Another week, another school shooting

[smooth]

that's a national average. as I've pointed out elsewhere, some of our cities have become dramatically safer than they were during the height of the crack epidemic, and some have become more dangerous than flipping a coin. so an average can start to downward trend while murders in certain locations can go much higher than they have been historically. compare the last time there was a school shooting in *Oregon* and then you would start to understand how this works. and then consider why Oregonians would be concerned...

regardless, also as I've pointed out elsewhere, our national average is particularly high compared to the pre 1950's crime spike and then it was extraordinarily high compared to other western democratic nations. now we're stratospherically higher relative to them.

what motivates you to get hung up on whether we have 34 youth murdered or 11 per year and that somehow only losing a dozen children to gun violence while they're on their way to school, away from it, or at it is somehow "success"?

[mrsleeve]

^

Hence why we have different laws in different states or even different neighborhoods. The locality issue is a moot point a best since each state has its own ability to regulate and enforce its own laws. Good try though.


Why is it then where the most restrictive firearms laws in the country are in place, yet have the worst rates for gun crime then????

[smooth]

^

Hence why we have different laws in different states or even different neighborhoods. The locality issue is a moot point a best since each state has its own ability to regulate and enforce its own laws.


Why is it then where the most restrictive firearms laws in the country are in place, yet have the worst rates for gun crime then????

I don't understand your first point in context so I can't really respond to it. It certainly doesn't have any bearing on murder since the definition of murder and the punishment for murder is the same in all localities in the US.

As for your second question, if we take a place like Chicago for example, it turns out that while Chicago has very strict laws they don't extend into the suburbs. So if you are in the city it's very difficult to buy a gun, but if you go a few miles out from the city center you can buy dozens of guns during a single purchase and easily dump them back in the city.

Similar kinds of issues arise when considering other high gun crime areas like DC with strict laws but very close proximity to neighboring states with lax laws. Oregon, for example, is extremely loose with firearm regulation while California is tight. Guns easily flow across the border since we don't have metal detectors strung across the border. And of course, the latest school shooting was in Oregon. So kinda hard to hang one's hat on that one...

I assume you are asking rhetorically and that you feel you make a huge point whenever you bring this up. I always have to repeat myself when in fact just sitting down and thinking things through for all of about 30 seconds should illustrate the problem you keep trying to ignore. quite baffling really

[marshallnoise]

I don't understand your first point in context so I can't really respond to it. It certainly doesn't have any bearing on murder since the definition of murder and the punishment for murder is the same in all localities in the US.

As for your second question, if we take a place like Chicago for example, it turns out that while Chicago has very strict laws they don't extend into the suburbs. So if you are in the city it's very difficult to buy a gun, but if you go a few miles out from the city center you can buy dozens of guns during a single purchase and easily dump them back in the city.

Similar kinds of issues arise when considering other high gun crime areas like DC with strict laws but very close proximity to neighboring states with lax laws. Oregon, for example, is extremely loose with firearm regulation while California is tight. Guns easily flow across the border since we don't have metal detectors strung across the border.

I assume you are asking rhetorically and that you feel you make a huge point whenever you bring this up. I always have to repeat myself when in fact just sitting down and thinking things through for all of about 30 seconds should illustrate the problem you keep trying to ignore. quite baffling really

Ban more guns. That'll do it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[smooth]

as pretty much everyone on this board has posted ad nauseum most sane and rational people would be content to start with a simple background check

I'd add to that and argue for strict regulations about straw purchases and unregulated 3rd party sales

[mrsleeve]

My point was that each state and many localities can make their own firearms regulations, and do so on a very regular basis. I am sorry this has gone over your head (again) and point of that was to show that if a state or locality wishes to further restrict firearms with in the bounds of the Constitution with in their Jurisdiction in response to a particular action or trend they are free to do so.

as pretty much everyone on this board has posted ad nauseum most sane and rational people would be content to start with a simple background check

I'd add to that and argue for strict regulations about straw purchases and unregulated 3rd party sales

