Guns: rules and rights

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

Constructive ideas:

- BGCs (background checks) We have them now but only for guns bought from an FFL (Federal Firearms Licensee), an all business gun dealer. Cousin Bubba can still sell his gun to someone else with no BGC at a gun show, yard sale or parking lot. In most states privates sellers like that are restricted by law from having access to a BGC. One thing that can be done now is at least allow private sellers to access a BGC via local law enforcement.

- Pass a bill funding CDC research into violence and gun deaths. Congress has avoided the topic since the Dickie Amendment.

The Dickey Amendment is a provision first inserted as a rider into the 1996 omnibus spending bill of the United States federal government that mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control." In the same spending bill, Congress earmarked $2.6 million from the CDC's budget, the exact amount that had previously been allocated to the agency for firearms research the previous year, for traumatic brain injury-related research.

The amendment was lobbied for by the National Rifle Association (NRA), and named after its author Jay Dickey, a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas. Although the Dickey Amendment did not explicitly ban it, for about two decades the CDC avoided all research on gun violence for fear it would be financially penalized. Congress clarified the law in 2018 to allow for such research, and the FY2020 federal omnibus spending bill earmarked the first funding for it since 1996.

- Get PSAs funded with safe storage and youth caution messages.

[AndyS]

1. These would be helpful.

I would point out that we do not have Back Ground Checks. We have partial criminal violation checks. 40% of agencies that should report to the NICS system do not report because it is voluntary.

I'd like to see a real background check with all agencies required to report, a social media scan and interviews with family and employer. All required under cover of law.

That said, I appreciate any movement in a more sane direction.

[yagotme]

5. I agree about the NICS.

Remember the Texas shooting done by the prior Air Force guy? Had a bad conduct discharge, wasn't reported to NICS, and he was able to buy his rifle.

[Hangingon]

28. This is a significant problem with NICS

Information must go to the NICS file. The Virginia Tech shooter had a mental health issue and has been to Court over it. That fact was not reported. We also need to tighten up names. James John Smith may be a criminal but if he gives his name as Jimmy Jack Smith for the NICS check it may pass or cause the check overtime where the NICS times out. We spend a lot of money, time and effort on this check, we should see it works.

[yagotme]

29. Name shouldn't be a problem, as ID is usually used.

ID name matches name on form. If not, dealer is making trouble for himself. Has fake ID, well, that's another ball game, anyway. You can lie on the form, too. Mental problems. Drug use. Just to name 2.

[Hangingon]

30. They do have fake ids.

It has happened. The point is the I’d system is not nearly tight enough. As you noted, all info must go into the NICS system. Otherwise, we just live with a faulty system. This issue has been talked about many times. I am tired of adding suggestion that get shot down.

[yagotme]

31. I agree that NICS and fake ID"s are a problem.

Fake ID's are nearly impossible to "correct", even if you went to a national ID. NICS has it's problems coming from the input (or lack thereof) of information from all the various reporting agencies. Not NICS"s fault, per se, but of the reporting institutions. For the mental side, you have to deal with HIPAA. Other agencies, it's a staff problem, lack of knowledge to be required to report, or just outright laziness.

[Timewas]

2. Oregon

requires BGC's on all sales but you have to go through a dealer and right now it can take a month to get that done...They passed 114 that requires a certificate to purchase but didn't bother to set anything up to be able to get one,it is all in limbo now and no one knows what to do. It is suspended til court cases work their way through.

[yagotme]

4. Typical government thought process.

Pass the law, and then figure out if/how it will work.

[Timewas]

6. end result for now

The courts put it on hold, then thousands of people that may or may not have bought guns over the next few years decided that now was the time, resulting in log jam at state police background checks piling up and now take months to complete... So probably actually puts more guns out there....

[yagotme]

7. Same thing going on in IL right now.

Passed law, don't have system set up, courts putting stays on, etc. etc...

[AndyS]

8. I disagree. Typical mucking up the works by the gun lobby.

From the 1990's when the Brady bill was being negotiated the gun lobby has perfected the art of sand in the gears. Original plan was to have a 3 day waiting period while the background check was performed, a BGC that included interviews with employers etc. The NRA got their panties all in a wad and screamed about 'gotta have it RIGHT NOW' and OH, THE HUMANITY! PRIVACY! WHAT IF MY BOSS LIES JUST TO PUNISH ME!!

In the end we have what is in effect now: an inefficient system that doesn't do a real background check, that must be completed in less than two minutes and if it isn't the gun is handed over in five days without a background check (remember Dylann Roof?)

Agree to have the ATF in charge of gun dealer policing and then get the gun owned congress critter to cut funding so they can only run audits on 15% of the dealers a year.

That whole "government thought process" is a meme designed and implemented by the Republican party which guts the government every time they're in office so they can say, "See, government can't do anything right!"

