Home
Warning: This blog is written for a rational audience that likes to have fun wrestling with unique or controversial points of view. It is written in a style that can easily be confused as advocacy for one sort of unpleasantness or another. It is not intended to change anyone's beliefs or actions. If you quote from this post or link to it, which you are welcome to do, please take responsibility for whatever happens if you mismatch the audience and the content.

----------------------------

School Shootings

Is the rise of school shootings in America a case of too many guns or a simple failure to keep guns away from kids? Gun locks and gun safes exist.

That's not a rhetorical question. I actually wonder about the answer.

I assume 90% of the kids who become school shooters get their weapons from adults who left them unguarded. Correct me in the comments if I'm wrong.

I know you're furiously trying to determine if I am pro-gun or anti-gun so you can decide how much extra to hate me. So let me state my position as clearly as possible:

I am pro-data.

And the data is incomplete.

Obviously there's a strong correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths. But how much of that is causation as opposed to correlation? One can never know if Americans own guns because we're violent people or we're violent because we own guns. Isn't it likely to be some of both?

Common sense says that having guns lying around the house makes gun violence more likely. But we don't know if the accessibility factor is 10% of the story or 90%. Maybe the rate of stabbings would skyrocket if guns disappeared and that would close some of the violence gap. My point is that it's hard to size the problem of gun risk, and that matters because the goal is low risk not zero risk. If we wanted zero risk in all things at the expense of personal freedom we would fill every swimming pool with bubble wrap.

We also can't know if gun ownership will ever protect future citizens from the tyranny of the government. One argument says that the army has the biggest guns and so citizens are effectively defenseless if the government becomes a dictatorship. Therefore, owning a gun doesn't protect you from the government.

The counterargument is that if an American becomes a dictator, every one of his friends and extended family members would be bullet-riddled by the end of the week courtesy of the gun owners. What would be the point of becoming a dictator in a country where you can't leave your enclave and you just killed most of the people you care about with your actions? I think gun ownership does add a thin layer of protection against a risk of a dictatorship by rational leaders, but that risk is of unknown size. How do you value the thing that might happen but doesn't?

We also don't know what would happen if we went hog-wild with gun control. Would we suddenly become Great Britain and prefer slapping each other with open palms instead of shooting? Or would it turn into another Prohibition fiasco? Nothing sells more guns than the threat of gun control in the future.

In the long run, all violent criminals will be caught every time. That's the payoff from our creeping lack of privacy. When that day comes, rational adults such as criminals will be doing less shooting because there is no hope of getting away with it. And if we keep guns away from kids, with mandatory gun locks for example, that helps with the school shooting problem.

Once the rational criminals and the kids are neutered, that leaves only the irrational adults with guns as our remaining problem. And probably the best defense against that bunch of nuts involves owning your own gun. But I can't back that assumption with data.

Anecdotally, I have one friend who gunned down a would-be rapist who broke into her house. And I have another friend who would have been raped by an intruder if her boyfriend hadn't coincidentally spent the night and taken out the intruder by hand. A gun would have worked if he hadn't been there. But those are anecdotes not data.

The only thing I know for sure is that the "It is in the constitution" argument is misplaced. No matter what the founders had in mind at the time, we have the option to change it. So the question is what makes sense today, not what a bunch of hemp-smoking slave-owners thought hundreds of years ago.

I'm curious if you think you have enough data to form an opinion on the topic of American gun control. Gun control qualifies as common sense, but in my experience common sense in the context of insufficient data is irrationality in disguise.

To be fair, both sides of the debate have insufficient data and so they must default to using what they feel is common sense but isn't. (If it were common, both sides would agree.). So I don't think irrationality is limited to one side of the debate.

Scott

 
Rank Up Rank Down Votes:  +110
  • Print
  • Share

Comments

Sort By:
Jun 18, 2014
[Carelessness, irresponsibility and yes, even mental in stability are general societal problems and such people shouldn't have access to automobiles, sharp instruments or take care of children. But they do. We can't eliminate all or even most risks and such arguments are fatuous.]

Thats just matter of negotiating where to draw the line. In that regard, your stance would be equally as ridiculous as the stance you paint me as having.
Are you actually saying that there are no more risks that are worth making even an ounce of an effort at reducing?

How about this: how many of the existing measures against gun violence/accidents do you think we should ditch, using that exact same argument (i.e 'can't reduce risk to 0 anyway')? Where would you draw the line, and what would be your overall rationale?
 
