ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags shooting incidents , Texas incidents

Reply
Old 11th November 2017, 11:31 AM   #801
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,680
Originally Posted by Civet View Post
I knew there were accuracy problems, but I didn't know that it was as bad as all that. The more I learn about this the more I'm inclined to think that improving the NICS record check system accuracy might be one of the few things worth doing about the problem that might be able to avoid a knee-jerk partisan roadblock.
More about those background checks:
Quote:
The FBI’s background-check system is missing millions of records of criminal convictions, mental illness diagnoses and other flags that would keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands, a gap that contributed to the shooting deaths of 26 people in a Texas church this week.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...c65_story.html

One obvious, if imperfect, solution would be to eliminate the "instant" part of the background check and impose a waiting period that would allow sufficient time to search multiple databases, as some states do now. If somebody tells the gun shop clerk "I need a gun right now!," that by itself should raise a red flag.

Last edited by Bob001; 11th November 2017 at 11:33 AM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 12:40 PM   #802
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,277
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
You make me feel uncomfortable saying that because it suggests the exact kind of paranoia that makes me think you shouldn't have a gun.

You being in my proximity with a gun makes me far more uncomfortable than any reassurance that you could make a difference if a shtf event happened.

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk
Paranoia ? You've seen the numbers ? You feel safe ? You think it can't happen anywhere near you ? Check the map.
And don't worry, I don't plan to get anywhere near US. It might be the safest third world country, but it is still is third world country, safety wise.
Dr.Sid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 01:05 PM   #803
Civet
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,175
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
More about those background checks:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...c65_story.html

One obvious, if imperfect, solution would be to eliminate the "instant" part of the background check and impose a waiting period that would allow sufficient time to search multiple databases, as some states do now. If somebody tells the gun shop clerk "I need a gun right now!," that by itself should raise a red flag.
FBI can take up to three days to do the check if they see fit. Sale can go through by default if they don't provide an answer at the end of that time. I'd have thought that a sufficient time, but I'd underestimated how broken the system is.
Civet is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 01:07 PM   #804
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,038
Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
I would feel uncomfortable anywhere, where I can't carry gun and where there is no armed guards to offset that.
You have my sympathy. It must be terrifying to live in a place where you feel so unsafe. I would suggest moving. I am sure there are lots of places similar to my area where it has never even occurred to me, or anyone I know, to carry a weapon.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 02:55 PM   #805
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,504
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I have a few friends who are armed everywhere they go. I don't feel safer. There are other friends that I would certainly trust with firearms, but oddly, those people don't carry them.

If you think you need them, I really don't want you to have them.
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
A few weeks ago four people in my town were shot. A college girl was celebrating her birthday with a double date. Her "good guy with a gun" boyfriend shot and killed her and the other guy and seriously wounded the other girl before killing himself.

A week earlier the big news was about a murder conviction. A young lady had been shot by her boyfriend when she attempted to break up with him. Another "good guy with a gun" gone wrong.
Exactly.

The first clue that you should be trusted with a gun is you have a realistic idea of when a gun may be needed. An expectation that isn't "at any time anywhere."
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 03:44 PM   #806
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,680
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Exactly.

The first clue that you should be trusted with a gun is you have a realistic idea of when a gun may be needed. An expectation that isn't "at any time anywhere."
I support tough restrictions. But recent tragic history has proven that a gun might well be needed "any time anywhere." A prudent person could just stay away from places where he might predict a gun would be needed: dark alleys, biker bars, crack houses. But a Sunday church service? An elementary school? A college classroom? If you're going to carry, and you go to the trouble of getting a CCP, you may as well carry everywhere.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 04:46 PM   #807
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,317
Can't keep up with the thread but in case no one has yet posted it, townspeople are kindly cleaning up the overgrown yard of the good guy with a gun while he and his daughter are lying low out of town to avoid all the publicity. I thought that was great.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 06:56 PM   #808
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,504
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I support tough restrictions. But recent tragic history has proven that a gun might well be needed "any time anywhere." A prudent person could just stay away from places where he might predict a gun would be needed: dark alleys, biker bars, crack houses. But a Sunday church service? An elementary school? A college classroom? If you're going to carry, and you go to the trouble of getting a CCP, you may as well carry everywhere.
Statistically your odds of dying from a gunshot in any given year is about one in ten thousand, and that includes suicides and accidents.

If you honestly feel unsafe with those odds, then you probably don't drive either as that's about 40 times more likely to kill you.

