"The Hunt"

[GO-NAD!]

The US is a young country and with the government being at the far East Coast and so much land to the West in the 1800s, laws meant nothing. In the South, they were similarly violated for a long time, putting people in a position where they had to defend themselves, but that need came only because so many others preyed upon them. Eventually, more police were hired, a bit more peace came to the cities and towns, but we seem to be in the unique position of needing to look at why people feel they need guns- they don't feel safe; whether that feeling comes from real threats or from mental illness, depends on the person. Then, there's the perception that the government will take everyone's guns and buying frenzies happen, as evidenced by the period when Obama was POTUS- I saw memes on FB that were supposed to be from the firearms industry, congratulating Obama on his year after year status as the nation's top firearm salesman.

Wayne LaPierre is not helping, but it seems that he's losing support in the MRA- he'll be gone soon. I know people who wear big, shiny NRA belt buckles with "The Right To Bear Arms", but if anyone were to ask them to quote the whole Second Amendment, they couldn't. By fanning the flames as he has, he's just making half of the country hate him and gun owners.

The firearm application process, as it stands, can't include info about the person't mental health, other than question 11.f because HIPAA doesn't allow looking into someones' medical history, as I have posted. Who wrote that law? Congress. Who makes noise about gun control when the people are outraged? Congress. Why? BECAUSE THEY WANT TO STAY IN OFFICE.

11.f. Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution? (See Instructions for Question 11.f.)

Question 11.f. Adjudicated as a Mental Defective: A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs. This term shall include: (1) a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and (2) those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility.

Now, who wouldn't lie about that?

The application process needs work.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download

I don't know how HIPAA impacts/impacted existing background checks, but it looks like the ones already in place have been watered down.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/congress-gun-legal-mental/

Although I had some awareness of "how the west was won", I learned a lot when I recently watched Ken Burns' "The West". It was an incredibly violent process, stretching back to the revolution. One of the beefs of the American colonists was that the Crown was trying to prevent/minimise western expansion in order to maintain friendly - or "friendly-ish" - relations with the aboriginal peoples. This explained why the tribes tended to side with the British during the war.

 

[GO-NAD!]

And many suicide attempts with guns fail with some of those people changing their thinking afterward- my cousin's daughter tried and failed; she now councils people who are contemplating suicide. Physically, she didn't come out with just a little hole, either.

You're still not blaming people for their acts. Until people stop using violence as a first reaction when a problem arises, this will never end. While it may have been inevitable, a Milwaukee woman stabbed and then shot a man with the same last name last week- the article doesn't go into any detail about that. I checked the WI circuit court records and it showed that they had lived at the same address, so I think they were married, but the records show several domestic violence incidents and temporary restraining orders. I doubt the gun was purchased legally and she has gone to trial several times for carrying without a permit, going back to 2001.

Read the article lower on the link about the 60 year old woman who was shot in the crossfire of a gun fight, too-

https://fox6now.com/2019/08/09/milwaukee-woman-facing-charges-after-allegedly-stabbing-fatally-shooting-man-near-53rd-and-hampton/

Now, where does the blame go- people, or guns? The guns were probably illegally obtained, so that's at least two marks on the people side- first, they got the guns illegally, then they opened fire without giving a rat's ass about anyone else.

BTW- shootings don't occur in every nook and corner of the country- the legal gun owners occasionally use them stupidly or because of mental illness that starts after they got the weapons- it's doubtful that legal owners never do this. They do, however, leave their guns for someone to steal during a break-in and that's one thing that really pisses me off- IMO, if they don't keep their guns safe (not necessarily IN a safe) and they're taken in a break-in, I think they should be restricted & pay a fine. Owning guns comes with responsibilities and people are neglecting them.

The illegal gun trade is rampant but gun control, as proposed, will do nothing-

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-traffickingprivate-sales-statistics/

All illegal guns started out as legal guns. It's the sheer numbers in circulation that allow so many to transition from legal to illegal.

 

[Trell]

Self-defense doesn't require an AR/AK weapon. It's a very effective gun to accomplish it, but it's not needed and in most buildings, it's just as dangerous to people beyond the attacker. People confuse want and need- that needs to change. All defensive gun use is investigated by the Police. Well, if they know about it, anyway.

I would not live in a place where military weapons are needed for self-defence, and in USA that is not justified, as you say. As for self-defence, it depends on the legal justification on what constitute self-defence. Suffice to say that where I live what is considered self-defence in some parts of USA would be sentenced here as murder.

How can you except someone on medical grounds or age?

You find that there are exceptions written in law, which vary between various countries, of course. Insanity and minors, for instance, both with respect to standing trial and the sentence.