 
Jun 18, 2014
You still seem to be missing my point. I'm already past the "lets ban all guns for everyone".
For clarity, let's focus on the mentally ill only. I'm saying, lets try to avoid giving guns to them. At the risk of sounding like mr Obama: if you have a gun, you can keep your gun. I'm only talking about preventing existing guns from falling into the hands of unstable people.

Are you still going to say that that wouldn't make gun rampages by the mentally ill less likely?
 
 
Jun 18, 2014
[Forget about the criminal element. I'm talking about the careless, irresponsible and mentally unstable. Or do you believe that addressing those is magic as well? ]

Mental illness is not a gun control issue. As I've already pointed out, both Britain and Australia banned personal firearms in response to rampaging nutters, and both nations have experienced rampages regardless. I've never claimed that owning a firearm is safer for yourself than not owning a firearm, but it's a statistical fact that (within the United States) regions where gun ownership is more common and more dispersed, the rates of violent crime tend to be lower. This has been true within the US for as long as we've been keeping such records. That is the entire premise of the tome "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott, the largest collection & study of crime and weapons statistics that has ever been performed anywhere, ever. Every single time that a state passed a 'shall issue' concealed carry license, that state experienced a general drop in violent crime for the following 6 years. Every time. While it's hard to compare the crime rates of different states, because they have different cultures and different histories; it's not difficult to compare the crime rates of the same states over time, and point out the inflection points in the data. BTW, I was living in Cincinnati, Ohio in the 1990's when Kentucky passed it's concealed carry law. While Covington & Newport, Kentucky (across the Ohio river from Cincinnati) were experiencing reductions in violent crime, Cincinnati was experiencing increases; implying that career criminals were actually moving across the river to avoid armed victims. During this time, the worst area of Cincinnati (known as Over the Rhine) was experiencing at least one murder per day. It's much lower now that Ohio has passed a concealed carry license as well.

Again, no one is asking you to carry a gun; but you undeniablely benefit from the fact that some of your neighbors do. They take upon themselves the inherent risks of gun ownership, without expectation of thanks or support from you. You're a free rider, and benefit from the 'herd immunity' effect of concealed weapons. As far as the original topic goes, there is zero evidence that concealed carry laws, nor persons with concealed carry permits, has ever made a rampage shooter situation worse than it otherwise could have been; and plenty of examples wherein the presence of an armed citizen made the situation better than it otherwise would have been. Furthermore, CCW license holders are a particularly law abiding lot; the odds of such a self-selecting group turning bad are so low, the FBI doesn't even had data above the nominal margin of error. Statisticly speaking, any adult who is both willing and able to pursue a state license to carry concealed is MORE trustworthy than a uniformed police officer. Rationally, society would want more of such a group, not less.
 
 
Jun 18, 2014
cpbower,
snopes is famous for being wrong. They especially tend to err on the side of left leaning politics.
Check out this link:
http://godfatherpolitics.com/8975/australian-gun-ban-resulted-in-higher-gun-crimes-not-lower/
I also found several other links confirming crime has gone up in Australia since their gun ban.
 
 
Jun 18, 2014
[If all gun owners were law-abiding, the law-abiding wouldn't ever feel they have a need to own a firearm in the first place, would they? The criminal element exists.]

Forget about the criminal element. I'm talking about the careless, irresponsible and mentally unstable. Or do you believe that addressing those is magic as well?
 
 
Jun 18, 2014
Another wonderful resource for relevant news is thearmedcitizen.com

Here's just a couple...

The tension between rivel teenagers escalated as groups of supporters from both sides began making threats over the social media website Facebook. The dispute erupted into an all-out brawl when opposing groups met in person. One boy struck a female several times in the face...
<snip>
A concealed carry license holder nearby pulled his own firearm after witnessing the assault. He ordered the teens to break it up, which cause the group to flee. No shots were fired. Both males involved were later arrested and charged...
(Boston Herald, Dorchester, Mass., 1/1/14)

Paul Jensen, 52, was sitting in the driver's seat of his vehicle in a hospital parking lot when a stranger approached and started to get into the passenger's seat. Jensen quickly pulled out his handgun and pointed at teh attempted carjacker....
<snip>
Jensen held the man at gunpoint until police arrived. The 33-year old man had been cited earlier the same day for disorderly conduct...He was arrested and charged with attempted carjacking as well as with tampering with a fire alarm. No shots were fired.
(WBZ-TV, Nashua, NH., 12/18/13)