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk

Last edited by Mycroft; 11th November 2017 at 07:57 PM.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 07:41 PM   #809
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 19,459
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Statistically your odds of dying from a gunshot in any given year is about one in ten thousand, and that includes suicides and accidents.

<snip>

I wonder how significantly those odds are reduced by carrying a firearm wherever you go.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 07:42 PM   #810
Noztradamus
Illuminator
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,594
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
But it needs to fail so often, that gives people the ability to claim they just need to enforce the existing laws and we don't need new ones.
Those are good words, wrongly arranged.

But it needs to fail so often, that gives people the ability to claim they just need new laws and we don't need to enforce the existing ones.
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.
Noztradamus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 07:46 PM   #811
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,504
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
I wonder how significantly those odds are reduced by carrying a firearm wherever you go.
Do you think they would be reduced? Seems like they could be increased instead.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 07:52 PM   #812
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 19,459
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Do you think they would be reduced? Seems like they could be increased instead.

Yup.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 08:51 PM   #813
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,502
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Do you think they would be reduced? Seems like they could be increased instead.
Why would they increase? Because the carrier would shoot him or herself? Or someone might see their gun and shoot them?
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 10:00 PM   #814
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,504
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Why would they increase? Because the carrier would shoot him or herself? Or someone might see their gun and shoot them?
I don't know that it would increase, but the reasons you mention are possibilities. Also, sometimes police shoot people after mistaking a wallet or cell phone for a gun, so it stands to reason your odds of being shot by the police go up if you carry an actual gun. It's also possible that if someone gets pissed off at you they might feel they need their own gun if they know you have a gun. Also, if you happen to be in an active shooter situation, that shooter has more incentive to shoot you first.

Which is all very unlikely, but remember you're comparing it to a very unlikely possibility that you might be the good-guy with a gun at a time and place where a bad-guy with a gun decides to start shooting people. Compared to that the very low possibility that you might accidently shoot yourself or get shot by someone who thinks you're a threat is statistically significant.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 10:29 PM   #815
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,504
Looking over some statistics on gun deaths, it turns out that almost two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides, so if you exclude those then the odds of being killed by someone else with a gun drop to one in 30,000.

https://everytownresearch.org/gun-vi...arlyGunMurders

Which suggests to me that even in the United States, you just don't need to carry a gun to be safe from a potential shooter.

I want to be clear, I'm not against guns. I have no problem with people who like to hunt, target shoot, or even people who feel they need them for self defense.

What I don't get is this extreme opposition to any regulation at all. Why not background checks? Why not close gun-show loopholes? Why not prohibit people convicted of domestic violence from owning guns?

It seems like there are measures that can be taken that would reduce tragedy yet still have very little impact on the responsible gun owners, but they're blocked or undermined by a small number of people who are opposed on ideological grounds to doing anything at all.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 02:10 AM   #816
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,564
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Which suggests to me that even in the United States, you just don't need to carry a gun to be safe from a potential shooter.
You don't until you do.

Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
I want to be clear, I'm not against guns. I have no problem with people who like to hunt, target shoot, or even people who feel they need them for self defense.
Facts not in evidence.

Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
What I don't get is this extreme opposition to any regulation at all. Why not background checks? Why not close gun-show loopholes? Why not prohibit people convicted of domestic violence from owning guns?
A Domestic Violence conviction already is suppose to put the individual on the prohibited list. See the catch phrase "gun show loophole" addressed below.

Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
It seems like there are measures that can be taken that would reduce tragedy yet still have very little impact on the responsible gun owners, but they're blocked or undermined by a small number of people who are opposed on ideological grounds to doing anything at all.
The numbers are not as small as you seem to think they are. Everything proposed is mostly oriented toward the responsible gun owner law abiding citizen because they are by definition the ONLY ones who obey laws. Criminals don't, no matter how many laws are on the books.

You obviously haven't read the thread. Many proposals have been discussed at length throughout the thread. These haven't been addressed quite as much as our leftist friends from across the ocean telling us how stupid we are and how much superior they are to the Colonials.