Many shootings occur due to simple arguments, but not usually with legally obtained guns.[my bold] It's not exclusive, though- plenty of legal gun owners kill someone for stupid reasons but if the vetting process was more stringent, some of these would have been avoided.

Exactly, so reducing the number and type of firearms in private ownership will go a long way reduce gun violence and other accident. I suggest that USA tries to get control on handguns as they are easily carried and concealed, and are responsible for about 70% of death by firearm (if I remember correctly).

 

[highfigh]

You made that statement after a week that saw dozens murdered. By white guys with guns. That have been increasingly identified as Trump supporters.

Now please stop putting words in my mouth and own up to the dreadful ones coming out of yours.

You're making generalizations that are far too broad- Trump isn't telling them to do it, he's not making subliminal suggestions. How many ways can I say that it's people who are the problem without excepting anyone for their ethnicity, religious views, etc? I don't care who does it- they're all bad, but Trump supporters aren't the only ones committing mass murder. The two in that week couldn't be characterized as 'mentally stable', nor can the idiot who went to the WalMart in Springfield. If people are reacting this way because of Trump, they're deranged. I haven't seen you blame Obama for the shootings that occurred during his Presidency- why is that? Because you think the shooters were Conservative?

 

[highfigh]

I would not live in a place where military weapons are needed for self-defence, and in USA that is not justified, as you say. As for self-defence, it depends on the legal justification on what constitute self-defence. Suffice to say that where I live what is considered self-defence in some parts of USA would be sentenced here as murder.

If, by "military weapons" you mean AR/AK rifles, they aren't needed for self-defense nor are other rifles, unless an invading force is approaching and that doesn't usually happen. Wiki's definition- "Self-defense is a countermeasure that involves defending the health and well-being of oneself from harm."- if someone has a gun, you don't go all Kung Fu on them but a knife in the hands of someone who has been trained is very effective in that situation. That's the reason Police Officers are trained to shoot if someone with a knife charges them within 25 feet- they can reach the officer with a holstered gun before firing if the officer fumbles with it. If some one who's armed invades a house, would you have the occupants ask about the intentions of the invader? People die when that happens. Again, it's the invader who's at fault, even if the occupant successfully defends the people who are there. Gun owners are supposed to try to get away as their first response and if the intruder tries to flee, the occupant is supposed to allow them to leave without shooting. If the occupant goes outside and fires their gun, it's often tried as an illegal shooting but local juries can see it differently, as in the case in Texas, where a house was invaded and the next door neighbor went out with a shotgun and killed two of the intruders, even after the 911 operator told him to stay where he was.

You find that there are exceptions written in law, which vary between various countries, of course. Insanity and minors, for instance, both with respect to standing trial and the sentence.

Exactly, so reducing the number and type of firearms in private ownership will go a long way reduce gun violence and other accident. I suggest that USA tries to get control on handguns as they are easily carried and concealed, and are responsible for about 70% of death by firearm (if I remember correctly).

Handguns are definitely easy to conceal, but the vast majority of shooting deaths are with illegally obtained firearms. If you think the holders of illegal guns will turn all of them in when ordered to, guess again. They're already breaking at least one law, why would you expect them to follow a government order to give up the one thing that makes them a threat of grave bodily harm? They're not going to a sporting goods store or gun shop to buy them- any legal gun sale through a store or online requires that someone with a Federal Firearms License act as the go-between, including submitting the application and being the destination where the gun is shipped, whether the sale is retail/online or private. It's not always done that way, though. Retailers and online sellers know that they need to follow the rules if they want to continue selling guns, but private sellers often feel that the government has no right to intrude on this process. Even at gun shows, licensed dealers are required to follow the rules, not just move as many guns as possible.

Do you think the shooters in this video were legal gun owners?

https://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/deadly-state-st-shooting-captured-on-surveillance-video

 

[highfigh]

I don't know how HIPAA impacts/impacted existing background checks, but it looks like the ones already in place have been watered down.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/congress-gun-legal-mental/

Although I had some awareness of "how the west was won", I learned a lot when I recently watched Ken Burns' "The West". It was an incredibly violent process, stretching back to the revolution. One of the beefs of the American colonists was that the Crown was trying to prevent/minimise western expansion in order to maintain friendly - or "friendly-ish" - relations with the aboriginal peoples. This explained why the tribes tended to side with the British during the war.

I have a book of writings from some of the Founding Fathers, including Washington- he saw some of the indigenous warriors as turncoats when they switched sides in the French-Indian War- supposedly, it was because they were bored and wanted to fight, someone- anyone.

People are violent and some need little prompting.