22-year-old Jessica McDonald, an employee of Discount Textbooks in Fort Dodge, Iowa, had just opened up the store when a man entered and demanded that she hand over the cash in the register. McDonald responded by showing the robber that the register was empty, at which point the man threatened her with mace. Following the threat, McDonald retrieved a handgun from a safe under the counter and pointed it at the criminal, causing him to flee. No shots were fired
(KCCI, Des Moines, Iowa 05/23/14)

A pair of men, at least one of whom was armed with a handgun, broke into a home in Salt Lake City, Utah and began threatening those inside. Earlier in the day, the duo threatened the homeowner’s daughter over the phone. The homeowner responded to the break in by retrieving a handgun and confronting the men, causing the intruders to flee.
The home invaders were captured by police a short time later. Following the incident, Salt Lake City Police Detective Veronica Montoya told a local media outlet, “I think the two suspects are very lucky they weren’t hurt, because I think most people would agree if somebody comes kicking your door in and is armed and you’re armed – I’m really surprised he didn’t hurt them.” (KSL, Salt Lake City, Utah 05/27/14)

A mother was in the parking lot of a Family Dollar store in Houston, Texas when a pair of purse snatchers grabbed her bag and dragged the woman, who was still holding the purse, into the middle of the parking lot. A man in the parking lot witnessed the attack, retrieved a handgun, and confronted the criminals, forcing them out of the car and onto the ground. The armed passerby then held the pair at gunpoint until police arrived.
Following the incident, a local media outlet interviewed the manager of the Family Dollar store, who said of the armed citizen, “The guy is something else… He’s a hero.” (KHOU, Houston, Texas 04/28/14)


In every case presented here, no shots were fired.
 
 
Jun 17, 2014
[If all gun owners were law-abiding and knew the responsibility that it entails, nobody would really need to have this conversation.]

And if all liberals understood the purposes of the Constitution, and knew the personal responsibilty that such wisdom conveys, nobody would really need to vote.

If all gun owners were law-abiding, the law-abiding wouldn't ever feel they have a need to own a firearm in the first place, would they? The criminal element exists. It has always existed to some degree or another, in every nation and culture, across all of human history. Therefore the basic human right to self-defense exists. The misuse of firearms, or of any weapon, is already illegal. Feel free to propose some method of permanently seperating the criminal element from the technology of firearms. Once you've accomplished that feat of magic, I'm willing to discuss surrendering my right to self defense, and the tools I use towards that end.

I think Ice-T said it very well. I'll give up my guns when everyone else does, and that includes government agencies.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/07/05/Ice-T-Gun-Rights-Are-Civil-Rights
 
 
Jun 17, 2014
[I'm not anti gun. Pro-gun folks generally think I (and my liberal cohorts) just want to take their guns away. I'm not for banning or taking away your guns, but the conversations always seem to go that way. I say something, they tell me that I'm trying to take their guns and "it ain't gunna happen." I guess this is the cognitive dissonance that we sometimes hear about.]

It's not cognative dissonance, it's experience. While you may not believe that you wish to "take their guns away", the end result remains the same because you are most certainly contributing to the support and resources of those who do. And I'm sure that even you would agree that there are those who would very much like to remove guns from all private ownership if they were completely honest. It's the slippery slope argument, and in a way, it's the 'status quo' argument of southern Democrats prior to the civil rights argument. The 'status quo' is a dependence upon, and an expectation of, gun regulations to keep the current undesirables away from the 'good people'. I'm sure that analogy hurts your feelings, but at some point you're going to have to face the fact that your support of 'sensible gun regulations' does great harm to people whom you don't know, and don't really understand; and never really was about gun regulations per se, any more than the Jim Crow laws were about preventing the spread of racially specific diseases. The 'gun culture' really is another culture; you're contributing to it's suppression, and the discrimination of it's membership, whether or not that is your intent.

[@creighto
See above for Crime Rates, I'm with you there. Also, interesting point about the gun crime rates per number of guns. Also, I conceed that there aren't statistics on protecting by brandishing a firearm. However, I find it a little hard to believe that brandishing a firearm during an argument will diffuse the situation. It may postpone some violence. It might thwart a robbery after a break in, but honestly, I think alot gun owners would relish the chance to shoot a robber.]

