Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5510
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby ucim » Thu Mar 10, 2016 5:13 pm UTC

commodorejohn wrote:This is true; however, said statements should at least not whallop the brain with their obvious absurdity, because that "hey, wait a minute!" reaction is a good way to undermine the gut reaction they're actually shooting for.
If only that were true. Test it against the Trump bandwagon (NY Times reports that he's asking rally attendees to raise their right hand and swear allegiance to him.) If "obvious absurdity" had any fallout, it would be here.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5775
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby sardia » Fri Mar 11, 2016 5:56 am UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/15/why ... ch-budget/
Firstly, CDC was not banned from doing the research. In fact, CDC articles pertaining to firearms have held steady since the defunding, and even increased to 121 in 2013.
CDC very recently released a 16-page report that was commissioned by the city council of Wilmington, Delaware, on factors contributing to its abnormally high gun crime, and methods of prevention. The study weighed factors such as where the guns were coming from, the sex of the offenders, likeliness of committing a gun crime, and how unemployment plays a factor. In other words it studied, the environment surrounding the crime.

In the late ’80s and early ’90s, the CDC was openly biased in opposing gun rights. CDC official and research head Patrick O’Carroll stated in a 1989 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association, “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.” This sounds more like activist rhetoric than it does scientific research, as O’Carroll effectively set out with the goal of confirmation bias, saying “We will prove it,” and not the scientific objectiveness of asking “Does it?”

CDC leaders were not shy about their intentions of banning guns from the public. Sure enough, they acted on their desires. In October 1993, The New England Journal of Medicine released a study funded by the CDC to the tune of $1.7 million, entitled “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home.” The leader author was Dr. Arthur Kellermann, an epidemiologist, physician, and outspoken advocate of gun control.

The final nail in the coffin came in 1995 when the Injury Prevention Network Newsletter told its readers to “organize a picket at gun manufacturing sites” and to “work for campaign finance reform to weaken the gun lobby’s political clout.” Appearing on the same page as the article pointing the finger at gun owners for the Oklahoma City bombing were the words, “This newsletter was supported in part by Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

In summary:
The head of the CDC department which studies firearm violence explicitly stated they were trying to build a case to ban firearms. Then they funded research by openly biased gun control advocates. Furthermore, the CDC then funded a non-research publication by an anti-gun advocacy group. Which is when Congress de-funded the CDC by the 2.6 million they had used to pursue the anti-gun agenda and added a rider to the remaining funds that they not be used for exactly the kind of advocacy they had been doing.

How does this match up with scientists being gunshy with regards to gun research? Are you claiming
1 the scientists are spouting gun control propaganda.(aka this is anecdotal rather than true)
2. the scientists are overreacting to the Congressional directive
3. the scientists are correctly reading Congress's warning not to do research on guns (aka congress really did ban research on guns)

The guy who wrote the rider banning research on guns came out and clearly regretted his decision to ban research. Did the gun control lobby get to him?
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/sta ... c-researc/
Edit: Added a source that isn't as blatantly biased towards the NRA.
While the language against advocating and promoting gun control did not explicitly ban the CDC from researching gun violence, the CDC stopped the work anyway.Linda Degutis, the former director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, said the action by Congress sent a strong message to the CDC. "Even though that language doesn’t say research is prohibited," Degutis said, "everyone who was making decisions interpreted it to mean that you could not do any research on gun violence." The language, and lack of funding, has carried on in spending bills and even been expanded to the National Institute of Health, another agency in the Department of Health and Human Services. "It is the equivalent of a ban," said David Hemenway, director of the Injury Control Research Center at Harvard University. "It’s a touch more nuanced than a ban, but there’s basically no real difference in terms of research."
In the wake of mass shootings in 2013, President Barack Obama requested the CDC be granted new funding to study gun violence. Congress did not appropriate the funds.
Last edited by sardia on Fri Mar 11, 2016 6:03 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

commodorejohn
Posts: 945
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby commodorejohn » Fri Mar 11, 2016 5:59 am UTC

ucim wrote:
commodorejohn wrote:This is true; however, said statements should at least not whallop the brain with their obvious absurdity, because that "hey, wait a minute!" reaction is a good way to undermine the gut reaction they're actually shooting for.
If only that were true. Test it against the Trump bandwagon (NY Times reports that he's asking rally attendees to raise their right hand and swear allegiance to him.) If "obvious absurdity" had any fallout, it would be here.