The Crown was interested in making money. Period.

 

[Trell]

Handguns are definitely easy to conceal, but the vast majority of shooting deaths are with illegally obtained firearms. If you think the holders of illegal guns will turn all of them in when ordered to, guess again. They're already breaking at least one law, why would you expect them to follow a government order to give up the one thing that makes them a threat of grave bodily harm? They're not going to a sporting goods store or gun shop to buy them- any legal gun sale through a store or online requires that someone with a Federal Firearms License act as the go-between, including submitting the application and being the destination where the gun is shipped, whether the sale is retail/online or private. It's not always done that way, though. Retailers and online sellers know that they need to follow the rules if they want to continue selling guns, but private sellers often feel that the government has no right to intrude on this process. Even at gun shows, licensed dealers are required to follow the rules, not just move as many guns as possible.

Do you think the shooters in this video were legal gun owners?

https://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/deadly-state-st-shooting-captured-on-surveillance-video

Wouldn't fewer legal firearms result in fewer illegally obtained firearms and thus a reduction of gun violence?

 

[TheWarrior]

Wouldn't fewer legal firearms result in fewer illegally obtained firearms and thus a reduction of gun violence?

No, there's that HIPAA law remember???????


I present Exhibit #31847 on the Effects of Russian Propaganda:

You're making generalizations that are far too broad- Trump isn't telling them to do it, he's not making subliminal suggestions. How many ways can I say that it's people who are the problem without excepting anyone for their ethnicity, religious views, etc? I don't care who does it- they're all bad, but Trump supporters aren't the only ones committing mass murder. The two in that week couldn't be characterized as 'mentally stable', nor can the idiot who went to the WalMart in Springfield. If people are reacting this way because of Trump, they're deranged. I haven't seen you blame Obama for the shootings that occurred during his Presidency- why is that? Because you think the shooters were Conservative?

Handguns are definitely easy to conceal, but the vast majority of shooting deaths are with illegally obtained firearms. If you think the holders of illegal guns will turn all of them in when ordered to, guess again. They're already breaking at least one law, why would you expect them to follow a government order to give up the one thing that makes them a threat of grave bodily harm? They're not going to a sporting goods store or gun shop to buy them- any legal gun sale through a store or online requires that someone with a Federal Firearms License act as the go-between, including submitting the application and being the destination where the gun is shipped, whether the sale is retail/online or private. It's not always done that way, though. Retailers and online sellers know that they need to follow the rules if they want to continue selling guns, but private sellers often feel that the government has no right to intrude on this process. Even at gun shows, licensed dealers are required to follow the rules, not just move as many guns as possible.

Do you think the shooters in this video were legal gun owners?

https://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/deadly-state-st-shooting-captured-on-surveillance-video

 

[Trell]

No, there's that HIPAA law remember???????


I present Exhibit #31847 on the Effects of Russian Propaganda:

My interpretation of @highfigh posts is more that he thinks that there are multiple obstacles to stop firearms/handguns from getting into the hands of criminals or the mentally unstable. That is why I explicitly asked him: "Wouldn't fewer legal firearms result in fewer illegally obtained firearms and thus a reduction of gun violence?" I agree with him that just passing laws with insufficient enforcement probably wouldn't help that much, at least on the short term, but if he agrees that the number of firearms is a problem perhaps we change the course of this discussion in this thread.

 

[GO-NAD!]

I have a book of writings from some of the Founding Fathers, including Washington- he saw some of the indigenous warriors as turncoats when they switched sides in the French-Indian War- supposedly, it was because they were bored and wanted to fight, someone- anyone.

People are violent and some need little prompting.

The Crown was interested in making money. Period.

While the crown wanted to regulate trade and tax the colonies, it wasn't all about "making money. Period". Significant military forces were required to defend the colonies from the French and so, the Crown figured it deserved some compensation. Plus, what is known as the "French and Indian War" in the US was actually just part of the Seven Years War, which was pretty much global in scope. It cost plenty to fight it. Whether the colonies were taxed "fairly" is certainly debatable.

What isn't debatable is the fact that the Crown had signed treaties with the indigenous peoples, limiting westward expansion. The colonists were not particularly inclined to honour those treaties, which set them at odds with the Crown. Just one of the factors leading to the revolt.

 

[panteragstk]

Wouldn't fewer legal firearms result in fewer illegally obtained firearms and thus a reduction of gun violence?

Nope. There are already too many guns in circulation for that to matter even a little. There isn't even a database of who has purchased what legally. The federal, state, and city governments don't have a clue as to how many legal or illegal guns are in circulation. Not as a whole at least.