Why do you find it hard to believe? There are hundreds of known cases per year, they just tend not to be reported on common news media channels. There are less well known news channels, established by those who have noticed this disconnect, that make a deliberate effort to report such events whenever they become aware of them. Theblaze.com is one such news outlet, although they don't bother to pretend they don't have a bias. There are many others. And why wouldn't the potential postponement of violence be a success in it's own right? Even a postponement would potentially allow to cooler heads to prevail, or intervention by police, which may prevent a particular incident of violence to occur at all. And why would you think that a lot of gun owners would relish the idea of shooting another human being, even one they know is in the wrong? Sure, sociopaths exist; and a crapload of them walk the halls of both prisons and Congress, but the vast majority of gun owners are not sociopaths. If you are under the impression that carrying a gun somehow makes most people LESS aware of the danger they present to themselves or those around them, or that somehow a gun makes people mad with lethal power; please never buy a weapon, because I fear you're projecting. I have the legal right to carry a concealled firearm in more than half of the US states, but I rarely do so. I rarely do it because each time I do so, I am hyperaware of the position of that firearm relative to the positions of people around me all of the time. It's actually a rather stressful existance, being constantly "on guard"; not just because I carry because I perceive an external threat, but because I am ever aware that I *AM* a threat. I have 5 children, I generally prefer to play with them and enjoy our time together than spend my time as their bodyguard, but I have done it and am capable of doing it. Without the license and the weapon that lives in my safe, I would neither have the legal nor practical choice in that matter. Which would make me just like yourself; dependent upon the public police forces to act in my behalf. Rough men, who happen to carry such a firearm for half of their waking life.

[ I can tell you are a responsible gun owner, and that's great, but you'd have to admit that not all gun owners are like you?]

How can you tell that? Because I tell you so? You can't know that, and that's the point isn't it? That 'sensible gun regulations' must exist because people like you don't understand people like me, and don't know if we are a threat? Or that, on some level, we ARE a threat.

[Is the current system of regulations perfect? Is there anything that you would change?]

No, the current regulations are not perfect; they happen to be quite oppressive. In many ways that I can't even explain to you, because you likely have never even touched a firearm in your life, and have no idea how they actually function, what their limitations are, nor what the practial effects of such regulations have upon the very real legal and illegal markets for firearms. Guns are, in truth, very old technology. Much older than the internal combustion engine, and much simpler. Guns can now be printed out using a 3D printer, if the user isn't terriblely concerned about his own safety. How are you going to regulate that? Ban 3D printers? To this day, machinists with the skill set capable of making a firearm have to register with the federal government; yet they do exactly the same thing with metal that woodworkers do with wood on a lathe. Ever ask a machinist how he feels about being watched by the feds his entire adult life?

[Remeber - I'm not trying to take your guns or make them illegal.]

Yes you are, you just don't believe that is what you're doing. See above.

[It's like the backup camera requirement for cars - in 2016 or something all new cars will be required to have backup cameras - why? Because of backover deaths. How many of those happen a year? Oh around 200 in 2007 (there were 14,000 injuries), so way less than gun deaths. This mandate seems a little extreme to me. Maybe you'd agree, but still, there must be room for improvement -]

Nonsense, this is nothing like safety regulations for cars. Cars are transportation, we add safety devices to them to make them safer in their primary function. Guns are dangerous by their primary function, which is the point, is it not? Gun owners are not unaware of the hazards, and we take steps to reduce those hazards as far as we are able. Media likes to portray 'rednecks' as fat men, wearing either overalls or a 'wife beater', drinking beer and shooting at street signs. I've literally never encountered anyone who owns a firearm so reckless. I'm sure they exist somewhere, but they've got to be much more rare than a black Republican; because I've actually met some of those.

[ ways to help sick people before they snap, safeguards to reduce accidents (which contrary to your juggling analogy, does indeed happen), and ways to reduce heat of the moment gun deaths (which again, I don't think brandishing will help diffuse) - all the while retaining the rights that pro-gun follks are so passionate about. ]

How often do 'heat of the moment' gun deaths occur? That is, unjustifiable shootings of this catagory, outside of fiction? Please, I'd like you to research that statistic, I think you'd learn something that would challenge your worldview. As for 'sick' people, how do you identify them? And if you identify them, how do you help them without their consent? These are not gun control issues, and they cannot be solved with more gun regulations.
 