Thanks for repeating that meme here on a Democratic website . . .

[yagotme]

10. You're welcome.

I guess all that complaining I see here about how Drumph screwed things up, the Rethugs in congress screwing things up, doesn't apply to the gov't screwing things up. How often does the gov't get things right, anyway? There's always someone else behind the scenes pushing buttons. Lobbyists abound, on both sides.

From your post:
"have a 3 day waiting period" "the gun is handed over in five days"
Asked for 3, got 5 if background isn't done in a timely manner. A win, perhaps?

[AndyS]

11. It's only a win for people who store all their brains in their trigger finger. A win would be

no fucking gun without a REAL background check.

[AndyS]

12. How often does the government get it right?

Social Security
Medicare
Interstate highway system
FDIC
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Affordable Care Act
Americans with disabilities act (too bad that doesn't extend to gun need syndorme)
National Defence (MIC notwithstanding)
There's more, much more, but let's skip to 'What have you done for me today?"
just recently:
Inflation reduction act
Infrastructure bill
Respect for Marriage Act
CHIPS and Science Act
PACT Act
American Rescue Plan (ARP)

So, if you still want to push Republican talking points perhaps you should consider what discussion boards you frequent.

[yagotme]

14. Perhaps you should research some of the things you listed,

as some of them are in financial trouble. Due to gov't ineptitude. IMHO, they screw up much more than they get right. Yes, we need a gov't, but they can do MUCH better than they are/have been.

And if you think me voicing my opinion on the efficiency of our gov't is a Rethug talking point, well, I don't know what to say to that.

[AndyS]

17. Hmmm, who said,

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’"

I stand by my comments. Government fails when the nihilists gain control or interfere with it. Distrust in government is a highlight of the radical right. That it isrepeated on a left leaning discussion board? Well, I don't know what to say to that.

[yagotme]

19. The right has occasionally taken control of the gov't,

and have put their people in the gov't system, and they are still there. Do you still completely trust them? A little distrust of my leadership is a good thing, IMHO. Keeps them honest. Or maybe just a little honest-er. Power can corrupt, after all.

[AndyS]

23. Then distrust Republicans (and the gun Lobby) but

to singularly say 'the government doesn't work' or 'seldom gets it right' is the halmark of the far right.

[DashOneBravo]

27. I'm for it (BGC)

Around here they charge between $45 to $75 per gun.

I think we should be able to get them on an app and for free. 😃

I live rural and a lot of struggling families.

[yagotme]

3. Here in IL,

getting caught selling a gun at a gun show without an FFL will result in a pair of wrist jewelry. Above your own underline, CDC was prohibited from doing research "advocating gun control". "Gun control" being the key words. Injury prevention, et al, was not banned. Just using the numbers to push an agenda. Reporting facts is different than making an opinion a matter of policy.

Saw a billboard in Springfield, IL yesterday promoting safe storage of firearms. Somebody's working on your idea.

[AndyS]

9. Yeah right.

You and I both know that "advocating gun control" is code for anything that might lead to injury prevention because if guns are used to cause injury, which is what all research we do have indicates, it would result in GUN CONTROL1!!1!1

[yagotme]

13. Advocating gun control

is code for banning guns, to me. Guns ARE used to prevent injury sometimes. CDC has claimed as much.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/?sh=7445adab299a

[AndyS]

15. OMFG you keep citing Kleck who has been discredited for a decade or more

and the CDC has done the same, removing the Kleck study from their research collection. You're citing old and discredited infromation.

At this point Flat Earthers have more credibility than Kleck!

[yagotme]

20. Don't tell me:

You see the name Kleck, and you discount the whole article, even though he is mentioned in a small part of it. Other surveys/studies were done also, or did you miss those parts? You seem to think the CDC relies only on the Kleck research, and nothing else. Mistrusting the gov't, are we?

[AndyS]

16. Defensive gun use per year.

This year to date: 208 vs 14,000 deaths/injuries.

DGU includes all uses: shooting in self defense, displaying and any other conceivable use. If we were to add intimidation to the other side, ie threatening a domestic partner, that 14,000 number would grow considerably.

The best numbers for DGU are 11-1400 per year. Not the 2,000,000 that Kleck claimed.

Numbers from the Gun Violence Archive, the only credible source available.

[yagotme]

21. Here's some more:

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf
In 2007-11, there were 235,700 victimizations where the
victim used a firearm to threaten or attack an offender (table
11). This amounted to approximately 1% of all nonfatal
violent victimizations in the 5-year period. The percentage
of nonfatal violent victimizations involving firearm use in
self defense remained stable at under 2% from 1993 to 2011
(not shown in table). In 2007-11, about 44% of victims of
nonfatal violent crime offered no resistance, 1% attacked or
threatened the offender with another type of weapon, 22%
attacked or threatened without a weapon (e.g., hit or kicked),
and 26% used nonconfrontational methods (e.g., yelling,
running, hiding, or arguing).

