Gun sales jump following election

[Darth Wong]

Just a note: Broomstick sent me a PM to let me know that this was the one year anniversary of her losing her job, and perhaps it wasn't the best night for her to be posting. In light of that, I would like to say that I totally understand why she might be a little ... erm ... short-tempered

Hope you're feeling better soon, Broomie.

[erik_t]

I'd only have been half as nasty. May your, and everyone else's, fortunes improve.

[Darth Wong]

The problem with microscopic reasoning like this is that social policy must generally be made on macroscopic reasoning, not microscopic reasoning. If a policy caused X more deaths due to widespread weapon proliferation but saved Y deaths due to self-defense incidents, then the question is whether Y is greater than X. If it isn't, then you can't appeal to the microscopic scenario in order to challenge the macroscopic policy.

Granted, of course, although I believe the courts (and I am working from memory, so do bear with me) made the case that they could not simply hire more cops to fulfill the need to protect people on every occasion. More people would die and more property would be stolen if they didn't recognize people's right to defend themselves, specifically their homes as I remember it.

Even if they can't hire more cops, the question still remains of which effect is larger: proliferation+untrustworthy population or self-defense.

Now of course, I know that people dispute the notion that weapon proliferation can cause deaths. But we don't seem to have a problem applying that logic elsewhere in the world: for example, Americans generally do not dispute that widespread availability of AK-47s in Africa can be linked to civil wars there (and in fact, civil wars in Africa flare up whenever new arms shipments arrive).

Well, the situations are not exactly the same, considering the extremely bad sociopolitical conditions found in Africa. You yourself have often said that in our countries, even the poor are relatively rich.

Indeed; the situations are not the same. But it does show that the blanket statement "you can't blame the guns, you can only blame the people" is highly questionable, if spikes in civil war violence invariably follow arms shipments. You can't just ignore a pattern like that, and insisting that the effect is zero is more doctrinaire than logic. The more logical approach is to accept that there is probably an effect, but to question how large that effect is, relative to self-defense.

Well, I personally believe that the average person needs more power, at least relative to the government in charge of them, but I understand why you would be distrusting of them due to your belief that the average person is stupid. Also, in a society where the people are educated at a basic level, they tend to act more responsibly. I know that there are many people who don't understand the realities of guns, and fear them unreasonably because they have been given a mythical deadly quality even when they are not being used.

Well, guns can be considered dangerous when not in use, in the same way that bottles of toxic chemicals are considered dangerous. That's why we tell people to store them carefully, and preferably in special secure cabinets.

[Formless]

Even if they can't hire more cops, the question still remains of which effect is larger: proliferation+untrustworthy population or self-defense.

Well, I know that here in Colorado, we have the Make My Day law (yes, it is actually called that, and yes, it is a Dirty Harry reference. The voters have a sense of humor). Basically, it gave home owners the right to use deadly force to defend the living space of their homes (usually with a gun) from intruders such as burglars and home invaders. The result is that the rate of these crimes fell very steeply, even though the law is rarely invoked. Sounds like a precident to me. Could be wrong, though.

Indeed; the situations are not the same. But it does show that the blanket statement "you can't blame the guns, you can only blame the people" is highly questionable, if spikes in civil war violence invariably follow arms shipments. You can't just ignore a pattern like that, and insisting that the effect is zero is more doctrinaire than logic. The more logical approach is to accept that there is probably an effect, but to question how large that effect is, relative to self-defense.

Conceded, for now. I kinda wish to have a source or study on whether or not the effect has been seen in America or other modern nations- that is, if the rise of crime can be attributed to the proliferation of crime.

Well, guns can be considered dangerous when not in use, in the same way that bottles of toxic chemicals are considered dangerous. That's why we tell people to store them carefully, and preferably in special secure cabinets.

I would more put that under "anti-idiot measure" to protect children. The liability does not come from instability of the device, like you would worry about a poison seeping into the environment, but from kids playing with what is known to be a dangerous item.

[K. A. Pital]

Sounds like a precident to me.

