Another Gun Thread

[Brian37]

No one is assuming that nothing can be done, Brian, lol.  I'm wondering what doing something about The Evil Corporations is going -to do-.  

You don't seem to be able to comprehend that the facts don't support your intuition about what's happening.

Holy crap, this isn't about demonizing private business ownership. It is about human behavior in general.

This is simply one more industry that sees dollar signs and fails to see the impact of what their product does. 

It isn't going to kill America to listen to other nations whom have a rational handle on this issue whom are not fascist states whom do not have our volume of firearm violence. 

What is to "comprehend" about an average of 100 deaths per day 365 days per year? I think that sucks. I'd hope you would too.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don;t think that anyone who fantasizes about shooting people can be trusted with a gun either, btw...instinctively it seems risky, but if we're talking real solutions to real problems we have to acknowledge the fact that those people don't actually end up using their guns for what they imagine they would (no more so than the midlife crisis mobile finds it's way to a race track, lol).  They gather dust....


....but, when Cletus needs to get a fancy new gun with MORE MANSTOPPING POWAH.......he commonly sells the old one to finance a portion of the cost.  This, Brian, this is how the guns who end up killing people get into the hands of people who kill people. Mostly, because the people who end up killing people can't afford a new gun, or buy one at the walmart counter....and manufacturers sure as shit aren't interested in direct selling to them.

Guns move from rural, completely legal, and very safe buyers into the grey and black market pipelines, winding up in densely populated areas when their resale value dips below a certain point (that varies state by state, as does criminal preference for specific models). Then, they get passed from one criminal hand to another until they're removed by confiscation.

[Brian37]

I don;t think that anyone who fantasizes about shooting people can be trusted with a gun either, btw...instinctively it seems risky, but if we're talking real solutions to real problems we have to acknowledge the fact that those people don't actually end up using their guns for what they imagine they would.  They gather dust....


....but, when Cletus needs to get a fancy new gun with MORE MANSTOPPING POWAH.......he commonly sells the old one to finance a portion of the cost.  This, Brian, this is how the guns who end up killing people get into the hands of people who kill people.  Mostly, because the people who end up killing people can't afford a new gun, or buy one at the walmart counter....an manufacturers sure as shit aren't interested in direct selling to them.

NO SHIT.... So for that disturbed person, who fantasizes about shooting people, .... how does it help with our current laws to simply assume that "no record" when they walk in, and buy LEGALLY means that disturbed person won't be dangerous after the legal buy? 

This isn't just about the mentally ill. My dad was legal when he bought his firearms, and was a High School biology teacher WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD. But he still managed to get drunk and fire his 38 in a tiny townhouse with me in the same room.

[The Grand Nudger]

No one assumes no record you numpty, lol.  If they did that, they wouldn't even run the check.  If they don't get a flag back, they assume that the government is working properly rather than assuming someone is a murderer, lol..... Here's the thing, though, they -don't- have records...and again, whatever fantasies they may have and whatever reservations you and I have about that, those buyers and those guns are the "safest" in the nation.  

Your father operated a dangerous piece of equipment while drunk.  That happens.  Is that a John Q problem, or a Big Gun problem? If it had been a car that he ran into the wall of the townhouse, drunk, kid inside, what would have happened? Would you be bitching about Chevy, in that event?

The reason that nutters can write so many gun control advocates off..is that they say equally nutter shit. Be part of the solution Brian, not part of the problem.

[onlinebiker]

"Quit making them and handing them out like candy".


Clearly the absolutely most ignorant and unrealistic plea I' ve ever heard.

Tell us how you would accomplish this Brian?


And while doing so - you don't get to cancel basic economics.

If you were able SOMEHOW to stay within the free market system - and limit the number of guns a manufacturer built - prices would be driven up by demand. When the prices rise enough - new manufacturers will arise and attempt to cash in on the high prices. This will end up causing oversaturation of the market and make guns cheaper and more available.

Need proof?

Look at Harley Davidson. Back in the 1990' s they cut back production to inflate their prices. Within 5 years all the Japanese companies were offering Harley lookalikes and new manufacturers got in the game - Polaris Victory, Indian, Boss Hoss, ECT ECT... Prices on Harleys are now way down.

What magic have you got to defeat economics 101?

[Brian37]

No one assumes no record you numpty, lol.  If they did that, they wouldn't even run the check.  If they don't get a flag back, they assume that the government is working properly rather than assuming someone is a murderer, lol.....  Here's the thing, though, they -don't- have records...and again, whatever fantasies they may have and whatever reservations you and I have about that, those buyers and those guns are the "safest" in the nation.  

Your father operated a dangerous piece of equipment while drunk.  That happens.  Is that a John Q problem, or a Big Gun problem?

It is  a fucking access problem. 

If you agree drunk people should not be handling firearms, then maybe the problem is, just like the mentally ill, just like domestic abusers, just like disturbed teens, just like a pissed off co worker, just like a racially and religiously motivated asshole, we should not assume when someone walks through the door of a gun shop, that that person is Barney Fife, Mr Rogers or Mary Poppins and will never do anything wrong after the purchase.

Just like we do not sell porn to kids, even though porn is legal, just like we don't hand out pilot's licences to someone the instant they ask for one. 

Vetting isn't a denial of rights.

My dad should have had his his firearms taken from him. PERIOD, and our laws were not good enough to prevent him from buying them in the first place.

[The Grand Nudger]

No one assumes that, Brian.  

In any case, yeah, your dad probably should have had his guns confiscated.  Somehow I doubt that the guy who sold him the gun had a crystal ball, though. The laws that would have allowed that weren't likely to be in place at the time, or those laws that would have were not specific enough...or it's just a thing that happens and even if there are laws against it, so long as no one got hurt, no one was going to do much about it.