We have all this already so whats your point.


it is quite baffling when you have all the laws you wish to have in place that restrict LAW ABIDING citizens, yet does little to stop what those that already have no regard for the law form doing what they do..... Yes its quite baffling why you would want to continue that behavior and apply it too the rest of the nation, Yup thats sure to work out well. About as well as Chicago, DC, Philly, and Oakland

[smooth]

My point was that each state and many localities can make their own firearms regulations, and do so on a very regular basis. I am sorry this has gone over your head (again) and point of that was to show that if a state or locality wishes to further restrict firearms with in the bounds of the Constitution with in their Jurisdiction in response to a particular action or trend they are free to do so.




We have all this already so whats your point.

it's not gone over my head it's just a non-sequitor to the discussion so it's confusing why you bothered to mention it at all. What exactly is your point?

Which state are you living in that requires background checks for private party sales?

[marshallnoise]

it's not gone over my head it's just a non-sequitor to the discussion so it's confusing why you bothered to mention it at all. What exactly is your point?

Which state are you living in that requires background checks for private party sales?

To what end would that help anything?

What exactly is the non sequitor in the discussion here?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[smooth]

we're having a discussion about school shootings and a graph is posted demonstrating that the national average for school shootings are going down

ignoring, of course, that it doesn't include Sandy Hook, or anything past 2010 for that matter, which ended with 20 children dead, 6 adults, the shooter and his mother thereby damn near tripling the entire country's incidents in 2010 in a singular incident! why that is somehow counted as "success" is baffling to me, but speaks perhaps more to a depraved and sick mentality that permeates some of the people in this society who are "ok" with this kind of violence and death that our children are forced to endure in the name of politics.

in any case, so we're having this discussion about school shootings and I respond to the graph to point out that it's misleading to understand it as an accurate portrayal of school shooting trends across the country since it's an average.

for example, comparing the Sandy Hook incident to the latest Oregon shooting, even if there were just 3 more just like the Oregon incident (and in total less than a handful of deaths), we'd still have to discuss whether we are seeing an uptick of school shootings even though the total murders are lower than the singular Sandy Hook incident.

his response? well localities can implement their own policies.
that's a non-sequitor. Educate yourself on what that term means if you're still confused.



as to your question of what use mandating that private party sales were subject to the same background checks that gun stores had to adhere to, if you can't comprehend the answer on your own then no amount of explaining from me is going to help you understand any better. sorry I can't help you with rudimentary comprehension skills. hopefully someone else in the thread will take the time to explain how gun sales work.

[marshallnoise]

we're having a discussion about school shootings and a graph is posted demonstrating that the national average for school shootings are going down

ignoring, of course, that it doesn't include Sandy Hook, or anything past 2010 for that matter, which ended with 20 children dead, 6 adults, the shooter and his mother thereby damn near tripling the entire country's incidents in 2010 in a singular incident! why that is somehow counted as "success" is baffling to me, but speaks perhaps more to a depraved and sick mentality that permeates some of the people in this society who are "ok" with this kind of violence and death that our children are forced to endure in the name of politics.

in any case, so we're having this discussion about school shootings and I respond to the graph to point out that it's misleading to understand it as an accurate portrayal of school shooting trends across the country since it's an average.

for example, comparing the Sandy Hook incident to the latest Oregon shooting, even if there were just 3 more just like the Oregon incident (and in total less than a handful of deaths), we'd still have to discuss whether we are seeing an uptick of school shootings even though the total murders are lower than the singular Sandy Hook incident.

his response? well localities can implement their own policies.
that's a non-sequitor. Educate yourself on what that term means if you're still confused.



as to your question of what use mandating that private party sales were subject to the same background checks that gun stores had to adhere to, if you can't comprehend the answer on your own then no amount of explaining from me is going to help you understand any better. sorry I can't help you with rudimentary comprehension skills. hopefully someone else in the thread will take the time to explain how gun sales work.

You are being a dick for no reason. The definition of non sequitor does not apply. It is a perfectly related. Especially know how our government is designed to work. Which you ignore completely and cast off as unrelated.