You didn't answer DW's question. You offered an example of the "self-defense" effects, but you did not evaluate it versus the negative effects of arms proliferation. Of course, there are positive effects from self-defense, the question is whether they outweigh the likewise inevitable negative effects of arms proliferation.

[Ryan Thunder]

A better rebuttal would be to point out that he does not need to understand. In anything that could be reasonably called a "free society", the onus must be on the regulator to establish that regulations are necessary, rather than the individual to show that he should have the freedom to engage in something the regulator does not understand.

I don't understand why a guy would want to have sex with another guy either, but that doesn't mean I would restrict his freedom to do so.

Last time I checked, penises aren't used as murder weapons. So there's a rather significant difference, I think.

[Darth Wong]

A better rebuttal would be to point out that he does not need to understand. In anything that could be reasonably called a "free society", the onus must be on the regulator to establish that regulations are necessary, rather than the individual to show that he should have the freedom to engage in something the regulator does not understand.

I don't understand why a guy would want to have sex with another guy either, but that doesn't mean I would restrict his freedom to do so.

Last time I checked, penises aren't used as murder weapons. So there's a rather significant difference, I think.

No there isn't, at least not for the purpose of this analogy. You are using the "find any distinction to invalidate the analogy" trick, even though the distinction has absolutely nothing to do with the point of the analogy.

Your preference for shitty logic does not validate your behaviour.

[Ryan Thunder]

A better rebuttal would be to point out that he does not need to understand. In anything that could be reasonably called a "free society", the onus must be on the regulator to establish that regulations are necessary, rather than the individual to show that he should have the freedom to engage in something the regulator does not understand.

I don't understand why a guy would want to have sex with another guy either, but that doesn't mean I would restrict his freedom to do so.

Last time I checked, penises aren't used as murder weapons. So there's a rather significant difference, I think.

No there isn't, at least not for the purpose of this analogy. You are using the "find any distinction to invalidate the analogy" trick, even though the distinction has absolutely nothing to do with the point of the analogy.

Your preference for shitty logic does not validate your behaviour.

I beg your pardon, Mike, but you're comparing an unjustified limitation of somebody's personal right to a justified limitation of somebody's dangerous privilege. The connection is tenuous at best.

[Darth Wong]

I beg your pardon, Mike, but you're comparing an unjustified limitation of somebody's personal right to a justified limitation of somebody's dangerous privilege. The connection is tenuous at best.

Totally irrelevant to the particular argument I quoted from you, where you appealed entirely to your incomprehension of why someone would engage in the stated activity. Your dishonesty is growing irritating.

[Coyote]

Bear in mind that when the economy bottoms out in the USA, and you hit the bottom of poverty, you are well and truly fucked and desperate. Desperate, hungry people, or desperate addicts, will turn to crime to feed their needs.

That'd be a nice point if it didn't ignore the issue of availability of firearms. There's a reason homicides are committed two and a half more times with firearms in the US than Canada, and it isn't because Canadians are so courteous with murder.

Well, at this point I have to ask-- is it just the "availability of firearms" that bothers you? Are you unconcerned about crime, willing to let the police handle it as they have been, but the mere existence of a firearm, even in the hands of a law-abiding person, is irreconcilable to you?

To me, a gun is "dangerous" only when it is in the hands of a dangerous person, and being used for socially detrimental things. If you are of the opinion that the mere prescence of a firearm, safely handled/stored or not, is problematic, then there's not really any room to discuss.

On the other hand, places like in Europe or Canada have social safety nets that keep people from falling into such deep despair. They don't have the need to turn to desperate crime.*

At least my poor ass will far more likely get stabbed instead of shot.

See, again we have a difference of opinion, because if I were in some weird situation where I had to choose between getting shot or being stabbed, I'd rather take my chances with the bullet.

There are many other factors in this than "satisfying the kill boner" . So unless you have something else besides ad-hominem attacks...?

Sure there are other factors, like having a tiny penis.

Well, this is either a very unimaginative ad-hominem, or, you have in fact done an in-depth, verifiable and peer-reviewed study on penile sizes of gun owners vs. non-gun owners. It would be interesting to see you publish that. Who was your control group?