Sure, if I want to buy a gun at a store in TX I have to get a background check done and wait to be approved, but it wasn't always like that. Even if someone purchased a gun 30 years ago I'd be shocked if there were any record of it. Not only that, people hand guns down to kids/grand kids. That's the only reason I have 3 guns. All were gifts from either my dad or my grandfather.

I can buy a gun at a gun show without any sort of check depending on the seller. THAT SHOULD NOT BE LEGAL.

 

[highfigh]

While the crown wanted to regulate trade and tax the colonies, it wasn't all about "making money. Period". Significant military forces were required to defend the colonies from the French and so, the Crown figured it deserved some compensation. Plus, what is known as the "French and Indian War" in the US was actually just part of the Seven Years War, which was pretty much global in scope. It cost plenty to fight it. Whether the colonies were taxed "fairly" is certainly debatable.

What isn't debatable is the fact that the Crown had signed treaties with the indigenous peoples, limiting westward expansion. The colonists were not particularly inclined to honour those treaties, which set them at odds with the Crown. Just one of the factors leading to the revolt.

Right- more than one country wanted what this country had, so, money- it's always about money when land and resources are involved. This country's resources were called 'unlimited' at that time. And wars- I'm sure the British and French fought here so they wouldn't break the furniture at home.

The reasons for the revolt are far more varied than what they told us in school, but taxation and trade practices were big issues.

I wonder if the British actually explained those treaties to the Colonists.

 

[highfigh]

My interpretation of @highfigh posts is more that he thinks that there are multiple obstacles to stop firearms/handguns from getting into the hands of criminals or the mentally unstable. That is why I explicitly asked him: "Wouldn't fewer legal firearms result in fewer illegally obtained firearms and thus a reduction of gun violence?" I agree with him that just passing laws with insufficient enforcement probably wouldn't help that much, at least on the short term, but if he agrees that the number of firearms is a problem perhaps we change the course of this discussion in this thread.

You completely missed it- I don't think there's much that prevents idiots, the insane and others with a bad attitude getting guns. There are some measures, but only in theory- the laws are explicit- killing is illegal, but killers don't care. Felons getting guns is illegal, but felons don't care.

The application for buying guns has only one question about mental health and if the applicant lies, it's likely that the issue will end there unless their problems were widely known. There's almost nothing WRT mental illness that stops them and if you had noticed, I have made several comments about HIPAA, which prevents obtaining a person's records, even if their mental illness would prohibit their buying guns.

Don't blame the direction of the thread on me- you seem to be ignoring human nature, which is at the bottom of this- tell someone they can't have something and what happens- they want nothing more than getting that thing. The government could tell us to give up our guns, but as I wrote before, not everyone will give up all of them and you're completely ignorant of peoples' creativity- kids in shop class have made zip guns for decades, out of plumbing parts, a rubber band and a nail. Machinists can make guns of extremely high quality and many have started their own companies, specifically to make weapons- what would you do about them- take their machinery?

 

[highfigh]

Wouldn't fewer legal firearms result in fewer illegally obtained firearms and thus a reduction of gun violence?

OK, assume the government collects "all" of the guns. Now, realize that their version of 'all' and reality are totally different. If 1% of the existing guns are held back, that means the US will still have over 3 million guns. Who will keep guns when the government demands them? Criminals and whatever number of people who disagree that the government has the power to do this which, technically, makes them criminals if the mandate is made into a law.

What happens when the majority of people who have guns are criminals? The rest of us are their victims.

 

[KEW]

The firearms-related death rate in the US places her in some pretty unflattering company.

1. Honduras (60.00 deaths per 100,000 people)
2. Venezuela (49.22 deaths per 100,000 people)
3. El Salvador (45.6 deaths per 100,000 people)
4. Swaziland (37.16 deaths per 100,000 people)
5. Guatemala (34.10 deaths per 100,000 people)
6. Jamaica (30.72 deaths per 100,000 people)
7. Brazil (21.9 deaths per 100,000 people)
8. Colombia (18.65 deaths per 100,000 people)
9. Panama (15.11 deaths per 100,000 people)
10. United States (12.21 deaths per 100,000 people)
11. Uruguay (11.52 deaths per 100,000 people)
12. Montenegro (8.91 deaths per 100,000 people)
13. Philippines (8.90 deaths per 100,000 people)
14. South Africa (8.3 deaths per 100,000 people)
15. Paraguay (7.76 deaths per 100,000 people)
16. Mexico (7.64 deaths per 100,000 people)
17. Argentina (6.93 deaths per 100,000 people)
18. Barbados (6.6 deaths per 100,000 people)
19. Costa Rica (6.3 deaths per 100,000 people)
20. Peru (5.53 deaths per 100,000 people)

The US is definitely a stand out as the only "advanced wealthy democracy".
It is sad that is the state of affairs in our country which has so much more potential!
No, we are not the worst, but it is pathetic that we are solidly placed among these other countries!

