Elementary school shooting gun control pissing contest

[mongers]

I'm always perplexed by the Americans' attitude towards guns. I - and most people I know - never owned a gun and never even think of owning a gun, yet it seems such a central piece of many Americans' lives, with a lot of people owning guns. Why is it such a fetish for you guys?

They are toys.  They allow adults to fantasize about being a big hero and stopping criminals/foreigners/the evil government.

For some, perhaps for many this might be an explanation.

[Warspite]

I know it varies from state to state, but what is the general process of buying a gun legally in the US? Is a case of turning up with paperwork and the money, or do you have to go through a more rigorous registration and licencing process?

[OttoVonBismarck]

I know it varies from state to state, but what is the general process of buying a gun legally in the US? Is a case of turning up with paperwork and the money, or do you have to go through a more rigorous registration and licencing process?

Typically:

1. Go to sporting good store and pick out any rifle, shotgun, or handgun sold there.

2. Pay for it.

3. Wait while a computerized background check is ran.

4.. Go home.

That's the default. You don't need to have any special license to buy the gun, there isn't typically a waiting period, or etc.

A few States are more restrictive, but there are a lot more States where the above is the procedure than anything else. Some States have a "waiting period" on handgun purchases, a very small number of States require a owner license to buy firearms. A very small number of States strictly regulated the type of firearm (California for example.) People often believe there is a handgun waiting period Federally, this is not true. When the Brady Bill (named after a Reagan Press Secretary whose brain got blown open by Ronald Reagan's would-be assassin and whose wife went on a gun control crusade) first became law there was a 5 day waiting period but the law stipulated that in 1998 when the computerized NICS system was in place an instant computerized background check would replace the waiting period. A small number of States have separate waiting period laws designed to prevent people in a state of passion from buying a gun, but that's rare.

In Virginia the background check is done both through VFTP and NICS, the VFTP is the State-level criminal background database, and for State offenses is actually a lot more complete and accurate than NICS. In Virginia typically the only thing that would stop me from going out right now and coming home with a gun would be a "false hit" in the NICS of VFTP system which would prohibit the gun dealer from selling to me. I'd have to go get that resolved. However, gun shows are unregulated here, and are a constant occurrence. I can go to a gun show today and buy a gun and not even have to get the background check.

A small class of weapons are regulated under the National Firearms Act, basically fully automatic weapons and specific types of military ordinance. These are not generally carried in any stores, and can only be transferred under strict guidelines and permits to own such weapons can be hard to get.

[PDH]

And a person isnt going to shoot without one.  You need both a person and a gun for a person to shoot a gun.  The argument that only the person is a variable is a bit absurd.

The person decides to pull the trigger at another human being.

The problem with each side of this is that neither are addressing the same thing.  Beefor seems to be saying that while a gun is a force multiplier, if that human force (violence) is zero (or next to it) than it doesn't matter.  CC is saying that humans will be violent and therefore guns should go.

Given the genie is out of the bottle on guns in the USA, ending gun in the hands of crazies, stoopids, or ijits is not going to happen any time soon.  However, I do not know of a way to limit these groups and their inability to live in the modern world or have the state control the crazies

[crazy canuck]

Given the genie is out of the bottle on guns in the USA, ending gun in the hands of crazies, stoopids, or ijits is not going to happen any time soon.  However, I do not know of a way to limit these groups and their inability to live in the modern world or have the state control the crazies

I agree, the US is too far down the road in its gun culture for a change in the law to make any difference.  But the argument that guns are not inherently dangerous is absurd  - ie the guns dont shoot people, people shoot people mantra of the gun nuts.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Here is what typifies a "gun haven" state in the U.S.:

1. Shall-issue concealed carry permits. States typically have may issue or shall issue concealed carry permits. Shall issue means if a citizen applies for a concealed carry permit, and passes usually a handgun safety course, the State issues the permit. The permit issuer cannot discriminate or choose not to issue the permit to a citizen who has met the requirements. A may issue State, you typically have to meet some requirements (usually more rigorous than the paltry safety training in a may issue State) and then file an application typically with a local law enforcement agency (city police or county sheriff.) Then the police have the discretion to either say "this guy can get a concealed carry permit." It is 100% up to their discretion, and they may decide not to issue one. In some States this essentially means only celebrities, politicians, and former police or such will ever get a concealed carry permit. However some States with may issue permits, the issuers generally will allow regular citizens to have a permit as long as they don't set off any alarm bells.

