocation would make sense)
- we need to make inspections simpler and easier for police (a national searchable gun registry would make it a trivial matter to immediately track and catch people who are selling guns without background checks, or who are acting as straw purchasers for criminals . . . and would make prosecution very straight forward).

So yes, it would probably make sense to implement new laws to fix the problems with the current ones that make enforcement so difficult for police.  Is that not reasonable?

Local police don't investigate FFL holders - that's specifically the ATF's jurisdiction.  I'm not sure where you got "costly and difficult" from, given it's not something traditional police are able to do at all.  Again, "police" don't do inspections. ATF does.

And on that note:

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/rethinking-atfs-budget-prioritize-effective-gun-violence-prevention/

Since we're needlessly splitting hairs here, I didn't mention 'local police' in my post.  Please feel free to read through and double check.  As a civil force of a national or local government responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the maintenance of public order, the ATF meets the general definition of 'police'.

The article you posted includes some of the reasons that this is so expensive

ATF operates the National Tracing Center (NTC), which is the only tracing facility in the United States capable of identifying the origin of a firearm recovered at a crime scene.

That's phenomenally dumb.  There should be an easily searchable database of guns and registered owners that any law enforcement officer can use to instantly identify where a gun came from.

This would be possible with new gun sales, basically impossible with all existing guns. It would be like trying to create a database from scratch with the VIN of every car - including the ones hidden away in some barn under a tarp. Actually, it would be even harder as there are an estimated ~400 million guns in the us vs. ~275 million cars. And the vast majority of those are hidden away in people's homes, not out for anyone to see like most cars. I can guarantee that any laws attempting to create such a registry for existing firearms would have very low participation, even if the penalties were severe. There's just no way to put the toothpaste back into the tube.

I don't think 'but we've been doing it wrong for so long that it's hard to do it right' is a valid argument against.

Make it a legal requirement that any gun sold or transferred starting tomorrow has to be registered with the database.  Make severe penalties for failure to comply, and have some police posing as buyers on craigslist.  Sure, it won't instantly solve the problem but with minimum of fuss within a generation or so the vast majority of firearms will be accounted for.  All this while imposing no real change to legal firearm owners.

Also, I keep hearing from gun nuts about how the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding and rule following.  Well, is that the case or not?  You seem to be implying that they are all just waiting for the slightest reason at all to start breaking the law en-masse, and would reject the law when it's even mildly inconvenient.

I have been attempting to hold a discussion in good faith here and you keep coming back with snarky comments and implications - wtf?

In the US, federal law enforcement is different than the commonly used term "police," which is typically used to refer to state or local law enforcement. Federal agents do not fall under the same colloquial umbrella.

[PDXTabs]

Also, I keep hearing from gun nuts about how the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding and rule following.  Well, is that the case or not?  You seem to be implying that they are all just waiting for the slightest reason at all to start breaking the law en-masse, and would reject the law when it's even mildly inconvenient.

I feel compelled to once again point out that:
1. "83 percent of gun owners support expanded background checks on sales of all firearms, including 72 percent of all NRA members." - Harvard: The Vast Majority of Americans Support Universal Background Checks. Why Doesn’t Congress?
2. We don't have a democracy.

It's not like people can just vote on a law with a national referendum. From the electoral politicking standpoint I'm not sure how exactly to parse #1. Is it the GOP worried about getting primaried? Or is it gun lobby money? Your guess is as good as mine.

[YttriumNitrate]

You're right, not much technical knowledge is required - but as evidenced in this thread, there are plenty of people who are very willing to loudly spew their opinions when they don't know what's already illegal, or what specifically should be restricted.  I can't tell you how many times I've heard "People shouldn't be able to just walk into a store and buy a gun with no questions asked" -- and guess what? You can't.

Unless you consider muzzleloaders guns, in which case you can (in Indiana at least). Although, it's highly doubtful they were thinking of that exception unless they were deer hunters or civil war reenactors.

[Samuel]

Also, I keep hearing from gun nuts about how the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding and rule following.  Well, is that the case or not?  You seem to be implying that they are all just waiting for the slightest reason at all to start breaking the law en-masse, and would reject the law when it's even mildly inconvenient.

I feel compelled to once again point out that:
1. "83 percent of gun owners support expanded background checks on sales of all firearms, including 72 percent of all NRA members." - Harvard: The Vast Majority of Americans Support Universal Background Checks. Why Doesn’t Congress?
2. We don't have a democracy.

It's not like people can just vote on a law with a national referendum. From the electoral politicking standpoint I'm not sure how exactly to parse #1. Is it the GOP worried about getting primaried? Or is it gun lobby money? Your guess is as good as mine.

But they can directly vote in state referendums. The NYT had an interesting article a couple weeks ago on the abnormally large gap between what people say they want regarding gun control in polls and what they vote for when they have the opportunity to enact state level restrictions.

Turns out lots of people either lie to pollsters and/or they change their mind as proposals go from vague to specific.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/03/upshot/gun-control-polling-votes.html

[Kris]

Also, I keep hearing from gun nuts about how the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding and rule following.  Well, is that the case or not?  You seem to be implying that they are all just waiting for the slightest reason at all to start breaking the law en-masse, and would reject the law when it's even mildly inconvenient.

I feel compelled to once again point out that:
1. "83 percent of gun owners support expanded background checks on sales of all firearms, including 72 percent of all NRA members." - Harvard: The Vast Majority of Americans Support Universal Background Checks. Why Doesn’t Congress?
2. We don't have a democracy.

It's not like people can just vote on a law with a national referendum. From the electoral politicking standpoint I'm not sure how exactly to parse #1. Is it the GOP worried about getting primaried? Or is it gun lobby money? Your guess is as good as mine.

But they can directly vote in state referendums. The NYT had an interesting article a couple weeks ago on the abnormally large gap between what people say they want regarding gun control in polls and what they vote for when they have the opportunity to enact state level restrictions.