I am also aware of how private party sales work. Requiring background checks puts an unnecessary burden on individuals. What is it you would have them do? Effectively, you would make private party sales so burdensome that you would make them pointless.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[smooth]

Requiring background checks puts an unnecessary burden on individuals. What is it you would have them do? Effectively, you would make private party sales so burdensome that you would make them pointless.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

I would have private party sellers go to a federally licensed firearm dealer, the dealer would do a background check, the dealer would retain record of the transaction. That's exactly how we do it in California, which you aren't apparently aware of given your comments despite the fact you supposedly live in San Diego North County, and there are plenty of legal private party gun sales in California even with this "burdensome" requirement.

back to the thread, in Oregon where the school shooting happened, someone who wouldn't be eligible to buy a firearm can ask his or her buddy to do it and they both go in the store together and purchase the firearm, the buddy hands it off with no record of transaction and it's perfectly legal. that gun can (and does) travel illegally into California where we have to scrape it off the street along with the brains and blood of some dumb teenager and hopefully not a pre-teen caught in the crossfire.

I'm not being a dick for no reason. I'm not even being a dick, but if I was I'd have every reason since you insist on trolling these threads and "acting" dense like you're making valid points...over and over the same trash points comes out of you regardless of refutation or sound logic. despite your views being in opposition to the majority of americans, both gun owning and non-gun owning alike, despite every single factoid to the contrary. you persist.

but the worst is that you remain callous to the string of deaths of innocent children. even going so far as to argue someone into the ground who pointed out that your position of running away from danger in a similar situation even if you were armed was cowardice. that's not something to be proud of by any measure. and if this was happening anywhere else but an anonymous internet forum the bystanders would be wondering why *you* were being such a "dick"

[mrsleeve]

it's not gone over my head it's just a non-sequitor to the discussion so it's confusing why you bothered to mention it at all. What exactly is your point?

Which state are you living in that requires background checks for private party sales?

Michigan Pistols, Any state requiring registration 1 small part of the reason I dont live in MI anymore

[smooth]

Michigan Pistols, Any state requiring registration 1 small part of the reason I dont live in MI anymore

Your answer confuses me. I asked where you are living that requires private party background checks...since you asked me why I supported that policy change if "we already have background checks?"

so you live in a state that does *not* require background checks and you're asking me why I desire to mandate background checks for private party sales?

and you're also confused as to why some states with stricter gun regulations still experience high rates of gun violence despite those regulations?

and we're having this discussion in a thread about a school shooting in a state that does not mandate background checks, or any records for that matter, of private party sales?

are you being facetious?


Michigan doesn't regulate private party sales of long firearms, the kind that was used in this school shooting, and allows anyone from any state to purchase those weapons in MI. Someone with a felony murder on their record could travel to MI and purchase a rifle from a private party and use it to commit another murder. Why would you support that kind of loophole?


edit: in fact, in your state Montana, private party sales are *not* subject to background checks. and even more alarming, dealers don't even have to perform a background check if the purchaser presents certain state permits to the dealer at the time of purchase. CCW permit holders, even if they've had their permits revoked but the state hasn't notified the database quickly enough, aren't subject to background checks.

it's bizarre why you would support those kinds of loopholes in your own state. that means that you, a law abiding citizen with a valid CCW, can purchase a firearm without a background check. but someone who is arrested and convicted of violent assault but still holding his CCW that hasn't been yanked in the database yet can *also* purchase another firearm without a background check.

and currently, if the state did yank that permit in time, the purchaser can still go down to the store with his friend and do a straw purchase and obtain the gun anyway. you wouldn't do that, because you wouldn't have to. and if your state closed that loophole he wouldn't be able to do it and you would be literally unaffected because you'd still be able to pass a background check (and in fact, aren't even subject to one).

If those loopholes were shored up, you'd still be able to purchase your firearm in the same amount of time but the person convicted of violent assault wouldn't be. Why would you be opposed to those policy changes?