Touche, sir.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3534
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby EdgarJPublius » Fri Mar 11, 2016 3:14 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
EdgarJPublius wrote:http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/15/why ... ch-budget/
Firstly, CDC was not banned from doing the research. In fact, CDC articles pertaining to firearms have held steady since the defunding, and even increased to 121 in 2013.
CDC very recently released a 16-page report that was commissioned by the city council of Wilmington, Delaware, on factors contributing to its abnormally high gun crime, and methods of prevention. The study weighed factors such as where the guns were coming from, the sex of the offenders, likeliness of committing a gun crime, and how unemployment plays a factor. In other words it studied, the environment surrounding the crime.


How does this match up with scientists being gunshy with regards to gun research?


In what way are scientists being 'gunshy'? the amount of published researched hasn't measurably changed.
The researchers complaining about a 'ban' are the ones who were publishing blatantly biased research before. Just because the CDC isn't funding their research anymore, doesn't mean research isn't being funded. (And it's not like Hemenway is having a hard time getting published anyway)
Last edited by EdgarJPublius on Mon Mar 14, 2016 4:38 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

ijuin
Posts: 799
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby ijuin » Fri Mar 11, 2016 10:52 pm UTC

lorb wrote:That is, "easier to get a gun than a book" should be read as "easier to enter a (criminal) violent path of life than to get (higher) education" which is certainly true for a number of neighbourhoods. Or expressed more accurate: there are neighbourhoods where this is true for a high proportion of the population.


When you can't get an above-the-board job that you can live on (either because there's a general lack of jobs, or because you are rejected when you apply, or because what jobs you can get still leave you far below the poverty line), then illegal income sources start to look mighty appealing. Getting a high school diploma greatly reduces the likelihood of being rejected when one applies for jobs, which in turn reduces the incentive for low-level crime such as burglary, larceny, and drug dealing.

lorb
Posts: 404
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:34 am UTC
Location: Austria

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby lorb » Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:10 am UTC

ijuin wrote:
lorb wrote:That is, "easier to get a gun than a book" should be read as "easier to enter a (criminal) violent path of life than to get (higher) education" which is certainly true for a number of neighbourhoods. Or expressed more accurate: there are neighbourhoods where this is true for a high proportion of the population.


When you can't get an above-the-board job that you can live on (either because there's a general lack of jobs, or because you are rejected when you apply, or because what jobs you can get still leave you far below the poverty line), then illegal income sources start to look mighty appealing. Getting a high school diploma greatly reduces the likelihood of being rejected when one applies for jobs, which in turn reduces the incentive for low-level crime such as burglary, larceny, and drug dealing.


Totally agree. Programs like "Head Start" and other stuff that helps as many people as possible to get a high school diploma may be one of the best (gun-) violence prevention policies.
Please be gracious in judging my english. (I am not a native speaker/writer.)
http://decodedarfur.org/

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby Lucrece » Sat Mar 12, 2016 7:13 pm UTC

I thought run of the mill college textbooks were bad, and THEN you get to medical textbooks and journals, and it's a whole other league of absurd price gouging. Something needs to be done about the pricing of educational materials, but the medical industry and its guilds in particular need a sledgehammer treatment.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8661
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Mar 13, 2016 5:39 pm UTC

Just buy the chinese version. Slightly cheaper paper and different cover, but otherwise the same exact book.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5775
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby sardia » Wed Jun 22, 2016 6:56 am UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:
sardia wrote:
EdgarJPublius wrote:http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/15/why ... ch-budget/
Firstly, CDC was not banned from doing the research. In fact, CDC articles pertaining to firearms have held steady since the defunding, and even increased to 121 in 2013.
CDC very recently released a 16-page report that was commissioned by the city council of Wilmington, Delaware, on factors contributing to its abnormally high gun crime, and methods of prevention. The study weighed factors such as where the guns were coming from, the sex of the offenders, likeliness of committing a gun crime, and how unemployment plays a factor. In other words it studied, the environment surrounding the crime.


How does this match up with scientists being gunshy with regards to gun research?


In what way are scientists being 'gunshy'? the amount of published researched hasn't measurably changed.
The researchers complaining about a 'ban' are the ones who were publishing blatantly biased research before. Just because the CDC isn't funding their research anymore, doesn't mean research isn't being funded. (And it's not like Hemenway is having a hard time getting published anyway)
The Orlando shooting brought up theFederalist link again, so I dug into it.
I've noticed a discrepancy in something that should be really obvious. We can't agree if the the CDC cut money on researching firearms. I dug into your federalist link, and the study it refers to is a fox news article that refers to a 3rd page which contains the study. The fox news article seems to resolve this discrepancy. It appears theFederalist paper is mistakenly combining private money with federal CDC money, while the Fox news article, which the author cites twice, states that research on firearms fell.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02 ... latestnews
"The study, though, acknowledges that “firearms research in medical journals did fall as a percentage of all research.” In the relevant period, the total number of published medical journal pieces has climbed from about 450,000 to 1.1 million a year – gun-related articles did not increase nearly as much."