Turns out lots of people either lie to pollsters and/or they change their mind as proposals go from vague to specific.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/03/upshot/gun-control-polling-votes.html

That tracks to me. Makes me think of a number of conversations I've had with pro-2A people who say they are open to common-sense gun reform, but then immediately reject out of hand any examples that are offered, and refuse to offer up any actual measures they would support.

Note: just to be clear, I am not passive-aggressively referring to any of the people in this thread.

[PDXTabs]

Also, I keep hearing from gun nuts about how the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding and rule following.  Well, is that the case or not?  You seem to be implying that they are all just waiting for the slightest reason at all to start breaking the law en-masse, and would reject the law when it's even mildly inconvenient.

I feel compelled to once again point out that:
1. "83 percent of gun owners support expanded background checks on sales of all firearms, including 72 percent of all NRA members." - Harvard: The Vast Majority of Americans Support Universal Background Checks. Why Doesn’t Congress?
2. We don't have a democracy.

It's not like people can just vote on a law with a national referendum. From the electoral politicking standpoint I'm not sure how exactly to parse #1. Is it the GOP worried about getting primaried? Or is it gun lobby money? Your guess is as good as mine.

But they can directly vote in state referendums. The NYT had an interesting article a couple weeks ago on the abnormally large gap between what people say they want regarding gun control in polls and what they vote for when they have the opportunity to enact state level restrictions.

Turns out lots of people either lie to pollsters and/or they change their mind as proposals go from vague to specific.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/03/upshot/gun-control-polling-votes.html

That's news to me, thanks for posting it. Also depressing. I guess that the lowest common denominator is business as usual...

[JLee]

You're right, not much technical knowledge is required - but as evidenced in this thread, there are plenty of people who are very willing to loudly spew their opinions when they don't know what's already illegal, or what specifically should be restricted.  I can't tell you how many times I've heard "People shouldn't be able to just walk into a store and buy a gun with no questions asked" -- and guess what? You can't.

Unless you consider muzzleloaders guns, in which case you can (in Indiana at least). Although, it's highly doubtful they were thinking of that exception unless they were deer hunters or civil war reenactors.

Oh good catch - muzzleloaders are a whole different ball of wax for some reason. In many cases/states someone can just order a muzzleloader and have it show up at their house through the regular mail.

[PDXTabs]

You're right, not much technical knowledge is required - but as evidenced in this thread, there are plenty of people who are very willing to loudly spew their opinions when they don't know what's already illegal, or what specifically should be restricted.  I can't tell you how many times I've heard "People shouldn't be able to just walk into a store and buy a gun with no questions asked" -- and guess what? You can't.

Unless you consider muzzleloaders guns, in which case you can (in Indiana at least). Although, it's highly doubtful they were thinking of that exception unless they were deer hunters or civil war reenactors.

Oh good catch - muzzleloaders are a whole different ball of wax for some reason. In many cases/states someone can just order a muzzleloader and have it show up at their house through the regular mail.

Because President Kennedy wasn't assassinated by a muzzle-loader so they weren't included in the Gun Control Act of 1968. So far there hasn't be a lot of armed robbery by cap-n-ball revolver so it just isn't on anyone's radar. But in a prior life I maybe knew some very pro-2A people who considered this a good litmus test for gun control. Eg, "as long as I can mail-order a cap-n-ball revolver no one really cares."

[Abe]

You're right, not much technical knowledge is required - but as evidenced in this thread, there are plenty of people who are very willing to loudly spew their opinions when they don't know what's already illegal, or what specifically should be restricted.  I can't tell you how many times I've heard "People shouldn't be able to just walk into a store and buy a gun with no questions asked" -- and guess what? You can't.

Unless you consider muzzleloaders guns, in which case you can (in Indiana at least). Although, it's highly doubtful they were thinking of that exception unless they were deer hunters or civil war reenactors.

Oh good catch - muzzleloaders are a whole different ball of wax for some reason. In many cases/states someone can just order a muzzleloader and have it show up at their house through the regular mail.

Because President Kennedy wasn't assassinated by a muzzle-loader so they weren't included in the Gun Control Act of 1968. So far there hasn't be a lot of armed robbery by cap-n-ball revolver so it just isn't on anyone's radar. But in a prior life I maybe knew some very pro-2A people who considered this a good litmus test for gun control. Eg, "as long as I can mail-order a cap-n-ball revolver no one really cares."

Or just go to a gun show.

[PDXTabs]

You're right, not much technical knowledge is required - but as evidenced in this thread, there are plenty of people who are very willing to loudly spew their opinions when they don't know what's already illegal, or what specifically should be restricted.  I can't tell you how many times I've heard "People shouldn't be able to just walk into a store and buy a gun with no questions asked" -- and guess what? You can't.

Unless you consider muzzleloaders guns, in which case you can (in Indiana at least). Although, it's highly doubtful they were thinking of that exception unless they were deer hunters or civil war reenactors.

Oh good catch - muzzleloaders are a whole different ball of wax for some reason. In many cases/states someone can just order a muzzleloader and have it show up at their house through the regular mail.

Because President Kennedy wasn't assassinated by a muzzle-loader so they weren't included in the Gun Control Act of 1968. So far there hasn't be a lot of armed robbery by cap-n-ball revolver so it just isn't on anyone's radar. But in a prior life I maybe knew some very pro-2A people who considered this a good litmus test for gun control. Eg, "as long as I can mail-order a cap-n-ball revolver no one really cares."

Or just go to a gun show.

That does work from some people in some states that can find a gun for sale from someone who does not hold an FFL. There is no (legal) way for me to do that as an Oregon (or Washington) resident. But I think that I can still mail order a cap-n-ball revolver. IDK, INAL and I don't really want one.

