5 ms·

...banning 100-round barrels... Not sure if you're joking there -- maybe you meant magazines? Like so many other gun regulation ideas, it seems superficially

...banning 100-round barrels... Not sure if you're joking there -- maybe you meant magazines? Like so many other gun regulation ideas, it seems superficially reasonable based on "danger" but it's almost never the case that items like that contributed measurably to gun deaths. They don't need to be banned -- they are niche items. Mass shooters who have access to them rarely use them. They rarely use 40 or 50 round magazines. Indeed, people rarely purchase magazines larger than the standard 30 rounds. We can reduce gun ownership... That is not a legitimate policy goal. The earlier poster points out that gun ownership is not correlated with crime at all. We shouldn't set policy goals that are merely about partisanship -- trying to cut down on gun owners because we don't like them -- rather than a clear public benefit. ...increasing liability for dealers. I would like to better understand what you have in mind here. In general, modern legal systems reject holding one person responsible for the crime of another. If a mass shooter lawfully purchases a firearm, what possible liability could a dealer have?

tootie 7y ago
Liability like car ownership. Failure to secure your weapons imparts liability. Guns stolen or sold without a background check that are used in a crime carry a punishment for the last registered owner. Punishment ramps up rapidly with multiple offenses. This will punish traffickers but also encourage safety.
- solidsnack9000 7y ago
  Guns stolen or sold without a background check that are used in a crime carry a punishment for the last registered owner. Guns that are stolen would carry a punishment for the last registered owner?
  - ben_w 7y ago
    Presumably only if you fail to alert the authorities to the theft. Of course authorities don’t always pay attention to registration changes — one UK police force sent me a speeding ticket for a car I had sold nine months previously, even though the DVLA had actually registered the sale and transfer of ownership.
  - tootie 7y ago
    Correct. For one, it should be mandatory that care be taken that guns not be stolen. Locked up in safes when possible or otherwise attended to and not left lying around. Secondly, a missing gun should be reported immediately. Like I said, punishment ramps up after multiple offense. If it happens once, call it a fluke and fine $100 or whatever. If it happens twice you're being careless. If it happens more, you are probably a trafficker and should be prosecuted and lose your right to own guns. This kind of rule will affect very, very few people and hopefully zero responsible owners. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/12/us/gun-traffickers-smuggling-state-gun-laws.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/12/us/gun-traffi...
    - solidsnack9000 7y ago
      A lot of this seems reasonable; but if people steal the safe, then what?
dodobirdlord 7y ago
> That is not a legitimate policy goal. The earlier poster points out that gun ownership is not correlated with crime at all. We shouldn't set policy goals that are merely about partisanship -- trying to cut down on gun owners because we don't like them -- rather than a clear public benefit. A 2014 review in the Annals of Internal Medicine concluded having a firearm in the home, even when it’s properly stored, doubles your risk of becoming a victim of homicide and triples the risk of suicide. [0] Guns are intrinsically dangerous, in much the same way as certain aggressive dog breeds and industrial explosives. While many/most people can safely raise rottweilers, store dynamite, and keep guns, some will not. Is there a marginal benefit associated with the removal of each marginal gun? Obviously. Is gun ownership reduction a legitimate policy goal? Obviously. It's strange that you think otherwise. > In general, modern legal systems reject holding one person responsible for the crime of another. If a mass shooter lawfully purchases a firearm, what possible liability could a dealer have? Part of a more involved system of background checks would necessarily involve more action by dealers to verify that the customer's purchase is legal. Prosecuting and holding liable individuals who fail to follow established precautions when selling dangerous products is not unusual. [0] https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-fir...
- solidsnack9000 7y ago
  A 2014 review in the Annals of Internal Medicine concluded having a firearm in the home, even when it’s properly stored, doubles your risk of becoming a victim of homicide and triples the risk of suicide. It doesn't say that, exactly, since it doesn't distinguish between properly stored and not properly stored cases. It is a meta-analysis; they took a bunch of papers and did the best they could. We can't say that if they're properly stored it's about the same, or worse, or better. It also acknowledged some methodological limitations, including studying overall death rates, and not specifically deaths due to guns: ...we considered studies of suicide and homicide victimization by any means, and firearm-specific outcomes may differ. Another issue the study encountered, was that gun ownership rates were not directly available to many of the aggregated studies, which therefore relied on various proxies. What makes relying on a study like this to initiate a policy of reducing gun ownership not premature? Part of a more involved system of background checks would necessarily involve more action by dealers to verify that the customer's purchase is legal. Prosecuting and holding liable individuals who fail to follow established precautions when selling dangerous products is not unusual. We do have laws like this already -- FFLs do background checks for every purchase and if they fail to do so, they can lose their license. What are the expansions that you'd like to see?
ryacko 7y ago
Interestingly enough, 100-round barrels are banned. Alloys that would allow for cheap guns (“Saturday Night Specials”) are illegal.
tdxgx 7y ago
Nah we need to ban barrels that can withstand more than 100 rounds. Then school shooters will need to rebuild their guns during a rampage.
brokenmachine 7y ago
>Indeed, people rarely purchase magazines larger than the standard 30 rounds. 30 rounds is standard? That's terrifying. Anecdata but the NZ shooter had large clips (many dual large clips taped together in fact), and Las Vegas shooter had some crazy "niche" shit. If it's so niche that nobody cares then what's the harm in restricting things like that? People don't need 40 round magazines to shoot targets. They don't even need semi-auto to shoot targets, but that's crazy talk.
- solidsnack9000 7y ago
  It isn’t compatible with basic principles of liberal government to offer “What’s the harm?” as the basis for a restriction or policy. There needs to be a clear and just basis for government action, and a commitment to repealing or abolishing policies that do not prove to be worthwhile. The same thing goes for asking “Why do you need that?” and if people don’t have a reason you like, taking that as a basis for restriction. In a free society, the people don’t need a reason — we can do what we like. It’s the government that needs a reason. We should be questioning proposed policies, with an eye to the public benefit, not because of any love of guns, but merely out of a basic requirement for government accountability.
djmips 7y ago
You are being willfully ignorant of the obvious 'barrel' / 'drum' mistake.