Oh, wait, crime has been on the decline in the UK. Guess you shouldn't be getting your information from sensationalist rags then.

But wasn't it also on the rise for awhile as well? My point was not that the abscence of gun made crime spiral and has continued to spiral, my point was that the abscence or prescence of guns doesn't have as big a factor on crime as you may think. Crime follows other fluctuations, frequently related to economic opportunity. By the time a citizen decides to pick up a gun to facilitate crime, he has already made the decision to adopt crime as a worthwhile alternative. The gun (or any weapon) came along after the fact.

[Darth Wong]

By the time a citizen decides to pick up a gun to facilitate crime, he has already made the decision to adopt crime as a worthwhile alternative. The gun (or any weapon) came along after the fact.

You should keep in mind that this argument only applies to premeditated crime. "Heat of the moment" crimes are different; in such cases, the mere proximity of a gun can make a huge difference to the outcome.

[Coyote]

Just a note: Broomstick sent me a PM to let me know that this was the one year anniversary of her losing her job, and perhaps it wasn't the best night for her to be posting. In light of that, I would like to say that I totally understand why she might be a little ... erm ... short-tempered

Hope you're feeling better soon, Broomie.

I thought that was a little... sudden and disproportionate. Hope it turns out well for you, Broomstick.

[Coyote]

By the time a citizen decides to pick up a gun to facilitate crime, he has already made the decision to adopt crime as a worthwhile alternative. The gun (or any weapon) came along after the fact.

You should keep in mind that this argument only applies to premeditated crime. "Heat of the moment" crimes are different; in such cases, the mere proximity of a gun can make a huge difference to the outcome.

Yes, that is inescapable logic. It's not much solace, but all I can offer in counter to that in a gun-control discussion would be that "heat of the moment/crime of passion" scenarios are likely only to occur once per person, and probably followed by contrition (and even a willingness to accept punishment afterwards), whereas premeditated crime (be it murder or otherwise) is probably part of a criminal "career path" that will result in many more crimes that would occur regardless of any weapon type.

That's why I wouldn't fight overmuch against a waiting period for a first gun purchase. For any gun purchase afterwards it's kind of moot.

[Darth Wong]

Fair enough, but it must be pointed out that certain kinds of "heat of the moment" crimes are actually cyclical, such as domestic violence.

In fact, the police in Canada say that one of the most common uses of the gun registry is to quickly check for the likelihood of a gun being present when they respond to a domestic violence call.

[Coyote]

Law is supposed to restrict socially damaging behavior by dealing with individuals who cause that damage. A society always has to seek the comfortable balance point between safety and freedom.

Okay, we're on the same page then.

Yeah, I think so, more than we may have thought earlier. In regards to my original posting of this the reason I got a little on the hyperbole and strawmanning side was because I was posting at work, and getting interrupted constantly, so I had to keep trying re-acquire my train of thought and I started getting rushed. Foolishly, I didn't go back and re-check after posting, I wouldn't have gotten so touchy.

As I've maintained throughout my involvement in this thread, at least I think I've tried to maintain, what we need is a discussion about what is an acceptable ratio of damage by a few vs. punishment (I'd prefer a different term, but we can go with that) of the many. ...

But again, we're clearly on the same page. It's just a question of where we should draw the line.

Indeed, and I am not against some gun laws. I think that focusing on the guns themselves --the block of metal-- is a sort of massive political red herring, in a way. Bear with me as I build another "quote ladder" ( ) and I'll return to this...

...My frustration is that people were tossing about claims that there were a tiny number of crimes vs a huge number of guns, and nobody bothered to actually find any numbers. I wished to rectify that, and give us some idea of the number of people that would be "punished" vs the damage done. If you have a metric you'd prefer instead of this one, I'm all ears.

I'll be honest with you, looking at the banter elsehwere in this thread actually tells me that there has been insufficient research. It seems we need to clarify the numbers we have: how many criminals are causing the 400,000 gun crimes, for example, and how many crimes do they commit that do not involve guns. Are those criminals counted as part of the 57 million gun owners (ie, did the criminals voluntarily identify themselves as gun owners). How many times were guns used for legal defense, and in countries where bans were put in effect, how many people were using guns to defend themselves legally, etc. How much of crime statistics reflect actual increases or decreaces in crime, and how much of it was simply the reporting of said crimes? Obviously, you and I here don't have access to that sort of data, or indeed the means to collect it-- unfortunately.