[JLee]

You're right, not much technical knowledge is required - but as evidenced in this thread, there are plenty of people who are very willing to loudly spew their opinions when they don't know what's already illegal, or what specifically should be restricted.  I can't tell you how many times I've heard "People shouldn't be able to just walk into a store and buy a gun with no questions asked" -- and guess what? You can't.

Unless you consider muzzleloaders guns, in which case you can (in Indiana at least). Although, it's highly doubtful they were thinking of that exception unless they were deer hunters or civil war reenactors.

Oh good catch - muzzleloaders are a whole different ball of wax for some reason. In many cases/states someone can just order a muzzleloader and have it show up at their house through the regular mail.

Because President Kennedy wasn't assassinated by a muzzle-loader so they weren't included in the Gun Control Act of 1968. So far there hasn't be a lot of armed robbery by cap-n-ball revolver so it just isn't on anyone's radar. But in a prior life I maybe knew some very pro-2A people who considered this a good litmus test for gun control. Eg, "as long as I can mail-order a cap-n-ball revolver no one really cares."

Or just go to a gun show buy from a private seller and not a dealer.

You made a bit of a typo there.

[NaN]

Also, I keep hearing from gun nuts about how the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding and rule following.  Well, is that the case or not?  You seem to be implying that they are all just waiting for the slightest reason at all to start breaking the law en-masse, and would reject the law when it's even mildly inconvenient.

I feel compelled to once again point out that:
1. "83 percent of gun owners support expanded background checks on sales of all firearms, including 72 percent of all NRA members." - Harvard: The Vast Majority of Americans Support Universal Background Checks. Why Doesn’t Congress?
2. We don't have a democracy.

It's not like people can just vote on a law with a national referendum. From the electoral politicking standpoint I'm not sure how exactly to parse #1. Is it the GOP worried about getting primaried? Or is it gun lobby money? Your guess is as good as mine.

But they can directly vote in state referendums. The NYT had an interesting article a couple weeks ago on the abnormally large gap between what people say they want regarding gun control in polls and what they vote for when they have the opportunity to enact state level restrictions.

Turns out lots of people either lie to pollsters and/or they change their mind as proposals go from vague to specific.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/03/upshot/gun-control-polling-votes.html

That's news to me, thanks for posting it. Also depressing. I guess that the lowest common denominator is business as usual...

Yes. And this is a large part of my frustrations with this thread from the beginning. Again, the 2A crowd usually anchors the negotiation at zero.

In response to people who still don't respect my response, such as @Wolfpack Mustachian and @Villanelle , I would leave you to this one point and that's this:

One of you said: "[NaN]'s caricature they had on their mind of people shooting ar15s as psyched up movie villains addicted to the thrill of it" I never said that people who are addicted to it were villains. People are addicted to a lot of things and that doesn't make them a villain.

However, I hope no one EVER has to experience what it looks like looking at a shooter who probably resembles this exact caricature. From what I heard about Uvalde, the shooter was almost this to a T, screaming "die, die" at the kids. What I think you are missing is that these weapons allow people to be these villains. They allow someone to be Scar Face.

In the end, isn't the whole problem and why we even have this discussion is that these people exist and they have fairly easy access to these weapons? So my caricature brings up almost a glaring hole in most AR15 owners thoughts. Next time any of you, if you do have this weapon, go to the range please take a moment to think that the thing in your arms was used by a very evil person to kill a bunch of 4th graders. Imagine as you look in any mirror at the range that the image you see is probably not too much different than the last image any of those kids saw. Yeah, you may be a mentally stable individual but a lot of people in the world are not. Solving mentally ill probably is way harder than you probably think. Is the AR15 really the only tool that can be used for these other purposes, like varmint control?

[JLee]

Also, I keep hearing from gun nuts about how the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding and rule following.  Well, is that the case or not?  You seem to be implying that they are all just waiting for the slightest reason at all to start breaking the law en-masse, and would reject the law when it's even mildly inconvenient.

I feel compelled to once again point out that:
1. "83 percent of gun owners support expanded background checks on sales of all firearms, including 72 percent of all NRA members." - Harvard: The Vast Majority of Americans Support Universal Background Checks. Why Doesn’t Congress?
2. We don't have a democracy.

It's not like people can just vote on a law with a national referendum. From the electoral politicking standpoint I'm not sure how exactly to parse #1. Is it the GOP worried about getting primaried? Or is it gun lobby money? Your guess is as good as mine.

But they can directly vote in state referendums. The NYT had an interesting article a couple weeks ago on the abnormally large gap between what people say they want regarding gun control in polls and what they vote for when they have the opportunity to enact state level restrictions.

Turns out lots of people either lie to pollsters and/or they change their mind as proposals go from vague to specific.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/03/upshot/gun-control-polling-votes.html

That's news to me, thanks for posting it. Also depressing. I guess that the lowest common denominator is business as usual...

Yes. And this is a large part of my frustrations with this thread from the beginning. Again, the 2A crowd usually anchors the negotiation at zero.

In response to people who still don't respect my response, such as @Wolfpack Mustachian and @Villanelle , I would leave you to this one point and that's this:

One of you said: "[NaN]'s caricature they had on their mind of people shooting ar15s as psyched up movie villains addicted to the thrill of it" I never said that people who are addicted to it were villains. People are addicted to a lot of things and that doesn't make them a villain.

However, I hope no one EVER has to experience what it looks like looking at a shooter who probably resembles this exact caricature. From what I heard about Uvalde, the shooter was almost this to a T, screaming "die, die" at the kids. What I think you are missing is that these weapons allow people to be these villains. They allow someone to be Scar Face.