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3534
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby EdgarJPublius » Wed Jun 22, 2016 3:55 pm UTC

It fell only as a percentage of all research, so it just didn't increase as much as other research over the same length of time.

Not increasing the amount of research done per year is a far cry from not doing any research though.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

DanD
Posts: 261
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:42 am UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby DanD » Wed Jun 22, 2016 9:54 pm UTC

One comment. Several people early in the discussion indicated that it was illegal for a 13 year old to own a gun.

Under federal law, it is illegal for a licensed dealer to sell a handgun to anyone under 21, and a long gun to anyone under 18.

However, to the best of my knowledge I can, under federal law, sell a hand gun to anyone over the age of 18, and I can sell a long gun to anyone of any age.

I know for certain that federal law permits children of any age to be given a long gun.

Many states further restrict it, but far from all.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jun 23, 2016 1:54 pm UTC

Someone has to purchase the gun for the kid.

Access is possible, but it essentially requires an adult to vouch for the child. This is not generally required for a book, so with respect to the original claim, I believe that a book is still obviously easier to access.

But it is possible for young folks to legally shoot firearms. There are youth shooting teams, etc, it's a pretty normal thing.

LjSpike
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 8:14 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby LjSpike » Fri Jun 24, 2016 10:27 am UTC

Actually, this claim could probably be true in many circumstances.
They said its cheaper to get a gun than a book. Normally books are bought, but there is so many guns owned in America, there will be some lying around the house, family heirlooms and parents guns and so forth. Often the child will get to use it sometimes, and there is several instances where very young children have got the gun from their house.
I don't think I have to spell out what normally happens after a young child gets a gun. But anyway, so off that basis, they could get a gun (so-to-speak) for free fairly easily, but a book (well as well, does any child hunt around the house for a book, except perhaps one which says where all the guns are stored?) So although the parent has to buy it, Well the child can get it fairly easily.
I'm sure I've got something slightly wrong there, I'm from the UK, please correct me if I have got something wrong.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Jun 24, 2016 12:51 pm UTC

I have difficulty believing the US has more guns lying around than books. I certainly did look around the house for books as a kid. I'm sure I can't be unique in that.

I mean, yeah, a lot of homes DO have guns in them, but the average US home has 300,000 items in it*. It seems implausible that reading material is not among that.

*http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/21/health/la-he-keeping-stuff-20140322

LjSpike
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 8:14 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby LjSpike » Fri Jun 24, 2016 2:44 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I have difficulty believing the US has more guns lying around than books. I certainly did look around the house for books as a kid. I'm sure I can't be unique in that.

I mean, yeah, a lot of homes DO have guns in them, but the average US home has 300,000 items in it*. It seems implausible that reading material is not among that.

*http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/21/health/la-he-keeping-stuff-20140322


I guess so. Although in the future this statement may be more true. Kindles and E-readers are becoming even more of a thing.
Spoiler:
My vision of the future if E-readers become real big and gun laws in the US don't change:
Mom! I found a shotgun, rifle, machinegun and that old hand-me-down school shooting rifle, but I couldn't find the cookbook! Are you sure you had it up in the loft (attic to you american folk)!

DanD
Posts: 261
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:42 am UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby DanD » Fri Jun 24, 2016 5:42 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Someone has to purchase the gun for the kid.

Access is possible, but it essentially requires an adult to vouch for the child. This is not generally required for a book, so with respect to the original claim, I believe that a book is still obviously easier to access.

But it is possible for young folks to legally shoot firearms. There are youth shooting teams, etc, it's a pretty normal thing.


Again, there don't appear to be federal laws that prevent a thirteen year old from purchasing a gun in a private sale, and several states also don't appear to have any age limits.

So yes, someone has to have purchased the gun first, but if it is purchased, used, then resold, it wasn't purchased for the kid, it's just going back on the market. So, nope, the kid can purchase directly, unless I am missing something.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Jun 24, 2016 6:34 pm UTC

Potentially. Assuming the seller is willing to sell to a 13 yr old, is a private seller, the kid lives in a state that does not prohibit it, and the kid can assemble the hundreds of dollars.

It's about 30 states that allow it. In practice, it's almost invariably a birthday present or similar. That's pretty normal.

Still, given that all 50 states allow purchase of books to 13 yr olds(mostly), and it's allowed at retail, not merely privately, it's a cinch that books are more available. If Obama had said cigarettes or beer, it'd be a much more interesting argument, I think.

LjSpike
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 8:14 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby LjSpike » Sat Jun 25, 2016 8:05 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Potentially. Assuming the seller is willing to sell to a 13 yr old, is a private seller, the kid lives in a state that does not prohibit it, and the kid can assemble the hundreds of dollars.