NPR site where above is referenced:
https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/602143823/how-often-do-people-use-guns-in-self-defense
The latest data show that people use guns for self-defense only rarely. According to a Harvard University analysis of figures from the National Crime Victimization Survey, people defended themselves with a gun in nearly 0.9 percent of crimes from 2007 to 2011.

So, NPR, who aren't really pro gun by any means, is listing over 400 a year average for'07-'11. Gun ownership has gone up. Criminal incidents have gone up. I think they're on the low end, but DGU DOES happen, and after all, if it saves one life...

[AndyS]

24. Well, there's this . . .

From the footnotes of the chart you cite:

! Interpret with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or coefficient of variation is greater than 50%.

So why is there a 50% variance in these numbers and why do I trust GVA above Crime Victims survey? Both have the same answer: the source of the information. The Crime Victims survey relys on the statement of the victim without any other verification. There is no control for false positive reporting--the same issue Kleck had in his survey. The GVA on the other hand is based on verifiable incidents reported (and verified) in news sources. The GVA is undoubtedly low. possibly by a number comparable to the Crime Victim Survey. However it is based on actual verifiable sources.

Crime victims who are gun owners and gun owners in general have a vested interest in inflating the DGU numbers. That makes them a very unreliable source for information that isn't supported by other verifiable sources. Kleck surveyed a phone list and asked, "Have you used a gun is self defense in the last year?" Besides the bias cited above there's the issue of telescoping--assuming the incident did happen was it 18 months ago instead of 12? You know what they say about time flying.

The truth of the matter is we don't know how many DGUs there are and we won't until the gun lobby is defeated and we get honest, scientific and verifiable research.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

26. Hi, I agree...somewhat.

IMO, and this is only opinion, statistics of this kind will be subject to inclusion false positives as well as the true positives that are never counted because they're not reported. This, also IMO, is a reason for me personally not to argue the statistical details.

However, I would also like to point out a qualitative aspect which also isn't reflected either in the GVA or the CV survey. I have read that a survey of inmates has sited that the most often noted fear among the prisoners is encountering an armed victim.

Carry on.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

18. I know there are some states with UBCs.

IMO, you're not winning nationally with that kind of mandatory law. I respect what states enact. For now, I think it's time to get some disenchanted Republican gun owners on our side. There are some folks who are not so much Republican as they are anti-Democrat because of key issues, draconian gun laws being one.

Dostoevsky — "The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons."

IMO, This idea can be generalized. Our country has moved to dealing harshly with some groups of people marginalized due to certain circumstances. Examples:
Prisoners
Pot smokers (although this is improving)
Old folks
Mentally ill
Native Americans (especially those on reservations)
LGBT folks
Muslims
In some instances women are still treated as second class.

Many problems are left to worsen until people die or the police are involved and then people die.
Poor folks are often forced into housing programs that are ill maintained. Teens and young adults are drawn into drugs or dealing to cope or survive or both.

Clearly there are problems in the U.S. that are not addressed. The only reason "assault weapons" are getting attention is because "mass" shootings for the media are really ma$$ $hooting$.

For 2020 the CDC reports 19,384 firearm homicides. Last I heard long guns of all types (AR-15s being a subset) amount to under 500. I just don't understand the dedication to narrowing this issue to focus on 2 to 3% of the problem.

With around 46,000 suicides and 24,000 being firearm involved, that might be a good place to start if you're a politician who actually wants to help.

Well, off the soap box. Have a good weekend.

[yagotme]

22. TY.

"I just don't understand the dedication to narrowing this issue to focus on 2 to 3% of the problem."

Easy one. How does an ant eat an elephant? One bite at a time. Separate the "assault weapon" shooters from the iron/wood guys. Break up the shooting community into small pieces, banning a subsection at a time. I remember several years back, I don't remember if it was a Fed attempt, or a State one, to ban "sniper" rifles, essentially a high powered rifle with a scope. Didn't get far, as the grabbers got educated on hunting rifles out west. There was also Handgun Control, Inc., etc. Saturday night specials. Machine guns. Weapons over .50 cal. I know I'm not telling you anything you probably haven't heard before, but there are some here who haven't seen this all in one pile, and they wonder why I don't trust someone that says "Were just going to ban XYZ."

[ManiacJoe]

25. The phrasing is always interesting.

It is not that Bubba does not have to do a BGC.
It is that Bubba is prohibited from using the NICS checks a BGC by the same federal law that requires FFLs to do a background check.

With or without a BGC, Bubba is still responsible for not selling to prohibited buyers. It is just harder for him to figure out who is who. The common method is to require the buyer to have a concealed weapon permit.