3 ms·

It takes a trip to your nearest FFL willing to run a background check, and who will usually charge for it. And oops! Your next-door neighbor's name matched a d

It takes a trip to your nearest FFL willing to run a background check, and who will usually charge for it. And oops! Your next-door neighbor's name matched a different person who has a criminal record, and she now has to wait three days to transfer the gun. And oops again! She already got raped and beaten to death by her ex in the time it took for NICS to clear her.

ChrisLomont 4y ago
Alternatively, we can continue to have mass killings, single killings, and lots of crime by guns bought by people that should have been blocked. For every person you cherry picked getting raped that would have stopped the assailant with a gun, many more are killed under the current system. Instead of picking outlying events and trying to put them forth as common, why not look at common events to start with? You'll get much better policy and understanding from that.
- xienze 4y ago
  > Alternatively, we can continue to have mass killings, single killings, and lots of crime by guns bought by people that should have been blocked. Sounds possible in theory, but not so much in practice. Let's say I live my whole life as a model citizen, then one day buy a gun with the intent to kill a bunch of people. No background check in the world would deny my purchase. What now?
  - relaxing 4y ago
    That’s not realistic. People don’t “just snap.” In any case, your hypothetical model citizen wouldn’t be bothered by background checks and waiting periods, so there’s no harm in restrictions that prevent crimes that would be stopped by a mandatory cooling off period.
    - HideousKojima 4y ago
      The Vegas shooter had no priors and no discernable motive, so people definitely do "just snap." The Texas clocktower shooter also appears to have gone crazy over a relatively short period of time due to a brain tumor.
- tristan957 4y ago
  > For every person you cherry picked getting raped that would have stopped the assailant with a gun, many more are killed under the current system. The CDC disagrees with you. In the study that is fairly well known at this point, the CDC estimates 500k defensive gun uses every year in the US. Note that I am giving you the lowest number in their range. However there are about 40k deaths due to gun usage every year. 75% of all deaths due to gun usage are suicides. In actuality, there are 10k deaths due to gun usage we need to look at during discussion of gun regulation in the United States.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    We completely need to look at suicides as well. At least 2/3 of suicides are based on a fleeting desire, which means interrupting the act without any other intervention will save a life. Making it harder to commit suicide with a gun could save 20k+ people a year. Which actually makes it (from a public health perspective) even more important than preventing all other forms of gun death. Also, since I've never heard of this CDC study, you should provide a link if you plan to cite it. I think it's more common in your social circle/internet bubble than with the general population.
    - carapace 4y ago
      I've heard this argument before and it seems off to me somehow, but I haven't quite put my finger on it. > At least 2/3 of suicides are based on a fleeting desire How do you know? I'm not being snarky. I'm genuinely curious. We obviously can't ask someone who was successful at committing suicide about their mental/emotional state, eh? For the sake of discussion let's assume the point. These suicides by gun due to "a fleeting desire" would be presumably among people who already had guns? How fleeting is the desire? Is the idea that if someone who has been struck by the "fleeting desire" to kill themself has to go get a gun first then there's time for the "fleeting desire" to wear off before they can act on it?
      - HWR_14 4y ago
        Non-snarky answer: You look at the rates of people attempting suicide a second time if their first attempt was interrupted, and you do your best to identify only the serious first attempts. The point isn't that people buy a gun to commit suicide, it's that if you already have a gun you will use it when overwhelmed as opposed to attempting to kill yourself in a less successful way.
- notch656a 4y ago
  The most 'common' event for someone buying a gun is that the shoot it at the range a few times a year, maybe hunt with it occasionally or put it in their waistband as a means of self-defense. If you want common to the exclusion of the less common, there it is. If you're not involved in gang banging / drugs then in the extremely uncommon chance you die by firearm, it's most likely it was a choice of suicide. In Europe and many other developed nations with harsh firearm laws, suicide via physician is an option so a more comforting and society-approved solution rather than firearm becomes more favored for suicide.
mindslight 4y ago
The idea that a seller/gifter of a gun should be responsible for doing a full background check on a recipient seems preposterous. As far as I know, in Massachusetts anybody who has a license to carry has already passed a background check. If the recipient has an LTC, then you know they're okay. And as the transferer, you most likely want to be entering the transaction into the state's database of ownership ^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h transfers so that if something nefarious is done with the gun, they don't come looking at you. Of course the waiting time (and possible hoops, depending on city/town/class/race/etc) to originally get your license to carry dovetails right into your (hyperbolic) point. And I don't particularly enjoy having to register personal property with the state, nor needing a license to possess personal property. And overall Massachusetts is known as one of the most restrictive firearm regimes in the nation. Still I just feel its worth looking at how existing regimes tackle the problem, to see where their pain points and loopholes are. I feel electronic databases would be a lot less onerous in general if they were built with foundational cryptographic privacy, with a public audit log for every access. Overall I feel like we'd be better off focusing on fixing our society's pervasive mental health problem rather than turning the whole country into a padded room by myopically focusing on inanimate objects. Mentally healthy people don't want to shoot up schools/trains/churches. (I'm aware my comment is full of non-partisan nuance. Downvote away)
pjc50 4y ago
It is far, far more likely that the domestic/partner violence perpetrator will have a gun than the use of a gun to defend against such violence by female victims. It is quite common that the perpetrators of mass shootings have previously had the police called to them by their partner. Rarely is anything done about this, but that's the motivation for "red flag" laws.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  > Rarely is anything done about this There were reasons things were rarely done. Most importantly, under 18 or non-married calls didn't count as red flags. Congress just passed a bill fixing those two issues going forward that Biden is extremely likely to sign into law.
tekknik 4y ago
3 days? If only it were 3 days, i. many jurisdictions it’s 10 days