On one side, we've got deaths that were directly caused by guns. On the other side, we've got situations in which the presence of a gun might have saved a life. Some of those deaths would have happened without a gun, yes. Some of those lives were saved by the presence of a gun, yes. But to my knowledge, we have no way of knowing how many of each.

As you stated, there's insufficient numbers on these-- we have only the most raw blocks of numbers: X crimes, Y owners, Z uses, Z.5 legal defensive but no accompanying data to put in context. This tells me that no one really has sufficient data to say one way or the other. Part of the problem is that the polarizing nature of the debate means that the only people collecting data on these things are people who have agendas, so their data can be called into question.

Many other factors are responsible for causing crime, such as poverty, lack of education, and economic factors. Resourses spent harassing 57 million gun owners could achieve far more crime prevention by diverting those resources to alleviating the desperation that sparks crime. It could pay for social safety nets so that people don't fall to such financial depths that crime becomes a worthwhile option.

I am highly sympathetic to that viewpoint. I'd include some kind of crimes-per-criminal statistic if I could, but I don't have that information. And I agree that the resources would be better spent elsewhere - that's why I'm not advocating taking them away, and I never have. I think if we were waving our magic wand and remaking the world, we'd be better off without handguns. But I wouldn't take them away in any foreseeable future.

Definitely, and I'd also bring in some other, minor (I think) ideas that I'd like to believe would go a long way towards alleviating some of the unecessary gun deaths while enhancing overall public safety...

I've known for much of this argument that this is going to be as much about opinions as it is about facts. I stated pages ago that some people only feel safe if they have a gun, while others only feel safe if there are no guns, and there won't be much room to reconcile these two positions. So you can set aside your accusations about my "proclomations from up on high" and keep this real.

I'd have it no other way, and I expect the same from you. I expect you to be a little sympathetic that I'm addressing the same post to multiple people, not all of whom have said this.

Ok, cool. I feel much the same; I don't want to have to re-address everything to everyone as well.

But catching speeders is a minor inconvenience to resources compared ot tracking down and investigating and confiscating property from 57 million people. You write a ticket and the guy-- who deep inside realizes he did something wrong-- goes on his way and mails in his check to the court.

I don't know the time spent by the cop watching the radar gun or whatever per speeder caught. Do you? Honest question.

Honestly wouldn't know... I'd guess it would have something to do with time of day and region, as well as the worthwhile benefit of the activity (such as Oregon, where a significant amount of county revenue comes from tickets). Heh-- meybe it's best we let this one go...

In contrast, you'll have 57 million people who have not done anything wrong and broken no laws, suddenly being told they are criminals and the cops are going to come to take property from them that they bought with their own money.

They would emphatically not be told they are criminals, and this is a silly canard often raised by the NRA and the like. Something being against the law does not make someone a criminal for having/doing it. I am not proposing this, but a buyback + fines for the noncompliant would negate much of this.

While technically, you'd be correct, the problem is there would be many, many people who would see it in a very defensive mindset. There may not be the '1 million armed violent criminals created from thin air' like I mentioned (although there might be some), but I feel safe in saying that there would be a great deal of 'civic disobedience' where people just flat out don't turn them in, or turn in a couple 'ringers' and say "there ya go, now leave me alone". While I have no statistics to back that up, I feel that a understanding of human nature allows me to predict that to some extent (to how much extent remains open for speculation).

There would also be unintended consequences. Guns would suddenly become a valuable commodity as th elegal market dried up, and a gun owner might sell a $500.00 pistol for, say, $1,000.00. The pistol effectively disappears, and the police are welcome to search his house and find nothing. The former owner says "Hey, I sold it to some dude years ago before it was illegal" and there's not much that can be done about it since there's no registry base to start from. Criminals would probably also break into houses to steal guns much more often since the value of the guns would make it worth the risk, and the pilfered owners certainly won't report them.