2. No licensing requirements to purchase firearms.

3. No firearms registration. (Meaning no government entity knows how many or which guns you have purchased.)

This is the law in about 39 States. The rest of the States vary, for example Alabama, is may issue but there is no registration or license required to buy any firearm. California is may issue, prohibits certain classes of firearms, and requires a license to purchase most types of handguns, and has registration of ownership. Connecticut is may issue, requires a license to purchase handguns, but doesn't require registration of any guns. Delaware is may issue, but there is no license to purchase or any registration of firearms.

Even in the States generally considered to have the most restrictive firearms laws (California, New Jersey, Illinois, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts) it is still very easy compared to almost any other country on earth to legally buy a gun. Typically in those States, it is easier than getting a driver's license for the first time.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I agree, the US is too far down the road in its gun culture for a change in the law to make any difference.  But the argument that guns are not inherently dangerous is absurd  - ie the guns dont shoot people, people shoot people mantra of the gun nuts.

I'm a gun owner but am distrustful of the masses and think it should be tightly regulated. I think aside from a few minor quirks in banning specific weapons I do not believe should be banned, much of continental Europe has reasonable gun laws. In Germany for example almost every gun I own would be legal. In Germany there is a five gun limit without a special collector's permit, which I would probably qualify for, but in the whole they are reasonable gun control regimes.

The gun problem is a beast with several legs that I've identified:

1. Any reasonable reforms are blocked by what I call the "gun diehards" or "gun nuts." These people, despite their inanity and stupidity, mostly are not dangerous or the ones committing crimes. They are the ones with large arsenals who masturbate furiously to guns and have an unhealthy relationship with guns. However by and large, they are also the people who would be most likely to be able to successfully comply with the storage, educational, and etc requirements under say, German gun control law (aside from limitations on total number of firearms.) Where these people are part of the problem, is they are intrinsically paranoid. They believe any gun control is a covert effort to ban all guns, so they oppose all gun control.

2. Historical and cultural reasons has lead to widespread gun availability for many years. This means there are a large number of "casual owners" who do not fall into the gun nut category, but own 2-3 guns. These casual owners are more likely than the gun nuts to unsafely store firearms. The mother of the Connecticut shooter would probably fall into this category, she had three guns and her son had easy access to them. These people most likely would not own guns if there was a German style licensing regime. They are not gun nuts, so they would look at such a licensing regime and simply not bother with the effort. But because of the history behind guns in America, there are a ton of casual gun owners, and any laws designed to force them to take more responsibility for the guns they own (ex: storage laws, strict penalties for their guns being used by other people etc) are blocked by the gun nuts and their powerful political machine.

3. The above two legs, the gun nuts blocking any reasonable gun control and the large number of casual owners who buy guns because it's so easy and they might want 2-3 of them, means that it is very easy for the "true undesirables" to get guns. These are the people like John Holmes or Adam Lanza. Because of the gun nuts there are few ways you can stop them from legally buying guns. And because we've had this situation for so long, even if you could put something in place like Germany has (mandatory psychological evaluation for people under age 25 who want a firearm license--a very reasonable thing, as young adults are disproportionately the most likely to commit all gun homicides and spree shootings) it wouldn't matter. There are so many casual gun owners that most of these people could just rummage through their parents house and find a hand gun, or find a friend who would loan or sell them a gun.

4. Because of the confluence of the other three legs, people are convinced any reform is impossible and thus not worth pursuing.

Personally, I disagree with that fourth point, but it's one reason would-be reformers have basically abandoned the issue. I think if you had a gun licensing and control regime in place, over time it would make less gun owners. Far fewer casual gun owners would buy guns because it would inconvenient. In a few generations, most guns would be concentrated in the hands of the gun nuts or casual owners who had just inherited them. At that point, you could start imposing some laws to try and "claw back" the guns in the casuals by passing some stricter laws. At that point, guys like Adam Lanza or John Holmes would have a much harder time getting a gun, because of the gun control laws in place and the fact that a few generations of more limited gun ownership has made it harder to get guns otherwise.

[PDH]

I agree, the US is too far down the road in its gun culture for a change in the law to make any difference.  But the argument that guns are not inherently dangerous is absurd  - ie the guns dont shoot people, people shoot people mantra of the gun nuts.

I'm not sure (it is just how I read it) that Beefor was arguing that - rather I got that he was saying it is the person's desire for violent acts that takes the latent power of the gun and makes that violence far worse. If that was what he was arguing, I must admit that I am not nearly as optimistic as he is about finding a way to make people in modern society less violent without a totalitarian like state.

And you are right, since modern society IS violent, having such force multipliers easy to access just makes things worse.

[mongers]

I agree, the US is too far down the road in its gun culture for a change in the law to make any difference.  But the argument that guns are not inherently dangerous is absurd  - ie the guns dont shoot people, people shoot people mantra of the gun nuts.