The so called "gun show loophole" meme is misnamed. In reality it's private sales. Only FFL's have access the the NICS for background checks. Individuals don't. So, even tho' according to polls Universal Background checks are supported nation wide, I suspect most voters don't really know what that means. It's tantamount to the Govt interfering in private commerce between citizens because private sales likely would be prohibited with everything bought and sold through an FFL Dealer. There is an alternative with a License to show an individual has passed an NICS background check, but no legislation has been proposed AFAIK. Instead we get such things as Finestein's ban on AR-15's. It's tantamount to the "black rifle" bans that have been proposed and defeated in the past. As has been pointed out many voters vote based on single issues. One of the largest is gun rights. So, these voters are fed up with the nonsense and will vote any legislator out of office in the pro gun areas of the Country if they perceive them as anti-gun rights. This is mostly in the Heartland, the South and Southwest. Note, anyone who brings up proposed legislation is generally from the left or right coast in liberal districts and it's usually a stupid proposal that won't sell to the voters not in their districts. Consequently, nothing ever gets done.
__________________
[Noc]
Reheat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 04:05 AM   #817
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 13,151
Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
Because I could be shot like a chicken ?
Is Czech society that violent?
Do you carry a gun when you nip to the shop for a pint of milk or go to work?

Couldn't you be 'shot like a chicken' anyway? How would a potential shooter know you were carrying a concealed weapon?
Captain_Swoop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 04:44 AM   #818
Aber
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,004
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Statistically your odds of dying from a gunshot in any given year is about one in ten thousand, and that includes suicides and accidents.

If you honestly feel unsafe with those odds, then you probably don't drive either as that's about 40 times more likely to kill you.
Got some evidence to back up the claim that driving is much more dangerous?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...n_U.S._by_year

US motor vehicle deaths 2016 - 37461.

Are you really claiming US gun deaths are less than 1000 pa?
Aber is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 08:22 AM   #819
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,504
Originally Posted by Aber View Post
Got some evidence to back up the claim that driving is much more dangerous?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...n_U.S._by_year

US motor vehicle deaths 2016 - 37461.

Are you really claiming US gun deaths are less than 1000 pa?
No, you're right. I got my figures by asking my phone and got a global figure of 1.3 million instead of the national figure. Using your figure one is only about 3 1/2 times more likely to die in a car crash in a year.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 10:32 AM   #820
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,874
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
The so called "gun show loophole" meme is misnamed. In reality it's private sales. Only FFL's have access the the NICS for background checks. Individuals don't. So, even tho' according to polls Universal Background checks are supported nation wide, I suspect most voters don't really know what that means. It's tantamount to the Govt interfering in private commerce between citizens because private sales likely would be prohibited with everything bought and sold through an FFL Dealer.
Once again a slippery slope logical fallacy rears it's ugly head.

Colorado implemented universal background checks after the Aurora Theater shootings. It's a minor inconvenience and a minor expense for those buying from a private seller. It's a major barrier for those who can't pass a background check who want to buy a gun anyway.
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 10:59 AM   #821
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,504
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
You don't until you do.
For the vast majority of people that is never. Let’s be real about this.

Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
Facts not in evidence.
My testimony on my opinion is evidence, and given that I’m the world’s leading authority on what my opinion is, if you choose to disbelieve it, then I can’t help you with your paranoia.

Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
A Domestic Violence conviction already is suppose to put the individual on the prohibited list. See the catch phrase "gun show loophole" addressed below.
Well that’s great to hear, except this guy managed to get around it because the system has huge gaps in it which we can’t address because our lawmakers are just too damned busy having moments of silence and respectfully waiting for enough time to have passed.

Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
The numbers are not as small as you seem to think they are. Everything proposed is mostly oriented toward the responsible gun owner law abiding citizen because they are by definition the ONLY ones who obey laws. Criminals don't, no matter how many laws are on the books.
The numbers of what?

I’ve heard the talking point thousands of times. Lawbreakers don’t obey laws, so what’s the point of having laws? It must be anarchy in the streets because those lawbreakers are just running around doing whatever they want; rape, murder, setting people on fire, littering, and all kinds of things.

Only not. The reality is most people, even lawbreakers, obey most of the laws most of the time, and if the goal of perfect compliance is unattainable that doesn’t mean we should just give up. There are still things we can do differently and things we can do better than can make a difference. Your talking point is designed to shut down discussion when we need to have a discussion.

Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
You obviously haven't read the thread. Many proposals have been discussed at length throughout the thread. These haven't been addressed quite as much as our leftist friends from across the ocean telling us how stupid we are and how much superior they are to the Colonials.
Those leftists overseas sure are annoying, aren’t they? Always judging, always looking down at us, flaunting their health-care, being horrified at our casual acceptance of death, turning their noses up at our inferior chocolates all the while knowing that if the SHTF it’s going to be the U.S. of A. that will save the day with our F-35’s and M1 Abrams riding in to spend our blood and treasure to stamp out fascism and/or halt the spread of communism by force. Those guys overseas just don’t have the testosterone levels to do it themselves, do they?