I would argue that the user-friendly point-and-click interface of a firearm makes murder much more accessible to people who would otherwise not want to get their hands dirty, but I do not claim that is a fact. I would further argue that, again because people don't want to get their hands dirty, most of those violent crimes would not have ended in murder (since about 1.2% of violent crimes are murders).

Possibly, but there have also been studies done on how difficult it is to get people to kill. I think it is relevant to remember the works of military historian SLA Marshall that said that it was very difficult to get men, soldiers in combat, to kill another human being, even when that other person is armed and threatening. (Sorry about the damn Wiki reference, but it has some references). Supporting Marshall's claim is work by retired military officer and psychologist Lt. Col. Dave Grossman and his book "On Killing", which goes back as far as the Civil War to show the phenomenoin at work-- normal people have social inhibitions about killing, and abnormal people do not have these inhibations. For soldiers, you have to train around that (even though it inflicts a cost) but for civilians, there usually isn't such conditioning.

Is it applicable in every situation, and can we guarantee such a social safeguard in all cases? No, I think civilian gun owners need to be trained, but not to work around inhibitions about killing as soldiers going into combat, but to be aware of the incredible responsibility they shoulder with their choice. But I believe that at the basic core of the average gun owner, there's the intent to avoid actual killing. I think that's a start for training gun owners, which is where I think the problem lies.

This is where I come back to the laws about the guns themselves being a sort of "political red herring". I hope this doesn't come off as a meandering off the topic, if it seems that way I apologize but you asked about some ideas and solutions, and this is how I look at it, and provides another layer of non-intrusive safety besides the "social services" that can help keep people from bottoming out on poverty. This doesn't address the "where to find the statistics" question, but it does address the overall issue of gun death and public safety.

What I think really needs to be looked at is the knowledge, training, skill and overall motives & stability of the users. We register cars but we liscence the driver, and make a skill test a part of that to see if he/she knows the mechanical operation and laws to an appropriate degree.

With guns, I think that we can't trust all would-be gun owners to educate themselves sufficiently about legal rights and responsibilities, or safe mechanical handling. I've mentioned before I've ben to gun ranges (typically informal, "for $5.00 you can use my field" type) where the yay-hoo redneck types made me distinctly uncomfortable (and angry about the perpetuation of stereotype) and in fact I remmeber one time where I cut my intended range time short because I felt there were people there that were likely to cause an accident.

There's a lot of "mechanical" gun laws (as opposed to "skill" laws) that I do not argue with at all. The 1934 gun control act banning civilian access to automatic weapons is one. The 1968 gun control act barring sales through the mail is another. I also like the NICS (National Instant Check System) and would like to see it expanded to include those who are mentally disturbed (there is some good speculation that linking the crime & mental health databases might have barred the VTech shooter from his purchase. He had a mental history, but no criminal history).

Some "mechanical" laws I have issue with. For example, the banning of slings, bayonet lugs, flash suppressors and pistol grips were all cosmetic issues that had nothing to do with functionality. It's not a big deal (I don't feel some burning need to have these features) but it represents what I see as essentially empty, wasted legislation resources.

But there's not a whole lot of "skill" based laws and I think that is where the real problem lies. In just about any potential life or injury causing situation, the best thing to do is educate the operators who will be functioning in the environment. Heavy equipment, factory & machine tools, for example. You can build handguards, install rails, hand out safety glasses but at some point, you reach a level of saturation with mechanical safeties. The addition of more mechanical safeties either won't make a (statistical) difference, or the safeties actually begin to interfere with the work being attempted. So the operators have to be educated in safe handling.

It is, after all, the skills (or lack thereof) that are a factor in many gun accident, and it can be skills and knowledge (again, or lack of same) that can cause a homeowner to jerk the trigger, pick the wrong type of weapon for the job (something too powerful, not powerful enough) and create hazards. As with heavy equipment, I think that educating the operators can go a long way.