 

[KEW]

You completely missed it- I don't think there's much that prevents idiots, the insane and others with a bad attitude getting guns. There are some measures, but only in theory- the laws are explicit- killing is illegal, but killers don't care. Felons getting guns is illegal, but felons don't care.

That is exactly the problem!
There needs to be more to prevent idiots, insane, etc. from getting guns!
We don't need to solve the problem of machinists making guns before implementing some simple restrictions that the US population overwhelmingly agrees with:
Let's just start with a baby step, the very lowest hanging fruit - Universal background checks for retail gun sales - why can't this get approved! It is not the population that is against this, it is the NRA buying off politicians (I suspect even the majority of NRA members agree that this is reasonable - polls have shown over 90% of the general population support it)!
I know it is not much of a solution, but it is very revealing of the level of corruption (between the NRA and Congress) that this one simple and very popular rule change is unlikely to happen within the next year!

PS - for anyone who doesn't follow gun politics at all - Currently Gun Shows and Internet Sales do not require background checks (except for a few states with their own laws against it - and you might imagine how ineffective a state law against Internet Sales might be).

 

[bigkrazy155]

PS - for anyone who doesn't follow gun politics at all - Currently Gun Shows and Internet Sales do not require background checks (except for a few states with their own laws against it - and you might imagine how ineffective a state law against Internet Sales might be).

This is frequently portrayed as such, but isn't exactly correct. Background checks are 100% mandatory for all federally licensed firearm dealers. Background checks are mandatory for ALL state to state firearm purchases, retail or private. If a licensed firearm dealer sells to anyone without a background check, he is breaking the law. Additionally, if anyone is selling firearms as part of their livelihood and has not obtained a federal license, he is breaking the law (see below for licensing criteria). Internet sales are completed legally by the dealer shipping the firearm to a local federally licensed dealer, where the purchaser can take delivery and have the background check completed. Direct to consumer shipments where a background check is omitted are also illegal under current law (with the possible exception of a within-state internet sales where the seller is not legally required to be licensed, I'm not sure on this).

The only currently legally way to sell a firearm without a federally required background check is a within state private sale where the seller is just looking to get rid of his firearm. That is what is colloquially referred to as the gun show loophole.

Dealer in firearms -- a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms (18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(C));

 

[GO-NAD!]

The US is definitely a stand out as the only "advanced wealthy democracy".
It is sad that is the state of affairs in our country which has so much more potential!
No, we are not the worst, but it is pathetic that we are solidly placed among these other countries!

After all the debate over the issue of gun crime, we really should look at the bigger picture. The rates of gun crime are much lower than they were a generation ago, despite a recent uptick. But, that's no reason to disregard it as an issue, because it's still much higher than in other developed countries.

A significant proportion of crime guns in Canada were smuggled in from the US and can be sold for as much as 10 times their original purchase price - which indicates a sad demand for them here, as well as a relative scarcity.

 

[KEW]

This is frequently portrayed as such, but isn't exactly correct. Background checks are 100% mandatory for all federally licensed firearm dealers. Background checks are mandatory for ALL state to state firearm purchases, retail or private. If a licensed firearm dealer sells to anyone without a background check, he is breaking the law. Additionally, if anyone is selling firearms as part of their livelihood and has not obtained a federal license, he is breaking the law (see below for licensing criteria). Internet sales are completed legally by the dealer shipping the firearm to a local federally licensed dealer, where the purchaser can take delivery and have the background check completed. Direct to consumer shipments where a background check is omitted are also illegal under current law (with the possible exception of a within-state internet sales where the seller is not legally required to be licensed, I'm not sure on this).

The only currently legally way to sell a firearm without a federally required background check is a within state private sale where the seller is just looking to get rid of his firearm. That is what is colloquially referred to as the gun show loophole.

You are right.
Thanks for the clarifications!

 

[bigkrazy155]

You are right.
Thanks for the clarifications!

No problem sir! As I'm thinking this through, I'm wondering if there is some sort of liability disincentive that could be put in place for the area of sales currently not covered by background checks. Something like "no you don't HAVE TO see that a background check is completed, but if you don't you can be charged with X if the firearm you sold is used illegally." I know that will make some folks squirm and there are lots of gotchas lurking in the details, but if it could be pulled off it would result in federal background checks being of maximal benefit (whatever that might actually mean).