In the end, isn't the whole problem and why we even have this discussion is that these people exist and they have fairly easy access to these weapons? So my caricature brings up almost a glaring hole in most AR15 owners thoughts. Next time any of you, if you do have this weapon, go to the range please take a moment to think that the thing in your arms was used by a very evil person to kill a bunch of 4th graders. Imagine as you look in any mirror at the range that the image you see is probably not too much different than the last image of those kids. Yeah, you may be a mentally stable individual but a lot of people in the world are not. Solving mentally ill probably is way harder than you probably think. Is the AR15 really the only tool that can be used for these other purposes, like varmint control?

You're appealing to an emotional response that's not going to illicit the reaction you are hoping for.  The next time you consume alcohol, remember how many thousands of people are killed by drunk drivers every year.  The next time you go swimming in a swimming pool, imagine how many children drowned.  You can extrapolate that feeling into many different avenues.  Trying to shame people into feeling bad for their hobby is not going to be a productive approach to a discussion.

[NaN]

Also, I keep hearing from gun nuts about how the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding and rule following.  Well, is that the case or not?  You seem to be implying that they are all just waiting for the slightest reason at all to start breaking the law en-masse, and would reject the law when it's even mildly inconvenient.

I feel compelled to once again point out that:
1. "83 percent of gun owners support expanded background checks on sales of all firearms, including 72 percent of all NRA members." - Harvard: The Vast Majority of Americans Support Universal Background Checks. Why Doesn’t Congress?
2. We don't have a democracy.

It's not like people can just vote on a law with a national referendum. From the electoral politicking standpoint I'm not sure how exactly to parse #1. Is it the GOP worried about getting primaried? Or is it gun lobby money? Your guess is as good as mine.

But they can directly vote in state referendums. The NYT had an interesting article a couple weeks ago on the abnormally large gap between what people say they want regarding gun control in polls and what they vote for when they have the opportunity to enact state level restrictions.

Turns out lots of people either lie to pollsters and/or they change their mind as proposals go from vague to specific.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/03/upshot/gun-control-polling-votes.html

That's news to me, thanks for posting it. Also depressing. I guess that the lowest common denominator is business as usual...

Yes. And this is a large part of my frustrations with this thread from the beginning. Again, the 2A crowd usually anchors the negotiation at zero.

In response to people who still don't respect my response, such as @Wolfpack Mustachian and @Villanelle , I would leave you to this one point and that's this:

One of you said: "[NaN]'s caricature they had on their mind of people shooting ar15s as psyched up movie villains addicted to the thrill of it" I never said that people who are addicted to it were villains. People are addicted to a lot of things and that doesn't make them a villain.

However, I hope no one EVER has to experience what it looks like looking at a shooter who probably resembles this exact caricature. From what I heard about Uvalde, the shooter was almost this to a T, screaming "die, die" at the kids. What I think you are missing is that these weapons allow people to be these villains. They allow someone to be Scar Face.

In the end, isn't the whole problem and why we even have this discussion is that these people exist and they have fairly easy access to these weapons? So my caricature brings up almost a glaring hole in most AR15 owners thoughts. Next time any of you, if you do have this weapon, go to the range please take a moment to think that the thing in your arms was used by a very evil person to kill a bunch of 4th graders. Imagine as you look in any mirror at the range that the image you see is probably not too much different than the last image of those kids. Yeah, you may be a mentally stable individual but a lot of people in the world are not. Solving mentally ill probably is way harder than you probably think. Is the AR15 really the only tool that can be used for these other purposes, like varmint control?

You're appealing to an emotional response that's not going to illicit the reaction you are hoping for.  The next time you consume alcohol, remember how many thousands of people are killed by drunk drivers every year.  The next time you go swimming in a swimming pool, imagine how many children drowned.  You can extrapolate that feeling into many different avenues.  Trying to shame people into feeling bad for their hobby is not going to be a productive approach to a discussion.

That's what you believe. I believe differently with guns. A drunk driver and a swimming pool accident are terrible comparisons to a weapon that can kill 10s of people very quickly with quite deliberate intentions. Alcohol and swimming pools have never been used to incite such terror.

[JLee]

That's what you believe. I believe differently with guns. A drunk driver and a swimming pool accident are terrible comparisons to a weapon that can kill 10s of people very quickly with quite deliberate intentions. Alcohol and swimming pools have never been used to incite such terror.

I grew up in a heavily conservative gun-owning area and I can guarantee that your approach will not work in the way you intend.  Your belief is not going to change how the gun fanatics feel, but of course you are welcome to believe as you wish.

[Kris]

That's what you believe. I believe differently with guns. A drunk driver and a swimming pool accident are terrible comparisons to a weapon that can kill 10s of people very quickly with quite deliberate intentions. Alcohol and swimming pools have never been used to incite such terror.

I grew up in a heavily conservative gun-owning area and I can guarantee that your approach will not work in the way you intend.  Your belief is not going to change how the gun fanatics feel, but of course you are welcome to believe as you wish.

What will change how the gun fanatics feel?

[GuitarStv]

You're right, not much technical knowledge is required - but as evidenced in this thread, there are plenty of people who are very willing to loudly spew their opinions when they don't know what's already illegal, or what specifically should be restricted.  I can't tell you how many times I've heard "People shouldn't be able to just walk into a store and buy a gun with no questions asked" -- and guess what? You can't.

Unless you consider muzzleloaders guns, in which case you can (in Indiana at least). Although, it's highly doubtful they were thinking of that exception unless they were deer hunters or civil war reenactors.

Oh good catch - muzzleloaders are a whole different ball of wax for some reason. In many cases/states someone can just order a muzzleloader and have it show up at their house through the regular mail.

Because President Kennedy wasn't assassinated by a muzzle-loader so they weren't included in the Gun Control Act of 1968. So far there hasn't be a lot of armed robbery by cap-n-ball revolver so it just isn't on anyone's radar. But in a prior life I maybe knew some very pro-2A people who considered this a good litmus test for gun control. Eg, "as long as I can mail-order a cap-n-ball revolver no one really cares."