ChrisLomont 4y ago

Alternatively, we can continue to have mass killings, single killings, and lots of crime by guns bought by people that should have been blocked. For every person you cherry picked getting raped that would have stopped the assailant with a gun, many more are killed under the current system. Instead of picking outlying events and trying to put them forth as common, why not look at common events to start with? You'll get much better policy and understanding from that.

xienze 4y ago
> Alternatively, we can continue to have mass killings, single killings, and lots of crime by guns bought by people that should have been blocked. Sounds possible in theory, but not so much in practice. Let's say I live my whole life as a model citizen, then one day buy a gun with the intent to kill a bunch of people. No background check in the world would deny my purchase. What now?
- relaxing 4y ago
  That’s not realistic. People don’t “just snap.” In any case, your hypothetical model citizen wouldn’t be bothered by background checks and waiting periods, so there’s no harm in restrictions that prevent crimes that would be stopped by a mandatory cooling off period.
  - HideousKojima 4y ago
    The Vegas shooter had no priors and no discernable motive, so people definitely do "just snap." The Texas clocktower shooter also appears to have gone crazy over a relatively short period of time due to a brain tumor.
tristan957 4y ago
> For every person you cherry picked getting raped that would have stopped the assailant with a gun, many more are killed under the current system. The CDC disagrees with you. In the study that is fairly well known at this point, the CDC estimates 500k defensive gun uses every year in the US. Note that I am giving you the lowest number in their range. However there are about 40k deaths due to gun usage every year. 75% of all deaths due to gun usage are suicides. In actuality, there are 10k deaths due to gun usage we need to look at during discussion of gun regulation in the United States.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  We completely need to look at suicides as well. At least 2/3 of suicides are based on a fleeting desire, which means interrupting the act without any other intervention will save a life. Making it harder to commit suicide with a gun could save 20k+ people a year. Which actually makes it (from a public health perspective) even more important than preventing all other forms of gun death. Also, since I've never heard of this CDC study, you should provide a link if you plan to cite it. I think it's more common in your social circle/internet bubble than with the general population.
  - carapace 4y ago
    I've heard this argument before and it seems off to me somehow, but I haven't quite put my finger on it. > At least 2/3 of suicides are based on a fleeting desire How do you know? I'm not being snarky. I'm genuinely curious. We obviously can't ask someone who was successful at committing suicide about their mental/emotional state, eh? For the sake of discussion let's assume the point. These suicides by gun due to "a fleeting desire" would be presumably among people who already had guns? How fleeting is the desire? Is the idea that if someone who has been struck by the "fleeting desire" to kill themself has to go get a gun first then there's time for the "fleeting desire" to wear off before they can act on it?
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      Non-snarky answer: You look at the rates of people attempting suicide a second time if their first attempt was interrupted, and you do your best to identify only the serious first attempts. The point isn't that people buy a gun to commit suicide, it's that if you already have a gun you will use it when overwhelmed as opposed to attempting to kill yourself in a less successful way.
notch656a 4y ago
The most 'common' event for someone buying a gun is that the shoot it at the range a few times a year, maybe hunt with it occasionally or put it in their waistband as a means of self-defense. If you want common to the exclusion of the less common, there it is. If you're not involved in gang banging / drugs then in the extremely uncommon chance you die by firearm, it's most likely it was a choice of suicide. In Europe and many other developed nations with harsh firearm laws, suicide via physician is an option so a more comforting and society-approved solution rather than firearm becomes more favored for suicide.

mindslight 4y ago

The idea that a seller/gifter of a gun should be responsible for doing a full background check on a recipient seems preposterous. As far as I know, in Massachusetts anybody who has a license to carry has already passed a background check. If the recipient has an LTC, then you know they're okay. And as the transferer, you most likely want to be entering the transaction into the state's database of ownership ^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h transfers so that if something nefarious is done with the gun, they don't come looking at you. Of course the waiting time (and possible hoops, depending on city/town/class/race/etc) to originally get your license to carry dovetails right into your (hyperbolic) point. And I don't particularly enjoy having to register personal property with the state, nor needing a license to possess personal property. And overall Massachusetts is known as one of the most restrictive firearm regimes in the nation. Still I just feel its worth looking at how existing regimes tackle the problem, to see where their pain points and loopholes are. I feel electronic databases would be a lot less onerous in general if they were built with foundational cryptographic privacy, with a public audit log for every access. Overall I feel like we'd be better off focusing on fixing our society's pervasive mental health problem rather than turning the whole country into a padded room by myopically focusing on inanimate objects. Mentally healthy people don't want to shoot up schools/trains/churches. (I'm aware my comment is full of non-partisan nuance. Downvote away)

pjc50 4y ago

It is far, far more likely that the domestic/partner violence perpetrator will have a gun than the use of a gun to defend against such violence by female victims. It is quite common that the perpetrators of mass shootings have previously had the police called to them by their partner. Rarely is anything done about this, but that's the motivation for "red flag" laws.

HWR_14 4y ago
> Rarely is anything done about this There were reasons things were rarely done. Most importantly, under 18 or non-married calls didn't count as red flags. Congress just passed a bill fixing those two issues going forward that Biden is extremely likely to sign into law.

tekknik 4y ago

3 days? If only it were 3 days, i. many jurisdictions it’s 10 days