It's about 30 states that allow it. In practice, it's almost invariably a birthday present or similar. That's pretty normal.

Still, given that all 50 states allow purchase of books to 13 yr olds(mostly), and it's allowed at retail, not merely privately, it's a cinch that books are more available. If Obama had said cigarettes or beer, it'd be a much more interesting argument, I think.


Mhm, it'd have been interesting if he did say one of those two.
I'd agree that its fairly certainly a hyperbole for the modern day, though I'd say the point behind it (that its way to easy for kids to get guns) is correct.
In practice, it's almost invariably a birthday present or similar. That's pretty normal.

I know people say kids are too glued to computer games now-a-days, but I don't reckon taking call of duty to the real world is the best thing for them either?

commodorejohn
Posts: 945
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby commodorejohn » Sat Jun 25, 2016 5:50 pm UTC

LjSpike wrote:I know people say kids are too glued to computer games now-a-days, but I don't reckon taking call of duty to the real world is the best thing for them either?

You seem to have confused real firearms with airsoft and paintball.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby Lucrece » Sun Jun 26, 2016 5:11 am UTC

DanD wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Someone has to purchase the gun for the kid.

Access is possible, but it essentially requires an adult to vouch for the child. This is not generally required for a book, so with respect to the original claim, I believe that a book is still obviously easier to access.

But it is possible for young folks to legally shoot firearms. There are youth shooting teams, etc, it's a pretty normal thing.


Again, there don't appear to be federal laws that prevent a thirteen year old from purchasing a gun in a private sale, and several states also don't appear to have any age limits.

So yes, someone has to have purchased the gun first, but if it is purchased, used, then resold, it wasn't purchased for the kid, it's just going back on the market. So, nope, the kid can purchase directly, unless I am missing something.



Do you honestly think a seller would imperil their business by having word get out that they sold a gun to a 13 year old, even if it's not illegal?

You not only have to worry about legal questions. Gay marriage may be legal in the US, but that doesn't encourage me to go over in Downtown Miami (Florida) holding hands with someone of the same sex and not end up verbally abused/assaulted by some ghetto asshole at the end of the day.

Social inhibitors can be even more powerful than legal ones.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 27, 2016 1:52 pm UTC

Certainly. Social factors are huge. I do invite you to walk into a gun store and ask about buying a gun for a 13yr old, and see the kind of reaction you get.

I generally suggest not doing it at any store you intend to shop at in the future, and to carefully examine the laws regarding straw purchasing so you don't get tripped up if reported to the FBI. These sorts of experiments can easily go awry when people simply assume that the laws are ridiculously lax, and violate shitloads of them.

commodorejohn wrote:
LjSpike wrote:I know people say kids are too glued to computer games now-a-days, but I don't reckon taking call of duty to the real world is the best thing for them either?

You seem to have confused real firearms with airsoft and paintball.


Indeed.

And I'd wager that airsoft and paintball are fine activities for youngsters. More physical activity is generally a plus.

DanD
Posts: 261
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:42 am UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby DanD » Mon Jun 27, 2016 9:05 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:
DanD wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Someone has to purchase the gun for the kid.

Access is possible, but it essentially requires an adult to vouch for the child. This is not generally required for a book, so with respect to the original claim, I believe that a book is still obviously easier to access.

But it is possible for young folks to legally shoot firearms. There are youth shooting teams, etc, it's a pretty normal thing.


Again, there don't appear to be federal laws that prevent a thirteen year old from purchasing a gun in a private sale, and several states also don't appear to have any age limits.

So yes, someone has to have purchased the gun first, but if it is purchased, used, then resold, it wasn't purchased for the kid, it's just going back on the market. So, nope, the kid can purchase directly, unless I am missing something.



Do you honestly think a seller would imperil their business by having word get out that they sold a gun to a 13 year old, even if it's not illegal?

You not only have to worry about legal questions. Gay marriage may be legal in the US, but that doesn't encourage me to go over in Downtown Miami (Florida) holding hands with someone of the same sex and not end up verbally abused/assaulted by some ghetto asshole at the end of the day.

Social inhibitors can be even more powerful than legal ones.


If I were talking about a business, no. But, as I thought I had made clear, there are laws about businesses selling to children. There are not laws about individuals selling to children.

And if you don't accept that any adult would sell to a thirteen year old, well, you haven't been paying attention.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 27, 2016 9:11 pm UTC

There are laws.

But over and above those laws, there are ways in which businesses can inhibit selling for purposes they disapprove of.