Or just go to a gun show buy from a private seller and not a dealer.

You made a bit of a typo there.

No, that's not really what the ATF has shown in investigation.

34 percent of trafficking investigations connected to gun shows involved licensed dealers that participated in straw sales, sold guns without a background check, and sold to out-of-state residents, among other illegal business practices

The investigation found that 16 of 17 (94 percent) of federally-licensed dealers
approached by investigators at gun shows willingly sold to an apparent straw purchaser.

- http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/pr442-09_report.pdf


I already mentioned that more than half of FFLs inspected are found to be violating the rules.  According to the ATF data, 41.7% of their inspections resulted in straw purchaser violations.
- http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/ATF-%20Following%20the%20Gun,%20Enforcing%20Federal%20Laws%20Against%20Firearms%20Traffickers.pdf

It would seem that quite a large number of FFL holders are perfectly happy to sell firearms to people who shouldn't get them, and that gun shows are a great place to buy an illegal weapon . . . from private seller or FFL holder.

[LaineyAZ]

Sometimes emotion is exactly what's needed to elicit the necessary response.  I'm reminded of Emmitt Till's mother, Mamie.  Her 14 year-old son was tortured and lynched in Mississippi in 1955.  She made the decision to hold an open casket service for him, and the resulting photos horrified the nation.  It sparked a renewal of the civil rights movement. 

There have been some who think it do the same if there were photos of the child victims from Sandy Hook, CT and Uvalde, TX.  The photos on the media showed happy smiling children, but no photos of them lying on their classroom floor with golf-ball size holes in their heads.  Is that what it's going to take?

[JLee]

Sometimes emotion is exactly what's needed to elicit the necessary response.  I'm reminded of Emmitt Till's mother, Mamie.  Her 14 year-old son was tortured and lynched in Mississippi in 1955.  She made the decision to hold an open casket service for him, and the resulting photos horrified the nation.  It sparked a renewal of the civil rights movement. 

There have been some who think it do the same if there were photos of the child victims from Sandy Hook, CT and Uvalde, TX.  The photos on the media showed happy smiling children, but no photos of them lying on their classroom floor with golf-ball size holes in their heads.  Is that what it's going to take?

The general public already supports gun control measures.  The rabid NRA people never will.

I hope I'm wrong, but so far I've seen nothing to indicate such.

[LaineyAZ]

Sometimes emotion is exactly what's needed to elicit the necessary response.  I'm reminded of Emmitt Till's mother, Mamie.  Her 14 year-old son was tortured and lynched in Mississippi in 1955.  She made the decision to hold an open casket service for him, and the resulting photos horrified the nation.  It sparked a renewal of the civil rights movement. 

There have been some who think it do the same if there were photos of the child victims from Sandy Hook, CT and Uvalde, TX.  The photos on the media showed happy smiling children, but no photos of them lying on their classroom floor with golf-ball size holes in their heads.  Is that what it's going to take?

The general public already supports gun control measures.  The rabid NRA people never will.

I hope I'm wrong, but so far I've seen nothing to indicate such.

Hence the sad, satiric poster I saw recently:  "Thank you to the children who sacrificed their lives to protect our Second Amendment rights." 

[NaN]

That's what you believe. I believe differently with guns. A drunk driver and a swimming pool accident are terrible comparisons to a weapon that can kill 10s of people very quickly with quite deliberate intentions. Alcohol and swimming pools have never been used to incite such terror.

I grew up in a heavily conservative gun-owning area and I can guarantee that your approach will not work in the way you intend.  Your belief is not going to change how the gun fanatics feel, but of course you are welcome to believe as you wish.

Actually you bring up a very good point about booze.

States and counties have actually banned alcohol sales. So there is that. And pretty conservative ones I might add.

But even in most areas there are significant pushes to promote safety around alcohol. There are tons of promotions at almost any bar to not drink and drive. There are DUI checkpoints. There are massive penalties for people to cross that line. There is a measurable test to check limits. There is the ability for bars to cut people off.

We as a society tend to promote that safety. Maybe the gun industry should start addressing mass shootings in the same way the alcohol sales industry has to address drunk driving?

[JLee]

That's what you believe. I believe differently with guns. A drunk driver and a swimming pool accident are terrible comparisons to a weapon that can kill 10s of people very quickly with quite deliberate intentions. Alcohol and swimming pools have never been used to incite such terror.

I grew up in a heavily conservative gun-owning area and I can guarantee that your approach will not work in the way you intend.  Your belief is not going to change how the gun fanatics feel, but of course you are welcome to believe as you wish.

What will change how the gun fanatics feel?

I have no idea.  There's effectively a religious fervor surrounding this topic - we would need to figure out how to reverse the fear-based brainwashing that has taken place over the decades.  Strong attachment to guns and self defense also seems to be* tied to economic uncertainty or a feeling of someone having / taking something that is rightfully theirs (e.g. look at the states that allow deadly force in defense of property). There are people who would happily shoot someone for stealing their stuff - look around social media for discussion regarding catalytic converter thefts/etc. 

So I just realized, as I'm pondering how to wrap up this post - it all ties back to my feelings about the modern-day Republican party.  I feel the general distinction between** liberal and conservative viewpoints is empathy (or a lack thereof).  If we can find a way to teach empathy, that will go a long way.  NaN's approach will not work now because you're talking to the people who would shoot a teenager for stealing a television. They're often the same people who oppose welfare and don't want "their" tax dollars going to benefit anyone else they deem lazy or otherwise unworthy. It's a general attitude of "I've got mine, fuck everybody else" -- contrast that to the other end of the spectrum, where you typically find people supporting universal health care, welfare and other social programs, gun control, public transit, etc.

So in short, we need to figure out how to make people care about other people. 