It is sad but true that frequently, people have to be told not to do something that would seem to be common sense. Drunk driving laws and warning labels about electric appliances in the shower are quick examples. In my world (heh) I'd have basic firearms comprehension taught in school civics class. Not shooting, but just recognising what types of guns are legally available and the differences of them, in mechanical function (ie, 'revolver' vs. 'semi-automatic' vs. 'muzzleloader', etc) and how to see, without even touching it, if it is loaded or not, how to safely disarm a loaded weapon, and legal rights & obligations such as locked storage, reporting missing or stolen guns, etc.

After that, if a person wanted to take a written test (demonstrating knowledge of the law) and then a range test (demonstrating mechanical aptitude) you then give that person a gun liscence that basically says "this person can be trusted". A person who has served in the military or police may just have to take the written test, since range qualification is a given. Obviously, being a felon or a dangerous mental case (or having an impairment such as blindness) would be a disqualifier.

After all, there is no denying that guns are designed to inflict massive damage on a target. In hunting weapons, they are indeed designed to kill, or in the case of military-style rifles, they are designed to wound. They are, after all, marketed on precisely those points-- "stopping power" and "effective range" and "ideal for home defense". Only a few guns are marketed specifically for target shooting, even though all guns can be used for that purpose. We require skill training before operating potentially dangerous machinery, and this has a serious effect on reducing maiming & deaths due to accident or negligence. It's my opinion, but I think a lot of gun deaths can be reduced the same way, leaving only the truly criminally motivated in the crosshairs of the police.

[Coyote]

Fair enough, but it must be pointed out that certain kinds of "heat of the moment" crimes are actually cyclical, such as domestic violence.

Domestic violence is cyclical? I actually never knew that. Is there some way to do predictability research on it?

In fact, the police in Canada say that one of the most common uses of the gun registry is to quickly check for the likelihood of a gun being present when they respond to a domestic violence call.

That would be one area where a registry would be very helpful. My idea about liscencing the owner, rather than the gun itself, would at least tell police that an inhabitant has the skills and passed the test, so a gun is likely but not a given.

Domestic violence history would, at some point, have to be considered a disqualifier in my scenario. People that cannot contain themselves with ordinary family stress... yeah.

[TheFeniX]

That's why I wouldn't fight overmuch against a waiting period for a first gun purchase. For any gun purchase afterwards it's kind of moot.

It's an older article, but it should still be relevant:

From Here

One measure by which ATF gauges a gun's appeal as an offensive (rather than a defensive or sporting) weapon is its "time-to-crime" factor — how long after its sale it is used in a crime. Revolvers, not generally used as an offensive weapon, had a median time-to-crime of 12.3 years, according to the 2000 figures. At the other extreme, Bryco Arms 9mm semiautomatics recovered from kids younger than18 had a median time-to-crime of 1.5 years, and those recovered from suspects aged 18 to 24 had a median time-to-crime of 1.1 years. The Hi Point 9mm is another downscale semiautomatic frequently seized from suspects in the 18-to-24 age range; it has a time-to-crime span of just one year.

Guns are rarely bought legally for the specific purpose of killing someone. And the firearms commonly used in most crimes are cheap and concealable. In the case of the shotgun, a Mossberg shotgun is about the cheapest you can buy. I can only guess how much it costs on the street, but they're likely sawed-off anyways.

Waiting periods just don't do anything as there was no noticeable uptick in "heat of the moment" shootings after many states went with the 15 minute background check.

[Darth Wong]

Fair enough, but it must be pointed out that certain kinds of "heat of the moment" crimes are actually cyclical, such as domestic violence.

Domestic violence is cyclical? I actually never knew that. Is there some way to do predictability research on it?

I don't mean "cyclical" in a larger societal sense, but in the sense that there is a predictable cycle within a given household, of violence, followed by regret, followed by violence. I've heard that cops who answer a domestic violence call can often recognize the address.

In fact, the police in Canada say that one of the most common uses of the gun registry is to quickly check for the likelihood of a gun being present when they respond to a domestic violence call.

That would be one area where a registry would be very helpful. My idea about liscencing the owner, rather than the gun itself, would at least tell police that an inhabitant has the skills and passed the test, so a gun is likely but not a given.

Domestic violence history would, at some point, have to be considered a disqualifier in my scenario. People that cannot contain themselves with ordinary family stress... yeah.