And there are laws, there are just particular exceptions that you dislike. The reason for the exception is historical, but it's not particularly important if we're worried about crime, etc. Rifles are far less likely to be used in crime, so if you're trying to construct a narrative about how firearm availability creates a stronger draw to crime, etc rather than education does to a wholesome life, these particular exceptions do not support that.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5775
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby sardia » Mon Jun 27, 2016 10:27 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Certainly. Social factors are huge. I do invite you to walk into a gun store and ask about buying a gun for a 13yr old, and see the kind of reaction you get.

I generally suggest not doing it at any store you intend to shop at in the future, and to carefully examine the laws regarding straw purchasing so you don't get tripped up if reported to the FBI. These sorts of experiments can easily go awry when people simply assume that the laws are ridiculously lax, and violate shitloads of them.

commodorejohn wrote:
LjSpike wrote:I know people say kids are too glued to computer games now-a-days, but I don't reckon taking call of duty to the real world is the best thing for them either?

You seem to have confused real firearms with airsoft and paintball.


Indeed.

And I'd wager that airsoft and paintball are fine activities for youngsters. More physical activity is generally a plus.

Aren't a small percent of stores responsible for the vast majority of straw purchases and other illegal activities?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jun 28, 2016 2:36 pm UTC

That's probable, yes.

Most crime is highly non-randomly distributed, with serial offenders claiming a pretty decent share.

One pet peeve you'll often see noted in pro-firearm publications is that Obama's admin has a particularly poor enforcement rate of existing gun laws, primarily failed NCIS checks. The more conspiratorially bent folks will announce that this is because having bad things associated with guns furthers his gun control agenda. I suspect they don't fully understand the scope of federal government. That aside, shitty enforcement is still shitty enforcement.

LjSpike
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 8:14 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby LjSpike » Thu Jun 30, 2016 8:38 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:That's probable, yes.

Most crime is highly non-randomly distributed, with serial offenders claiming a pretty decent share.

One pet peeve you'll often see noted in pro-firearm publications is that Obama's admin has a particularly poor enforcement rate of existing gun laws, primarily failed NCIS checks. The more conspiratorially bent folks will announce that this is because having bad things associated with guns furthers his gun control agenda. I suspect they don't fully understand the scope of federal government. That aside, shitty enforcement is still shitty enforcement.


True, it isn't randomly distributed. Banning guns would make finding the dodgy dealers easier to find however.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jun 30, 2016 1:43 pm UTC

...or maybe police could actually do the relevant police work, and close down the few people that are causing the vast majority of the crime?

They do have records of NCIS checks. If you see shit like rejections being immediately followed by a request in someone else's name from the same location, maaaaybe you should check that shit out. I realize it's a bit of hassle, but if it's a small subset responsible for the vast majority, that makes prosecution relatively easy. Large effect for comparatively little work.

lorb
Posts: 404
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:34 am UTC
Location: Austria

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby lorb » Sat Jul 02, 2016 12:24 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:They do have records of NCIS checks. If you see shit like rejections being immediately followed by a request in someone else's name from the same location, maaaaybe you should check that shit out. I realize it's a bit of hassle, but if it's a small subset responsible for the vast majority, that makes prosecution relatively easy. Large effect for comparatively little work.


Only that this is not legal and the gun-lobby blocks all attempts of making it so. See https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/25.9 for starters.
Please be gracious in judging my english. (I am not a native speaker/writer.)
http://decodedarfur.org/

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3534
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby EdgarJPublius » Sat Jul 02, 2016 5:16 pm UTC

Those rules appear to specifically allow the type of investigation Tyndmyr is talking about.

NICS checks that fail are stored indefinitely, NICS checks that pass are stored for 90 days. Passes are purged of information that identifies the recipient after 24 hours, but the remaining record should still be enough to identify a pattern for a dealer that is repeatedly facilitating straw purchases.

The law prohibits using the information and records to create a registry of firearm owners, but it does specifically allow information to be shared with relevant law enforcement authorities if it appears to show evidence of criminal activity.

(i) Information in the NICS Audit Log, including information not yet destroyed under § 5.9(b)(1)(iii), that indicates, either on its face or in conjunction with other information, a violation or potential violation of law or regulation, may be shared with appropriate authorities responsible for investigating, prosecuting, and/or enforcing such law or regulation; and
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

lorb
Posts: 404
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:34 am UTC
Location: Austria

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby lorb » Sun Jul 03, 2016 10:54 am UTC

Yes, but absent other information "this request just came in after a fail from the same dealer" does not constitute "information [...] that indicates, either on its face [...] a violation or potential violation of law or regulation".