*I have no data, this is my own assumption

**most - I realize I am heavily generalizing here, but bear with me

[NaN]

That's what you believe. I believe differently with guns. A drunk driver and a swimming pool accident are terrible comparisons to a weapon that can kill 10s of people very quickly with quite deliberate intentions. Alcohol and swimming pools have never been used to incite such terror.

I grew up in a heavily conservative gun-owning area and I can guarantee that your approach will not work in the way you intend.  Your belief is not going to change how the gun fanatics feel, but of course you are welcome to believe as you wish.

What will change how the gun fanatics feel?

I have no idea.  There's effectively a religious fervor surrounding this topic - we would need to figure out how to reverse the fear-based brainwashing that has taken place over the decades.  Strong attachment to guns and self defense also seems to be* tied to economic uncertainty or a feeling of someone having / taking something that is rightfully theirs (e.g. look at the states that allow deadly force in defense of property). There are people who would happily shoot someone for stealing their stuff - look around social media for discussion regarding catalytic converter thefts/etc. 

So I just realized, as I'm pondering how to wrap up this post - it all ties back to my feelings about the modern-day Republican party.  I feel the general distinction between** liberal and conservative viewpoints is empathy (or a lack thereof).  If we can find a way to teach empathy, that will go a long way.  NaN's approach will not work now because you're talking to the people who would shoot a teenager for stealing a television. They're often the same people who oppose welfare and don't want "their" tax dollars going to benefit anyone else they deem lazy or otherwise unworthy. It's a general attitude of "I've got mine, fuck everybody else" -- contrast that to the other end of the spectrum, where you typically find people supporting universal health care, welfare and other social programs, gun control, public transit, etc.

So in short, we need to figure out how to make people care about other people. 

*I have no data, this is my own assumption

**most - I realize I am heavily generalizing here, but bear with me

Who have characterized my approach incorrectly. Actually, I am saying the gun crowd needs to start being more empathetic to the views of anti guns folks like myself.

In my example of alcohol sales and drunk driving, we do illicit a pretty emotional response to this issue. We have ads of sad people sitting on the side of a road handcuffed, pictures of family who lost a loved one. There are Super Bowl commercials to drink responsibly. We as a society make people all the time feel guilty for this behavior, including religious conservatives.

If gun owners can't look in the mirror and see an image and reflect on it without any emotional response to people opposed to guns, then yes we will never get anywhere. But being empathetic to the other side is not the complete responsibility of those without guns and supportive of really restrictive gun laws.

[JLee]

That's what you believe. I believe differently with guns. A drunk driver and a swimming pool accident are terrible comparisons to a weapon that can kill 10s of people very quickly with quite deliberate intentions. Alcohol and swimming pools have never been used to incite such terror.

I grew up in a heavily conservative gun-owning area and I can guarantee that your approach will not work in the way you intend.  Your belief is not going to change how the gun fanatics feel, but of course you are welcome to believe as you wish.

What will change how the gun fanatics feel?

I have no idea.  There's effectively a religious fervor surrounding this topic - we would need to figure out how to reverse the fear-based brainwashing that has taken place over the decades.  Strong attachment to guns and self defense also seems to be* tied to economic uncertainty or a feeling of someone having / taking something that is rightfully theirs (e.g. look at the states that allow deadly force in defense of property). There are people who would happily shoot someone for stealing their stuff - look around social media for discussion regarding catalytic converter thefts/etc. 

So I just realized, as I'm pondering how to wrap up this post - it all ties back to my feelings about the modern-day Republican party.  I feel the general distinction between** liberal and conservative viewpoints is empathy (or a lack thereof).  If we can find a way to teach empathy, that will go a long way.  NaN's approach will not work now because you're talking to the people who would shoot a teenager for stealing a television. They're often the same people who oppose welfare and don't want "their" tax dollars going to benefit anyone else they deem lazy or otherwise unworthy. It's a general attitude of "I've got mine, fuck everybody else" -- contrast that to the other end of the spectrum, where you typically find people supporting universal health care, welfare and other social programs, gun control, public transit, etc.

So in short, we need to figure out how to make people care about other people. 

*I have no data, this is my own assumption

**most - I realize I am heavily generalizing here, but bear with me

Who have characterized my approach incorrectly. Actually, I am saying the gun crowd needs to start being more empathetic to the views of anti guns folks like myself.

In my example of alcohol sales and drunk driving, we do illicit a pretty emotional response to this issue. We have ads of sad people sitting on the side of a road handcuffed, pictures of family who lost a loved one. There are Super Bowl commercials to drink responsibly. We as a society make people all the time feel guilty for this behavior, including religious conservatives.

If gun owners can't look in the mirror and see an image and reflect on it without any emotional response to people opposed to guns, then yes we will never get anywhere. But being empathetic to the other side is not the complete responsibility of those without guns and supportive of really restrictive gun laws.

Please reread my post and digest it sentence by sentence.  There is a lack of empathy towards people in general, not just towards the anti-gun crowd. This isn't about you - it's much, much bigger.

[NaN]

That's what you believe. I believe differently with guns. A drunk driver and a swimming pool accident are terrible comparisons to a weapon that can kill 10s of people very quickly with quite deliberate intentions. Alcohol and swimming pools have never been used to incite such terror.

I grew up in a heavily conservative gun-owning area and I can guarantee that your approach will not work in the way you intend.  Your belief is not going to change how the gun fanatics feel, but of course you are welcome to believe as you wish.

What will change how the gun fanatics feel?

I have no idea.  There's effectively a religious fervor surrounding this topic - we would need to figure out how to reverse the fear-based brainwashing that has taken place over the decades.  Strong attachment to guns and self defense also seems to be* tied to economic uncertainty or a feeling of someone having / taking something that is rightfully theirs (e.g. look at the states that allow deadly force in defense of property). There are people who would happily shoot someone for stealing their stuff - look around social media for discussion regarding catalytic converter thefts/etc. 