I’m proud to be an American. I’m openly nationalist in the face of people who think “nationalism” is a dirty word akin to fascist. I get it if you think just because things are done in a certain way in the United Kingdom or the EU it doesn’t in itself mean we should do it that way here. We are different, we have a different culture, and we can come up with different solutions to problems. At the same time, if we ignore what they're doing when it works, then we're stupid.

I believe in American Exceptionalism, but I believe American Exceptionalism is a responsibility we’ve taken on ourselves and not a state of grace conferred by a higher power. If we want to be the “City upon a Hill” then we need to recognize that cities need infrastructure and rebuilding and that complacency leads to deterioration and decay. If we allow that complacency then someone else will assume that role of leadership, as they should.

Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
The so called "gun show loophole" meme is misnamed. In reality it's private sales. Only FFL's have access the the NICS for background checks. Individuals don't.
Look, you’ve just identified a problem that can be fixed. More people need access to the NICS to do background checks. Can that be discussed by our legislatures, or is it too soon? Also, is it impossible to distinguish between gun shows that draw tens of thousands as opposed to me buying my neighbors gun? It seems to me it should be possible to legislate one and not the other. Am I wrong?

Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
So, even tho' according to polls Universal Background checks are supported nation wide, I suspect most voters don't really know what that means. It's tantamount to the Govt interfering in private commerce between citizens because private sales likely would be prohibited with everything bought and sold through an FFL Dealer. There is an alternative with a License to show an individual has passed an NICS background check, but no legislation has been proposed AFAIK. Instead we get such things as Finestein's ban on AR-15's. It's tantamount to the "black rifle" bans that have been proposed and defeated in the past. As has been pointed out many voters vote based on single issues. One of the largest is gun rights. So, these voters are fed up with the nonsense and will vote any legislator out of office in the pro gun areas of the Country if they perceive them as anti-gun rights. This is mostly in the Heartland, the South and Southwest. Note, anyone who brings up proposed legislation is generally from the left or right coast in liberal districts and it's usually a stupid proposal that won't sell to the voters not in their districts. Consequently, nothing ever gets done.
You suspect? Likely?

You can’t complain about how the discussion might go if you refuse to participate. If all the proposals from the left don’t make sense, then people from the right should make proposals that do make sense. I agree banning “black rifles” or AR-15s isn’t the answer, but that highlighted section seems to contain a proposal that could make a difference. That some ideas don’t make sense is not an excuse to block all ideas all the time.

Last edited by Mycroft; 12th November 2017 at 11:04 AM.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 11:36 AM   #822
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,502
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
Once again a slippery slope logical fallacy rears it's ugly head.

Colorado implemented universal background checks ....
In 2014 I was told that the law was good for Colorado, so why not WA? If it was that good they would have written something the same as that in Colorado instead of the crap that got passed in WA.

The Democrats and Republicans are slowing eroding away the requirements of WA's bkgd check law amended by I-594. During the 2017 session SB 5552 was passed which allows me to hand a gun to a person at a rifle range so I can teach them to shoot. This was illegal unless I kept the gun at the range at all times; now I just need to be there while they use it.

WA's bkgd check bill was poorly written to say the least. The latest amendment to 9.41.113 passed with no one opposing it at all. When even the anti-gun legislators vote to change the bkgd check law, you know the law sucked or there was some serious deal making going on behind the scenes. Seeing as how everyone voted yes, I tend to lean towards "they thought the law sucked and needed to be changed" attitude.

SB 5552; http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/bienni...%20%C2%A7%202;

SB 5552 history; http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?Bi...5552&Year=2017
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 11:50 AM   #823
Civet
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,175
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
Once again a slippery slope logical fallacy rears it's ugly head.