Depending on the reason for the fail the fact that someone tried to buy a gun may be enough to trigger a follow-up but you can't follow up on a passed check just because it happened directly after. I do agree that there is more that could be done on the part of enforcement. But my point is that the legal framework in place right now also restricts what can be done a lot and many common sense effective practices can't be put in place because of that. For example what Tyndmyr proposed.
Please be gracious in judging my english. (I am not a native speaker/writer.)
http://decodedarfur.org/

LjSpike
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 8:14 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby LjSpike » Tue Jul 05, 2016 12:45 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:...or maybe police could actually do the relevant police work, and close down the few people that are causing the vast majority of the crime?

They do have records of NCIS checks. If you see shit like rejections being immediately followed by a request in someone else's name from the same location, maaaaybe you should check that shit out. I realize it's a bit of hassle, but if it's a small subset responsible for the vast majority, that makes prosecution relatively easy. Large effect for comparatively little work.

But, that is far less effective.
FAR LESS EFFECTIVE.

I'm no professional burglar but I could pretty easily sneak say a chocolate bar out of a corner shop. Nobody would notice.
Lets now say, I feel like taking a chocolate bar, but the corner shop is closed. I not only have to commit the intended crime of robbing the chocolate bar, but I have to break in, which is a lot more obvious.
As a result, police can easy catch me.

Same case with guns, Its hard to catch the 'skilled' dodgy dealers & the irresponsible parents. Thats proved by how many kids get access to guns in the US. Yet, look how many people, not just kids, but people in general, get access to guns in the UK. Ok, there is a population difference, but its pretty hard to obtain a gun in the UK.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:46 pm UTC

lorb wrote:Yes, but absent other information "this request just came in after a fail from the same dealer" does not constitute "information [...] that indicates, either on its face [...] a violation or potential violation of law or regulation".

Depending on the reason for the fail the fact that someone tried to buy a gun may be enough to trigger a follow-up but you can't follow up on a passed check just because it happened directly after. I do agree that there is more that could be done on the part of enforcement. But my point is that the legal framework in place right now also restricts what can be done a lot and many common sense effective practices can't be put in place because of that. For example what Tyndmyr proposed.


It isn't about *just* the next sale. Though...if you're seeing a pattern of "failed app, rapid resubmit with different information", you can build a pretty good case for that being a potential violation.

We don't keep a database of everyone who buys booze, but we still prosecute people who sell booze to underage folks. Keeping a record of the bad dealers, and their past problems allows you to focus investigative efforts on the few bad apple dealers.

LjSpike wrote:Same case with guns, Its hard to catch the 'skilled' dodgy dealers & the irresponsible parents. Thats proved by how many kids get access to guns in the US. Yet, look how many people, not just kids, but people in general, get access to guns in the UK. Ok, there is a population difference, but its pretty hard to obtain a gun in the UK.


"It's haaaard to actually do the work right" is always the cry of dodgy law enforcement, yes.

But when there's basically zero interest in pursuing existing, legal enforcement options, it's really, really hard for anyone to buy that your actual motive for proposing more is enforcement.

The current proposals are for treating either people currently or formerly on(but cleared) various watchlists as if they were criminals. This is pretty unlikely to matter if you don't actually pursue criminal purchases, and in any case, it's a really, really bad idea from a due process perspective.

Looking at the situation, I can't reasonably conclude that any smart person involved is pursuing this in order to reduce crime.

LjSpike
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 8:14 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby LjSpike » Tue Jul 05, 2016 2:42 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:This is pretty unlikely to matter if you don't actually pursue criminal purchases, and in any case, it's a really, really bad idea from a due process perspective.


Of course, it can be hard to track criminal purchases. They're normally done discretely, I expect normally under the guise of a normal gun sale.
But, in the UK, we don't really have such thing as a "normal gun sale" (unless your a licensed farmer buying a shotgun)...
Hence why illegal sales are harder in countries like the UK.
Plus, the sale doesn't have to be illegal for the gun to be bought with illegal intent. All these criminals had a "first offense".

I'd conclude that the most reasonable solution to these problems would be making gun purchases illegal, it'd solve school shootings, help stop terrorist attacks, and prevent many accidents.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jul 05, 2016 2:57 pm UTC

...yes, but there's a clear way here to track illegal sales, and to pursue them. The background checks are being done, failed checks are logged.

They are simply not usually investigated or prosecuted. The means are there, but it doesn't happen regardless.

Your solution isn't reasonable at all, it's blatantly clear that there is fairly little effort being put into preventing criminal gun purchases. People banning guns are not actually interested in safety. It's a convenient excuse for promoting bans that is promptly forgotten about when gun control is not being discussed.

Politifact: http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2013/mar/22/kelly-ayotte/most-people-trying-buy-gun-illegally-us-senator-ke/

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5510
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby ucim » Tue Jul 05, 2016 3:15 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:We don't keep a database of everyone who buys booze, but we still prosecute people who sell booze to underage folks. Keeping a record of the bad dealers, and their past problems allows you to focus investigative efforts on the few bad apple dealers.
But a bad dealer is one that actually sells to underage folks, not one that has had underage folks try repeatedly to buy booze from.