So I just realized, as I'm pondering how to wrap up this post - it all ties back to my feelings about the modern-day Republican party.  I feel the general distinction between** liberal and conservative viewpoints is empathy (or a lack thereof).  If we can find a way to teach empathy, that will go a long way.  NaN's approach will not work now because you're talking to the people who would shoot a teenager for stealing a television. They're often the same people who oppose welfare and don't want "their" tax dollars going to benefit anyone else they deem lazy or otherwise unworthy. It's a general attitude of "I've got mine, fuck everybody else" -- contrast that to the other end of the spectrum, where you typically find people supporting universal health care, welfare and other social programs, gun control, public transit, etc.

So in short, we need to figure out how to make people care about other people. 

*I have no data, this is my own assumption

**most - I realize I am heavily generalizing here, but bear with me

Who have characterized my approach incorrectly. Actually, I am saying the gun crowd needs to start being more empathetic to the views of anti guns folks like myself.

In my example of alcohol sales and drunk driving, we do illicit a pretty emotional response to this issue. We have ads of sad people sitting on the side of a road handcuffed, pictures of family who lost a loved one. There are Super Bowl commercials to drink responsibly. We as a society make people all the time feel guilty for this behavior, including religious conservatives.

If gun owners can't look in the mirror and see an image and reflect on it without any emotional response to people opposed to guns, then yes we will never get anywhere. But being empathetic to the other side is not the complete responsibility of those without guns and supportive of really restrictive gun laws.

Please reread my post and digest it sentence by sentence.  There is a lack of empathy towards people in general, not just towards the anti-gun crowd. This isn't about you - it's much, much bigger.

Yes, and reread my entire post history. I actually was trying to understand gun owners, albeit in my own way. While tying it to an addiction was incorrect, it was my way of thinking through how can gun owners justify looking in the mirror. I guess explaining the lack of progress because it was an addiction was just a convenient way for me to explain it since anyone dealing with anyone with addiction sometimes feels absolutely hopeless on the issue.

But yeah, as it has been said it is the typical response by the gun lobby to diminish any anti gun view if someone has the incorrect view. That is what happened here and continues to happen with how you portray me.

[JLee]

But yeah, as it has been said it is the typical response by the gun lobby to diminish any anti gun view if someone has the incorrect view. That is what happened here and continues to happen with how you portray me.

I have no idea how you are coming to this conclusion, and your implication that I am affiliated with the gun lobby is utterly mystifying.

My response to Kris was not about you. It was in direct response to this, which I quoted directly:

What will change how the gun fanatics feel?

[PDXTabs]

The investigation found that 16 of 17 (94 percent) of federally-licensed dealers
approached by investigators at gun shows willingly sold to an apparent straw purchaser.

- http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/pr442-09_report.pdf


I already mentioned that more than half of FFLs inspected are found to be violating the rules.  According to the ATF data, 41.7% of their inspections resulted in straw purchaser violations.
- http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/ATF-%20Following%20the%20Gun,%20Enforcing%20Federal%20Laws%20Against%20Firearms%20Traffickers.pdf

It would seem that quite a large number of FFL holders are perfectly happy to sell firearms to people who shouldn't get them, and that gun shows are a great place to buy an illegal weapon . . . from private seller or FFL holder.

Straw purchasing is a real problem, although these stats shocked me. I figured that there were a bunch of straw sales that the FFLs didn't know about.

[GuitarStv]

The investigation found that 16 of 17 (94 percent) of federally-licensed dealers
approached by investigators at gun shows willingly sold to an apparent straw purchaser.

- http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/pr442-09_report.pdf


I already mentioned that more than half of FFLs inspected are found to be violating the rules.  According to the ATF data, 41.7% of their inspections resulted in straw purchaser violations.
- http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/ATF-%20Following%20the%20Gun,%20Enforcing%20Federal%20Laws%20Against%20Firearms%20Traffickers.pdf

It would seem that quite a large number of FFL holders are perfectly happy to sell firearms to people who shouldn't get them, and that gun shows are a great place to buy an illegal weapon . . . from private seller or FFL holder.

Straw purchasing is a real problem, although these stats shocked me. I figured that there were a bunch of straw sales that the FFLs didn't know about.

Yeah, I was surprised too.

But it makes sense when you think about it.  Make it really hard/complicated to police the rules and the rules won't be enforced all that well.

That's why an easily searchable national gun registry with significant penalties for failing to adhere to it is so important.  All these new special gun laws about who can legally buy weapons are useless if the people selling the weapons don't give a fuck.

[PDXTabs]

That's why an easily searchable national gun registry with significant penalties for failing to adhere to it is so important.  All these new special gun laws about who can legally buy weapons are useless if the people selling the weapons don't give a fuck.

I think that licensing would be more politically feasible. People are afraid of a national registry. Some of them, like the JPFO, even have good reasons to be.

[GuitarStv]

That's why an easily searchable national gun registry with significant penalties for failing to adhere to it is so important.  All these new special gun laws about who can legally buy weapons are useless if the people selling the weapons don't give a fuck.

I think that licensing would be more politically feasible. People are afraid of a national registry. Some of them, like the JPFO, even have good reasons to be.

Funny that the party most likely to protect gun rights in the US is the one with the greatest affinity for the kind of fascism that the JPFO feels it needs guns to defend against.

[PDXTabs]

That's why an easily searchable national gun registry with significant penalties for failing to adhere to it is so important.  All these new special gun laws about who can legally buy weapons are useless if the people selling the weapons don't give a fuck.

I think that licensing would be more politically feasible. People are afraid of a national registry. Some of them, like the JPFO, even have good reasons to be.

Funny that the party most likely to protect gun rights in the US is the one with the greatest affinity for the kind of fascism that the JPFO feels it needs guns to defend against.