Colorado implemented universal background checks after the Aurora Theater shootings. It's a minor inconvenience and a minor expense for those buying from a private seller. It's a major barrier for those who can't pass a background check who want to buy a gun anyway.
Taking a quick gander at the Colorado law, it looks to be a good model for how I'd like to see universal background checks work. It sets a low maximum cost for the service and allows for a variety of reasonable exceptions. Also makes a point of treating short-term transfers differently which makes sense to me. Seems like the type of law you'd pass to make it harder to buy guns illegally while only minimally burdening legal buyers and sellers.
Civet is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 01:32 PM   #824
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,874
Originally Posted by Civet View Post
Taking a quick gander at the Colorado law, it looks to be a good model for how I'd like to see universal background checks work. It sets a low maximum cost for the service and allows for a variety of reasonable exceptions. Also makes a point of treating short-term transfers differently which makes sense to me. Seems like the type of law you'd pass to make it harder to buy guns illegally while only minimally burdening legal buyers and sellers.
The legislative process is supposed to generate this kind of result. Ranb is correct that Washington's law wasn't as well considered. But that was a citizen initiative, not a law passed by the legislature. Why didn't the legislature act first instead of waiting for a citizen's initiative to force the issue?

I suspect that compliance with Colorado's universal background check law is far from 100%. Colorado has lots of gun rights activists who despise what those damn city dwelling leftists in the legislature have done. But even these people are going to be more careful about selling firearms under the table. Helping a stranger avoid the small fee for a background check puts you at risk of losing your right to own firearms.
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 03:01 PM   #825
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,502
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
The legislative process is supposed to generate this kind of result. Ranb is correct that Washington's law wasn't as well considered. But that was a citizen initiative, not a law passed by the legislature. Why didn't the legislature act first instead of waiting for a citizen's initiative to force the issue?
The Democrats killed the bkgd check bill (1588-2014) in committee by refusing to give it an executive hearing. I suspect that the initiative passed partly due to the "pink unicorn, everyone's going to love this" summary in the WA voter's guide which didn't have the key words "all transfers without limitation" in it.

Based on my conversations with people, most don't bother to read beyond the summary in the voter's guide prior to voting yes. I've voted no on various initiatives without going further than the guide, but a yes vote gets more research on my part.

Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
I suspect that compliance with Colorado's universal background check law is far from 100%. Colorado has lots of gun rights activists who despise what those damn city dwelling leftists in the legislature have done. But even these people are going to be more careful about selling firearms under the table. Helping a stranger avoid the small fee for a background check puts you at risk of losing your right to own firearms.
I know it is the case in WA. Soon after I-594 passed a bunch of people gathered Olympia to opening violate the ban in front of the police; no arrests were made. As far as I know only one arrest for a violation of the new law has been made; it got lots of press. I think we'd hear more about it if there were others. Much has been made about criminals who were foolish enough to test the system at a gun store and were denied; no arrests made even though the 4473 is a written confession for the most part.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 03:48 PM   #826
Aber
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,004
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
No, you're right. I got my figures by asking my phone and got a global figure of 1.3 million instead of the national figure. Using your figure one is only about 3 1/2 times more likely to die in a car crash in a year.
No, you've moved the goalposts - deaths from guns and death in vehicles are approximately the same.

What are the relative odds of being murdered by a vehicle and by a gun?
Aber is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 05:02 PM   #827
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,504
Originally Posted by Aber View Post
No, you've moved the goalposts - deaths from guns and death in vehicles are approximately the same.

What are the relative odds of being murdered by a vehicle and by a gun?
Thread back and you will see you are the one who is moving the goalposts, or at least misidentifying them.

The question was about how safe do you feel, and if it's rational to feel so unsafe that you need to carry a gun to protect yourself from hostile shooters, such as the church shooting that started this thread. My opinion is if you think the one in ten thousand odds per year is a significant threat, then you are too paranoid for me to feel comfortable with you having a gun.

I have no doubt far more people are murdered with guns than with cars, and that probably holds true for almost any lethal weapon.



Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 05:32 PM   #828
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,277
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Is Czech society that violent?
Do you carry a gun when you nip to the shop for a pint of milk or go to work?

Couldn't you be 'shot like a chicken' anyway? How would a potential shooter know you were carrying a concealed weapon?
Czech is perfectly fine. In Prague at night, I might get robbed. I most probably would be. Stabbed if I had really bad luck. But shot ? Hardly. Not our sport.
I'm talking about US. Where the sport of shooting people is very popular.
I can't imagine living in US, and have my family shot in front of my eyes, in calm and methodical way, the way it was done in this church shooting, being just unable to do anything. Sure, you can't prepare for everything. But you can prepare for something. I'd rather spend the money, spend the time, risk the chance of accident, risk the chance of suicide.
Dr.Sid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:59 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.