Tyndmyr wrote:If you see shit like rejections being immediately followed by a request in someone else's name from the same location, maaaaybe you should check that shit out.
No crime has been committed by the dealer yet. Only when an application that should have been rejected is accepted and the gun is sold do you have actual evidence that this is a bad dealer. At that point yes, you have something to track. If this pattern persists, then it's not just a mistake but a systemic problem (this is a Bad Dealer).

Besides, isn't it like HTTP? Each request stands on its own. How can you tell that the second request is "really" from the same person that the first request is from? Stores can have multple customers; wouldn't you simply be investigating stores that have customers?

As for following up on a failed check, is it a crime to attempt to purchase a firearm if you are inelegible to do so? If so, then it's the potential purchaser that should be investigated on a fail anyway, not the store. If not, then doing this investigation is a form of presumption of guilt.

Whether it should be a crime to attempt to purchase is a separate question (similar to whether it should be a crime to attempt to obtain a boarding pass if you're on the no-fly list), which merits separate treatment.

LjSpike wrote:I'd conclude that the most reasonable solution to these problems would be making gun purchases illegal, it'd solve school shootings, help stop terrorist attacks, and prevent many accidents.
But it's already illegal to shoot up a school or to perpetrate a terrorist attack. And making cars illegal would prevent many more accidents than making guns illegal.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jul 05, 2016 3:33 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:We don't keep a database of everyone who buys booze, but we still prosecute people who sell booze to underage folks. Keeping a record of the bad dealers, and their past problems allows you to focus investigative efforts on the few bad apple dealers.
But a bad dealer is one that actually sells to underage folks, not one that has had underage folks try repeatedly to buy booze from.


Sure, but I bet they are more likely to check out the booze store across from the school.

Lots of failed applications doesn't guarantee that the store is bad, but it indicates that it's in an area with a lot of potential bad customers. High priority for checking up on. You don't *need* proof of wrong doing to investigate. The bar is much, much lower.

Tyndmyr wrote:If you see shit like rejections being immediately followed by a request in someone else's name from the same location, maaaaybe you should check that shit out.
No crime has been committed by the dealer yet. Only when an application that should have been rejected is accepted and the gun is sold do you have actual evidence that this is a bad dealer. At that point yes, you have something to track. If this pattern persists, then it's not just a mistake but a systemic problem (this is a Bad Dealer).

Besides, isn't it like HTTP? Each request stands on its own. How can you tell that the second request is "really" from the same person that the first request is from? Stores can have multple customers; wouldn't you simply be investigating stores that have customers?


Sort of. But you can totally recognize a pattern of bad requests from a given source, and block them at the firewall. Happens routinely.

Also, a 4473 has identifying information for the firearm on it. If you see the same serial number selling from the same shop to a different person post-denial, well...maybe a different person bought that gun. Or maybe it was resubmitted with invalid info. Since it's legal to store info on denials, that info is all available at the time of the second request. Noting such a pattern would not require storing any additional information from gun owners.

As for following up on a failed check, is it a crime to attempt to purchase a firearm if you are inelegible to do so? If so, then it's the potential purchaser that should be investigated on a fail anyway, not the store. If not, then doing this investigation is a form of presumption of guilt.


It is a crime to do so knowingly. Multiple attempts after being denied is usually a pretty solid case for knowingly. The application requires you to certify that you have not done all the various disqualifying things. Lying about that is explicitly listed as a federal crime on the form. It's quite clear.

Yes, the purchaser should be investigated. But patterns of bad purchasers can be helpful for finding bad stores, and forestalling future bad purchases. It's a combination, but none of it really works without enforcement. You can work on individuals, you can work on stores, and neither of those requires passing additional laws.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5510
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby ucim » Tue Jul 05, 2016 3:44 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Sure, but I bet they are more likely to check out the booze store across from the school...
Low hanging fruit and all.
Tyndmyr wrote:Lots of failed applications doesn't guarantee that the store is bad, but it indicates that it's in an area with a lot of potential bad customers.
Doesn't the address tell you that, kind of like the booze store across from the school?
Tyndmyr wrote:If you see the same serial number selling from being inquired about (FTFY) the same shop to a different person post-denial, well...maybe a different person bought that gun.
Isn't that what's supposed to happen? It doesn't raise my suspicisions that a gun that was wanted by a criminal gets sold to a non-criminal. So, it seems to me that the information isn't very useful.

Tyndmyr wrote:It is a crime to do so knowingly. Multiple attempts after being denied is usually a pretty solid case for knowingly.
Fair point.