I'm a gun owner but am distrustful of the masses and think it should be tightly regulated. I think aside from a few minor quirks in banning specific weapons I do not believe should be banned, much of continental Europe has reasonable gun laws. In Germany for example almost every gun I own would be legal. In Germany there is a five gun limit without a special collector's permit, which I would probably qualify for, but in the whole they are reasonable gun control regimes.

The gun problem is a beast with several legs that I've identified:

1. Any reasonable reforms are blocked by what I call the "gun diehards" or "gun nuts." These people, despite their inanity and stupidity, mostly are not dangerous or the ones committing crimes. They are the ones with large arsenals who masturbate furiously to guns and have an unhealthy relationship with guns. However by and large, they are also the people who would be most likely to be able to successfully comply with the storage, educational, and etc requirements under say, German gun control law (aside from limitations on total number of firearms.) Where these people are part of the problem, is they are intrinsically paranoid. They believe any gun control is a covert effort to ban all guns, so they oppose all gun control.

2. Historical and cultural reasons has lead to widespread gun availability for many years. This means there are a large number of "casual owners" who do not fall into the gun nut category, but own 2-3 guns. These casual owners are more likely than the gun nuts to unsafely store firearms. The mother of the Connecticut shooter would probably fall into this category, she had three guns and her son had easy access to them. These people most likely would not own guns if there was a German style licensing regime. They are not gun nuts, so they would look at such a licensing regime and simply not bother with the effort. But because of the history behind guns in America, there are a ton of casual gun owners, and any laws designed to force them to take more responsibility for the guns they own (ex: storage laws, strict penalties for their guns being used by other people etc) are blocked by the gun nuts and their powerful political machine.

3. The above two legs, the gun nuts blocking any reasonable gun control and the large number of casual owners who buy guns because it's so easy and they might want 2-3 of them, means that it is very easy for the "true undesirables" to get guns. These are the people like John Holmes or Adam Lanza. Because of the gun nuts there are few ways you can stop them from legally buying guns. And because we've had this situation for so long, even if you could put something in place like Germany has (mandatory psychological evaluation for people under age 25 who want a firearm license--a very reasonable thing, as young adults are disproportionately the most likely to commit all gun homicides and spree shootings) it wouldn't matter. There are so many casual gun owners that most of these people could just rummage through their parents house and find a hand gun, or find a friend who would loan or sell them a gun.

4. Because of the confluence of the other three legs, people are convinced any reform is impossible and thus not worth pursuing.

Personally, I disagree with that fourth point, but it's one reason would-be reformers have basically abandoned the issue. I think if you had a gun licensing and control regime in place, over time it would make less gun owners. Far fewer casual gun owners would buy guns because it would inconvenient. In a few generations, most guns would be concentrated in the hands of the gun nuts or casual owners who had just inherited them. At that point, you could start imposing some laws to try and "claw back" the guns in the casuals by passing some stricter laws. At that point, guys like Adam Lanza or John Holmes would have a much harder time getting a gun, because of the gun control laws in place and the fact that a few generations of more limited gun ownership has made it harder to get guns otherwise.

Thanks for that, a very enlightening post.

[DGuller]

Even in the States generally considered to have the most restrictive firearms laws (California, New Jersey, Illinois, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts) it is still very easy compared to almost any other country on earth to legally buy a gun. Typically in those States, it is easier than getting a driver's license for the first time.

In New Jersey, it depends on where.  In the rural areas it would be easy to get police to allow you to buy a gun.  Here in Jersey City, you have bureaucracy in place to harass you out of wanting to get one, and you also have to lie about the reason for getting one (don't say "self-defense", say "target practice").  Pretty ridiculous in its own right.

[11B4V]

Given the genie is out of the bottle on guns in the USA, ending gun in the hands of crazies, stoopids, or ijits is not going to happen any time soon.  However, I do not know of a way to limit these groups and their inability to live in the modern world or have the state control the crazies

- ie the guns dont shoot people, people shoot people

You got it right, see that wasnt hard.

Define gun nut.

[katmai]

Caliga

[CountDeMoney]

- ie the guns dont shoot people, people shoot people

You got it right, see that wasnt hard.

Define gun nut.

You.     Not that that's a bad thing, in and of itself;  it's the gun nuts that are nuts elsewhere in life that are the problem.   

However, using the "guns don't kill people" argument as a defense is both fallacious and morally bankrupt.  It's unfortunate that someone as intelligent as yourself subscribes to it.

[Caliga]

Caliga

I own three firearms.  There are people around here who own way more than that.

[katmai]

Well I dare not mention Derspicy as fraid he will shoot me.