[smooth]

http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/11/ar...oming-the-norm




Hrm...

I knew something was bugging me about this chart but couldn't place why the numbers were off.

Then I recalled that last spring, when I taught Intro to Crim Justice system to a few hundred students, I led off with the Virginia Tech incident to get my students to talk about how our various bureaucracies interact with one another (or in that scenario failed to as it were).

So for those who have forgotten the incident, Mr. Cho killed 32 people and wounded 25 others.
You can see how the black and dark green lines for 2007 can't account for those murders (and doesn't even attempt to illustrate "wounded" -- I'll come to that in a bit). The BJS doesn't actually explicitly state this, you have to extrapolate it from the data, but it's only tabulating elementary through secondary schools.

We have to keep in mind that college shootings aren't accounted for in that data.
Colleges, and certainly parents sending their "kids" off to college, are part of our "school" system regardless of where the law cuts off childhood from adulthood (and keeping in mind that colleges consider people under the age of 25 as minor dependents).


Now, as to why I mentioned "casualties" as a point of interest. There have been a few studies in my field, most recently by a group of Harvard doctors, who have argued that part of the reduction in our gun deaths is, at least in large part, due to medical advances. Simply put, those 25 victims that lived would probably not have lived had they been shot a few decades ago. The advances in medicine, also in large part responsible for reducing military deaths, were spearheaded in metro hospital trauma centers in response to the catastrophic murder rates at the height of the crack epidemic in this country.

That's why, for those of us who study and write about gun violence in the US, we use hospital admittance records when tabulating the other three violence sources for a more accurate picture of what's going on.

There's no rosy picture about any of this.

[mrsleeve]

No you asked where there are backgrounds for P/P transaction I told you where.

We have back ground checks, everyone that buys a firearm at retail MUST fill out a 4470. The 1st question address the straw purchaser situation. You falsify a govt doc..... well you know how that will go.

Private party sale is just that..... States can make laws to regulate this, but there is a catch......

The Private party transactions "loop hole" as you call is the very thing that makes the 4470 and the whole NICS system LEGAL . DO you deny that the 2a grants everyone not convicted of a felony, or adjudicated mentally defective (I will give you those 2) the RIGHTS to own and bare arms??? Simple yes or no question.

If yes then to be allowed to own or acquire property why do I have to ask the govt permission to use my enumerated rights??? OH thats right I DONT!!!!! I dont have to fill out a 4470 unless I wish to buy form a FFL. Since FFLs seem to have the most firearms for sale at any given time and they seem to have the ability to acquire something you might want if they dont have it on the shelf in a few days, most people buy from the retail market out of convenience and there by fill out their background check form and ask permission.

Well if your willing to wait, you can buy your firearm from your neighbor when he wants to sell something..... Its this avenue to utilizing a protected right, that makes your NICS even legal in the 1st place. The hitch is you might not get what you actually want or in the condition you want it in, but you can participate with out the nanny state getting into your private business. With the MI B/G check and all other "registration" states the check is not at the point of sale or by the feds, its your local PD generally, and a condition of state law to own that particular type of weapon... Which as far as I know has not met a major legal challenge.

Its not the job of the govt to PREVENT CRIME, or really to even stop it for that matter, its their job to investigate it and prosecute those it believes responsible for purporting it. The whole NICS is a bogus sham in the 1st place, but its legal because you dont have to participate with in it if you wish not too. Its the same principal that makes driving, flying, or even getting on a bus a PRIVILEGE, your freedom of travel is not being violated by denying you a means of transportation since there are many other ways to get where you want to go, even if that is by walking. By making you fill out a 4470 to buy a retail firearm is not violating your rights since you dont have to participate with in that system.

As to long guns and crime they are not as severally regulated because they are not the issue when it comes to crimes here is a handy chart form the FBI showing that Rifles and shotguns combined account for less than .08% of total firearms homicides. Yup those are really the issue. We should stop selling cars because people might go crashing through a mall in another state with it too....

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8