tootie 7y ago

Liability like car ownership. Failure to secure your weapons imparts liability. Guns stolen or sold without a background check that are used in a crime carry a punishment for the last registered owner. Punishment ramps up rapidly with multiple offenses. This will punish traffickers but also encourage safety.

solidsnack9000 7y ago
Guns stolen or sold without a background check that are used in a crime carry a punishment for the last registered owner. Guns that are stolen would carry a punishment for the last registered owner?
- ben_w 7y ago
  Presumably only if you fail to alert the authorities to the theft. Of course authorities don’t always pay attention to registration changes — one UK police force sent me a speeding ticket for a car I had sold nine months previously, even though the DVLA had actually registered the sale and transfer of ownership.
- tootie 7y ago
  Correct. For one, it should be mandatory that care be taken that guns not be stolen. Locked up in safes when possible or otherwise attended to and not left lying around. Secondly, a missing gun should be reported immediately. Like I said, punishment ramps up after multiple offense. If it happens once, call it a fluke and fine $100 or whatever. If it happens twice you're being careless. If it happens more, you are probably a trafficker and should be prosecuted and lose your right to own guns. This kind of rule will affect very, very few people and hopefully zero responsible owners. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/12/us/gun-traffickers-smuggling-state-gun-laws.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/12/us/gun-traffi...
  - solidsnack9000 7y ago
    A lot of this seems reasonable; but if people steal the safe, then what?

dodobirdlord 7y ago

> That is not a legitimate policy goal. The earlier poster points out that gun ownership is not correlated with crime at all. We shouldn't set policy goals that are merely about partisanship -- trying to cut down on gun owners because we don't like them -- rather than a clear public benefit. A 2014 review in the Annals of Internal Medicine concluded having a firearm in the home, even when it’s properly stored, doubles your risk of becoming a victim of homicide and triples the risk of suicide. [0] Guns are intrinsically dangerous, in much the same way as certain aggressive dog breeds and industrial explosives. While many/most people can safely raise rottweilers, store dynamite, and keep guns, some will not. Is there a marginal benefit associated with the removal of each marginal gun? Obviously. Is gun ownership reduction a legitimate policy goal? Obviously. It's strange that you think otherwise. > In general, modern legal systems reject holding one person responsible for the crime of another. If a mass shooter lawfully purchases a firearm, what possible liability could a dealer have? Part of a more involved system of background checks would necessarily involve more action by dealers to verify that the customer's purchase is legal. Prosecuting and holding liable individuals who fail to follow established precautions when selling dangerous products is not unusual. [0] https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-fir...

solidsnack9000 7y ago
A 2014 review in the Annals of Internal Medicine concluded having a firearm in the home, even when it’s properly stored, doubles your risk of becoming a victim of homicide and triples the risk of suicide. It doesn't say that, exactly, since it doesn't distinguish between properly stored and not properly stored cases. It is a meta-analysis; they took a bunch of papers and did the best they could. We can't say that if they're properly stored it's about the same, or worse, or better. It also acknowledged some methodological limitations, including studying overall death rates, and not specifically deaths due to guns: ...we considered studies of suicide and homicide victimization by any means, and firearm-specific outcomes may differ. Another issue the study encountered, was that gun ownership rates were not directly available to many of the aggregated studies, which therefore relied on various proxies. What makes relying on a study like this to initiate a policy of reducing gun ownership not premature? Part of a more involved system of background checks would necessarily involve more action by dealers to verify that the customer's purchase is legal. Prosecuting and holding liable individuals who fail to follow established precautions when selling dangerous products is not unusual. We do have laws like this already -- FFLs do background checks for every purchase and if they fail to do so, they can lose their license. What are the expansions that you'd like to see?

ryacko 7y ago

Interestingly enough, 100-round barrels are banned. Alloys that would allow for cheap guns (“Saturday Night Specials”) are illegal.

tdxgx 7y ago

Nah we need to ban barrels that can withstand more than 100 rounds. Then school shooters will need to rebuild their guns during a rampage.

brokenmachine 7y ago

>Indeed, people rarely purchase magazines larger than the standard 30 rounds. 30 rounds is standard? That's terrifying. Anecdata but the NZ shooter had large clips (many dual large clips taped together in fact), and Las Vegas shooter had some crazy "niche" shit. If it's so niche that nobody cares then what's the harm in restricting things like that? People don't need 40 round magazines to shoot targets. They don't even need semi-auto to shoot targets, but that's crazy talk.

solidsnack9000 7y ago
It isn’t compatible with basic principles of liberal government to offer “What’s the harm?” as the basis for a restriction or policy. There needs to be a clear and just basis for government action, and a commitment to repealing or abolishing policies that do not prove to be worthwhile. The same thing goes for asking “Why do you need that?” and if people don’t have a reason you like, taking that as a basis for restriction. In a free society, the people don’t need a reason — we can do what we like. It’s the government that needs a reason. We should be questioning proposed policies, with an eye to the public benefit, not because of any love of guns, but merely out of a basic requirement for government accountability.

djmips 7y ago

You are being willfully ignorant of the obvious 'barrel' / 'drum' mistake.