Tyndmyr wrote:...but none of it really works without enforcement.
Agree here too. If (existing good) laws are not being enforced, adding more laws doesn't help, and actually hurts.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jul 05, 2016 4:49 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:If you see the same serial number selling from being inquired about (FTFY) the same shop to a different person post-denial, well...maybe a different person bought that gun.
Isn't that what's supposed to happen? It doesn't raise my suspicisions that a gun that was wanted by a criminal gets sold to a non-criminal. So, it seems to me that the information isn't very useful.


That's what's supposed to happen, but if there's a pattern of immediate resubmission, it may indicate a falsified application.

Granted, enforcement of known bad applications is definitely the low hanging fruit, and they're not even doing that, but...there's a TON of legal space for improvements. If you started routinely going after bad individuals, and run out of them, then crack down on fraudulent stores, well...there's not really much left in the legal supply chain for criminals to get guns from.

The lack of caring about actually keeping guns out of criminal hands makes pro-gun folks suspicious that all the "more background checks", etc rhetoric isn't about safety at all. It's just about trying to chip away at legitimate gun owners a bit at a time, slowly making it more and more tedious to actually participate. Yknow, sort of what like "pro life" folks do with abortion.

DanD
Posts: 261
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:42 am UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby DanD » Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:37 pm UTC

Except that background checks can only be kept for 24 hours, at which point the FBI is required to destroy them. Which means the purchaser can wait 1 day, re-submit, and the FBI has no evidence.

The ATF is also not allowed to require inventories from gun dealers, and the dealers are not required to report "lost" guns. And the ATF is not allowed to inspect a given dealer more than once a year. Which makes tracking illegal sales rather difficult. And even if they do turn up a lot of guns from a single dealer at crime scenes, they aren't allowed to use that trace data in proceedings to strip the dealer's license.

And even if they could, they aren't allowed to keep purchase records in an electronic database, so cross-referencing is essentially impossible.

So, it's not so much that current laws aren't being enforced, it's that an agency which has a budget not much larger than it was a decade ago, is restricted from enforcing them in any effective manner.

As far as whether current laws, alone, would be sufficient: estimates are that 85% of guns used in crimes change hands in a private sale at least once before they are found at a crime scene. And many of those "private" sales are from unlicensed dealers who are selling from their "collection" of several hundred weapons, all price tagged and ready for sale. The definition of a FFL dealer is extremely narrow. So no. Until we have universal background checks, current laws are not sufficient.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama says it's easier to get a gun than a book.

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jul 06, 2016 3:35 pm UTC

DanD wrote:Except that background checks can only be kept for 24 hours, at which point the FBI is required to destroy them. Which means the purchaser can wait 1 day, re-submit, and the FBI has no evidence.


Again, they are permitted to keep rejections.

They are subject to restrictions to prevent them from building a database of legitimate gun owners, but they are not prohibited from prospecting crimes.

The ATF is also not allowed to require inventories from gun dealers, and the dealers are not required to report "lost" guns. And the ATF is not allowed to inspect a given dealer more than once a year. Which makes tracking illegal sales rather difficult. And even if they do turn up a lot of guns from a single dealer at crime scenes, they aren't allowed to use that trace data in proceedings to strip the dealer's license.


This is because they kept abusing their powers to harass gun stores with punitively expensive compliance costs.

Note additionally that the ATF is not the FBI. The FBI runs the records, not the ATF.

And even if they could, they aren't allowed to keep purchase records in an electronic database, so cross-referencing is essentially impossible.


A rejected request is not a purchase.

So, it's not so much that current laws aren't being enforced, it's that an agency which has a budget not much larger than it was a decade ago, is restricted from enforcing them in any effective manner.

As far as whether current laws, alone, would be sufficient: estimates are that 85% of guns used in crimes change hands in a private sale at least once before they are found at a crime scene. And many of those "private" sales are from unlicensed dealers who are selling from their "collection" of several hundred weapons, all price tagged and ready for sale. The definition of a FFL dealer is extremely narrow. So no. Until we have universal background checks, current laws are not sufficient.


Please,
Homeland Security, etc have gotten buckets of money dumped on them for improving security. It's just been spent on stupid crap. Law enforcement has plenty of money to play army, so the logic that they can't afford anything is dubious.

Also, your statement regarding FFLs is entirely incorrect, and such activity is blatantly illegal. If you resell two firearms for profit as a de facto dealer, and lack an FFL, enjoy prison. You can find a helpful description at https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download. Go on, and read what the current laws actually are before deciding they are insufficient.

Yes, not every illegal seller gets caught. Thus the aforementioned need for enforcement.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: elasto and 12 guests