Unfortunately, whenever you see the phrase "estranged boyfriend" or "estranged husband" in a news article, you can pretty much bet money that the story involves a woman being killed. As far as I'm concerned, the moment some guy commits his first domestic battery he should be assumed to be an extremely dangerous violent offender and treated accordingly. I'm sick of the way I keep reading about these asshats steadily escalating their violence until someone dies.

[Coyote]

I don't mean "cyclical" in a larger societal sense, but in the sense that there is a predictable cycle within a given household, of violence, followed by regret, followed by violence. I've heard that cops who answer a domestic violence call can often recognize the address.

Ahh, sorry, I should have guessed. Any predictability study would have to be household-at-a-time. If society had the resources it would be valuable...

Unfortunately, whenever you see the phrase "estranged boyfriend" or "estranged husband" in a news article, you can pretty much bet money that the story involves a woman being killed. As far as I'm concerned, the moment some guy commits his first domestic battery he should be assumed to be an extremely dangerous violent offender and treated accordingly. I'm sick of the way I keep reading about these asshats steadily escalating their violence until someone dies.

Any domestic battery should disqualify a gun buyer in my mind. Unfortunately, one of th eproblems with domestic violence perps is that the victims frequently refuse to press charges. But it's an entirely different subject, and one that frequently has no good endings. The victims have to decide to break the cycle.

[TheFeniX]

Any domestic battery should disqualify a gun buyer in my mind.

Most domestic disputes (including someone who is currently in divorce proceedings) disqualify someone from purchasing a firearm, for at least a period of time.

Unfortunately, one of th eproblems with domestic violence perps is that the victims frequently refuse to press charges. But it's an entirely different subject, and one that frequently has no good endings. The victims have to decide to break the cycle.

This is only part of the problem. There are numerous instances of people being convicted of domestic abuse or being found mentally unfit, for whatever reason, still passing a background check because the system was either to slow to update or the data just never made it in. It's an issue with enforcement and it needs to be corrected.

[erik_t]

Coyote, I have seen and read your latest super-post. I don't really have any further comment.

[Coyote]

Thanks for participating. It made me think about some things, I have to admit!

[Kanastrous]

There are numerous instances of people being convicted of domestic abuse or being found mentally unfit, for whatever reason, still passing a background check because the system was either to slow to update or the data just never made it in. It's an issue with enforcement and it needs to be corrected.

Point-of-sale personnel have a responsibility, too. Some time ago I worked for a SoCal firearms dealer, and on a couple of occasions we had people walk in who were so (evidently) out-of-whack that we (a) refused to pursue a sale and (b) called the California DOJ and requested that a flag be placed for the name they gave us.

[Ryan Thunder]

I beg your pardon, Mike, but you're comparing an unjustified limitation of somebody's personal right to a justified limitation of somebody's dangerous privilege. The connection is tenuous at best.

Totally irrelevant to the particular argument I quoted from you, where you appealed entirely to your incomprehension of why someone would engage in the stated activity. Your dishonesty is growing irritating.

Ah, shit. Sorry. I wasn't trying to avoid that. Since that's what you were addressing, I concede that point.

[Glocksman]

My idea about liscencing the owner, rather than the gun itself, would at least tell police that an inhabitant has the skills and passed the test, so a gun is likely but not a given.

Here in Indiana, the police do access the LCTH (license to carry handgun) database when making a traffic stop or responding to a domestic disturbance call.

I once was pulled over because I left a bar at 3 AM (I was working, not drinking), and the first words out of the cop's mouth was 'are you carrying a gun?'.

I told him no, and if I were, that would be the first thing I told him, as I had no wish to have my head blown off while reaching for my wallet.

He laughed and said that he wished more LCTH holders had that attitude, as it'd make his job less stressful.

A lot of states mandate that CCW holders (Indiana does not, but it's simple courtesy to the LEO in my mind) notify the police that they're carrying if they're pulled over.
I support that law because it both ensures peace of mind for the cop and it helps prevent any 'misunderstandings' that can result in the cop thinking you're drawing down on him.