Which one of those problems is a Big Gun problem?

(We've already been over the access problem thing, I don't have much to add and I doubt we can have a productive convo until we can agree to work from a common basis of actual facts, lol)

---

What magic have you got to defeat economics 101?

Perhaps...more to the point and assuming it would work to whatever extent it could work...any limitation on guns produced today wouldn't show an effect until those guns hit the time-to-crime stats state by state, which lags years behind production....but even then, there would still be the mass of older guns available, and since gun violence only employs a vanishingly small fraction of guns produced it's not as if there'd be a shortage of hot pistols.

Otoh, and this is an amusing fact of gun ownership and numbers in the US, higher numbers of guns in an area doesn;t actually correlate to higher gun violence (the swaths of america full of super users aren;t also riddled with gun crime - guns per capita, we're the most responsible fucking owners on the planet, with fewer dead people for people with guns than anwhere else, capable of supporting active conflict zone levels of armament in a peaceful..and increasingly peaceful, first world country)...and the above explains why this is the case, despite how intuitive the notion of "more guns more death" is.

[Brian37]

No one assumes that, Brian.  

In any case, yeah, your dad probably should have had his guns confiscated.  The laws that would have allowed that weren't likely to be in place at the time, or those laws that would have were not specific enough...or it's just a thing that happens and even if there are laws against it, so long as no one got hurt, no one was going to do much about it.

Which one of those problems is a Big Gun problem?

(We've already been over the access problem thing, I don't have much to add and I doubt we can have a productive convo until we can agree to work from a common basis of actual facts, lol)

Yea, but even with me, even with my depression and anxiety, just like drunks, our laws DO NOT prevent my dad, or me, when there is no record, from legally purchasing a firearm when we have no record.

This fucking bullshit of "rights" is just that. It isn't illegal to fly a passenger jet. But you damned sure don't want to hire an alcoholic, domestic abuser, religious terrorist, ect ect ect flying that jet.

Our problem is OBVIOUS. The industry does not give a fuck about where their products end up. If logic worked the way the industry sold it, then my dad could have become a American Airline's pilot just by walking into human resources and saying "I want to fly a passenger jet" and American Airlines responding, "Ok, we won't test you, we'll simply give you the licence because you asked for it."

[The Grand Nudger]

Yea, but even with me, even with my depression and anxiety, just like drunks, our laws DO NOT prevent my dad, or me, when there is no record, from legally purchasing a firearm when we have no record.

Well, technically, they would prevent your dad from buying a gun, today....but why should they prevent you?  Are you a felon?  Domestic abuser?  You gonna shoot somebody?  Are you a danger to yourself and others?  

This fucking bullshit of "rights" is just that. It isn't illegal to fly a passenger jet. But you damned sure don't want to hire an alcoholic, domestic abuser, religious terrorist, ect ect ect flying that jet.

I'm not sure what bullshit of rights you're referring to....but broadly speaking, rights are not bullshit, and I have all the rights listed, and many others not listed.  OFC we don;t want those people flying jets.  We don't really want them possessing guns either....and there are laws on the books to prevent them from doing so, which the gun industry unanimously supports.  Aint nobody trying to sell Seamus or Achmed a gun.  

Our problem is OBVIOUS. The industry does not give a fuck about where their products end up. If logic worked the way the industry sold it, then my dad could have become a American Airline's pilot just by walking into human resources and saying "I want to fly a passenger jet" and American Airlines responding, "Ok, we won't test you, we'll simply give you the licence because you asked for it."

-there you go again.  No matter how many times I explain to you that the facts do not bear out the corporate handwringing, you will insist that the problem is simple, and obvious.

It may be, but if so, it's simply and obviously not the problem you think it is.....and what are the odds that you'e going to effect that problem by taking action against something that doesn't correlate to the problem? Are you under the mistaken impression that gun sales are a direct to consumer model...the analogy seems to suggest that you are.

[onlinebiker]

Yea, but even with me, even with my depression and anxiety, just like drunks, our laws DO NOT prevent my dad, or me, when there is no record, from legally purchasing a firearm when we have no record.

Well, technically, they would prevent your dad from buying a gun, today....but why should they prevent you?  Are you a felon?  Domestic abuser?  You gonna shoot somebody?  Are you a danger to yourself and others?  

This fucking bullshit of "rights" is just that. It isn't illegal to fly a passenger jet. But you damned sure don't want to hire an alcoholic, domestic abuser, religious terrorist, ect ect ect flying that jet.

I'm not sure what bullshit of rights you're referring to....but broadly speaking, rights are not bullshit, and I have all the rights listed, and many others not listed.  OFC we don;t want those people flying jets.  We don't really want them possessing guns either....and there are laws on the books to prevent them from doing so, which the gun industry unanimously supports.  Aint nobody trying to sell Seamus or Achmed a gun.  

Our problem is OBVIOUS. The industry does not give a fuck about where their products end up. If logic worked the way the industry sold it, then my dad could have become a American Airline's pilot just by walking into human resources and saying "I want to fly a passenger jet" and American Airlines responding, "Ok, we won't test you, we'll simply give you the licence because you asked for it."

-there you go again.  No matter how many times I explain to you that the facts do not bear out the corporate handwringing, you will insist that the problem is simple, and obvious.

It may be, but if so, it's simply and obviously not the problem you think it is.....and what are the odds that you'e going to effect that problem by taking action against something that doesn't correlate to the problem?  Are you under the mistaken impression that gun sales are a direct to consumer model...the analogy seems to suggest that you are.

Gun sales ARE direct to consumer - but only for new model releases. ( the latest and greatest).

IME - in a gun shop environment - new guns account less than 1/2 of sales. 

I can count the guns I've bought new on my fingers.

Used? I have no idea.....