There are more pro-gun lefties in the USA than you realize. Eg, The Liberal Gun Club. I used to hang out with Pink Pistols.

[Kris]

That's why an easily searchable national gun registry with significant penalties for failing to adhere to it is so important.  All these new special gun laws about who can legally buy weapons are useless if the people selling the weapons don't give a fuck.

I think that licensing would be more politically feasible. People are afraid of a national registry. Some of them, like the JPFO, even have good reasons to be.

Funny that the party most likely to protect gun rights in the US is the one with the greatest affinity for the kind of fascism that the JPFO feels it needs guns to defend against.

There are more pro-gun lefties in the USA than you realize. Eg, The Liberal Gun Club. I used to hang out with Pink Pistols.

The sad fact of the matter is, in recent years many "lefties" have started to arm themselves out of a perceived need to defend themselves against righties with guns.

[skp]

Just like with a lot of causes, if you want to get people on your side you have to market it successfully.  I think it would help if there weren't mixed messages.  Example Cleveland had a big protest march the other day regarding gun control.  A friend showed me her coworkers protest sign.  It says "common sense" (which I agree with) coupled with a gun encircled with a slash mark.  Wasn't sure what that meant- Does this person want to ban guns altogether, some guns, or does she want common sense regulations?  You could take it as a desire to ban guns altogether.

[Undecided]

I don’t know your experience, but I’ve heard from some hobbyists (who, in fairness, are probably more the “I like to geek out on it” type than the “I’m defending the real America from a fake government” type) that compliance isn’t so difficult—that it’s like being able to easily and safely drive a car (without fear of prosecution) notwithstanding a lack of understanding of the details of the motor vehicle code.

Generally speaking, if you don't touch anything you're fine.  If you modify something you really need to know what you're doing.

Real-life example - I have two shotguns that are of the same design (Remington 870).  If I were to take the old-school wood stock off of one and put it on the other, I've committed a felony.

I’m not accusing you of trying to mislead us in this conversation, but I mentioned this to a friend who is far more involved in this stuff, and he told me that replacing any single part only causes a violation if there are already nine other imported parts being used to assemble this firearm (that couldn’t itself have been imported). He seems to be referring to the implementing regulations in 27 C.F.R. 478.39. Is that right? Because if so, that makes it seem far less offensive from any perspective than what I though you were suggesting (not that it would be offensive from my perspective even if it were a prohibition on using just a single imported part to recreate firearms that couldn’t themselves be directly imported itself).

[PDXTabs]

I don’t know your experience, but I’ve heard from some hobbyists (who, in fairness, are probably more the “I like to geek out on it” type than the “I’m defending the real America from a fake government” type) that compliance isn’t so difficult—that it’s like being able to easily and safely drive a car (without fear of prosecution) notwithstanding a lack of understanding of the details of the motor vehicle code.

Generally speaking, if you don't touch anything you're fine.  If you modify something you really need to know what you're doing.

Real-life example - I have two shotguns that are of the same design (Remington 870).  If I were to take the old-school wood stock off of one and put it on the other, I've committed a felony.

I’m not accusing you of trying to mislead us in this conversation, but I mentioned this to a friend who is far more involved in this stuff, and he told me that replacing any single part only causes a violation if there are already nine other imported parts being used to assemble this firearm (that couldn’t itself have been imported). He seems to be referring to the implementing regulations in 27 C.F.R. 478.39. Is that right? Because if so, that makes it seem far less offensive from any perspective than what I though you were suggesting (not that it would be offensive from my perspective even if it were a prohibition on using just a single imported part to recreate firearms that couldn’t themselves be directly imported itself).

If you own an "imported" firearm then it likely has just enough parts to qualify. Eg, I have a Warsaw pact rifle that came in as a parts kit and then was assembled at a small business to just barely comply. This makes sense as why would they replace more perfectly good eastern bloc parts than they have to? If I go to replace a part I need to not replace one of the US parts with a non-US part. This also means that I actually need to know which of the parts are US parts and which ones aren't.

[JLee]

I don’t know your experience, but I’ve heard from some hobbyists (who, in fairness, are probably more the “I like to geek out on it” type than the “I’m defending the real America from a fake government” type) that compliance isn’t so difficult—that it’s like being able to easily and safely drive a car (without fear of prosecution) notwithstanding a lack of understanding of the details of the motor vehicle code.

Generally speaking, if you don't touch anything you're fine.  If you modify something you really need to know what you're doing.

Real-life example - I have two shotguns that are of the same design (Remington 870).  If I were to take the old-school wood stock off of one and put it on the other, I've committed a felony.

I’m not accusing you of trying to mislead us in this conversation, but I mentioned this to a friend who is far more involved in this stuff, and he told me that replacing any single part only causes a violation if there are already nine other imported parts being used to assemble this firearm (that couldn’t itself have been imported). He seems to be referring to the implementing regulations in 27 C.F.R. 478.39. Is that right? Because if so, that makes it seem far less offensive from any perspective than what I though you were suggesting (not that it would be offensive from my perspective even if it were a prohibition on using just a single imported part to recreate firearms that couldn’t themselves be directly imported itself).

Apologies if I was unclear - note I was speaking in the context of modification, not necessarily imported parts.  Let's say you have an AR15 pistol (legal) and an AR15 (legal).  If you take them apart and put them back together so the pistol now has a rifle stock, you've committed a felony. Same if you take the short barrel from the pistol and put it on the rifle (felony).  Same with shotguns, you can buy a short shotgun (with just a pistol grip on it, no stock) but if you put a stock on it, it's now a different class of firearm and illegal.

With that additional context, hopefully it's more clear - if you don't touch (modify) anything, and just replace broken parts as needed, you're likely fine.  If you modify anything (swap parts around on stuff, which is common/easy to do because they're kinda like legos in many cases) you have to be really careful / aware.