 
Jun 17, 2014
I'm not anti gun. Pro-gun folks generally think I (and my liberal cohorts) just want to take their guns away. I'm not for banning or taking away your guns, but the conversations always seem to go that way. I say something, they tell me that I'm trying to take their guns and "it ain't gunna happen." I guess this is the cognitive dissonance that we sometimes hear about.

@smg45acp
Your info on Austrailia must have come from Facebook... http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
Crime Rates today are pretty similar to 1968. They peaked in the 1990s... http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
I do agree that these people are sick, but I think our idea of sick might be slightly different. I think it would be good to treat them

@creighto
See above for Crime Rates, I'm with you there. Also, interesting point about the gun crime rates per number of guns. Also, I conceed that there aren't statistics on protecting by brandishing a firearm. However, I find it a little hard to believe that brandishing a firearm during an argument will diffuse the situation. It may postpone some violence. It might thwart a robbery after a break in, but honestly, I think alot gun owners would relish the chance to shoot a robber. I can tell you are a responsible gun owner, and that's great, but you'd have to admit that not all gun owners are like you? Is the current system of regulations perfect? Is there anything that you would change? Remeber - I'm not trying to take your guns or make them illegal. It's like the backup camera requirement for cars - in 2016 or something all new cars will be required to have backup cameras - why? Because of backover deaths. How many of those happen a year? Oh around 200 in 2007 (there were 14,000 injuries), so way less than gun deaths. This mandate seems a little extreme to me. Maybe you'd agree, but still, there must be room for improvement - ways to help sick people before they snap, safeguards to reduce accidents (which contrary to your juggling analogy, does indeed happen), and ways to reduce heat of the moment gun deaths (which again, I don't think brandishing will help diffuse) - all the while retaining the rights that pro-gun follks are so passionate about.
 
 
Jun 17, 2014
[Yes, private sales are legal in my home state of Kentucky, and I've bought & sold firearms this way myself; but NEVER have I been able to buy a firearm from someone who didn't personally know me, nor have I sold a firearm to someone I didn't personally know. Legal gun owners, who understand the laws and their own culpability regarding those firearms, don't sell to "straw buyers" that they don't know.]

Fair enough. I'm sure that there are plenty of responsible law-abiding gun owners out there, you among them. They're not the problem.
The issue is with unlicensed dealers who don't really know what they're doing. Maybe they feel like they're fighting the good fight against freedom-encroaching regulations by selling their guns to seemingly friendly strangers who openly say that their background might be a problem or are able to appear mentally fit. Or maybe even because unlicensed sellers (apparently) don't even have access to the Background Check System (http://www.marketplace.org/topics/life/guns-and-dollars/gun-show-loophole-not-about-gun-shows-and-not-loophole).
I'm sure these people mostly mean well. I just imagine that they're easily manipulated into selling guns to people to whom they shouldn't.

I also get that gun shows are not the culprit per se. If you're going to do it unlicensed, you might as well do it anywhere, or even online.
This article: http://radioviceonline.com/a-solution-to-the-gun-show-loophole-that-does-not-exist/
describes the "gun show loophole" as more of a "private sales loophole". In essence, its not clearly defined at which point you become an actual dealer who should get a license. If you wanted to, you could decide that selling 200 guns still doesn't make you a dealer, because thats just how you feel about it.

If all gun owners were law-abiding and knew the responsibility that it entails, nobody would really need to have this conversation.
In fact, "gun show loophole" is starting to sound more and more like "dum*-a** loophole".
 
 
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 17, 2014
The high school I attended had a rifle team. Students carried their 0.22 target rifles to school on public buses, albeit in cases, slung over their shoulders in plain obvious sight. They stored their rifles in their lockers until after school. This was true for every high school in the city. There were no school shootings.

Availability of guns is not the cause.
 
 
Jun 17, 2014
[In 33 states, private gun owners are not restricted from selling guns at gun shows. Buyers who purchase guns from individuals are not required to submit to the federal background checks in place for licensed dealers. Critics say that firearms can be obtained illegally as a result, calling it the “gun show loophole.” Proponents of unregulated gun show sales say that there is no loophole; gun owners are simply selling or trading guns at the shows as they would do at their residence.]

This is correct, factually. However, the last line is also true, as I have already mentioned, because the *registered* owner of a firearm is the one that the BTAF agents are going to come looking for if a firearm registered in their name shows up at a crime scene; and unlike selling your car to a friend for cash, the seller is still responsible for what becomes of that weapon if the buyer never registers it. This is true even in states that permit private sales. While it's true that a private seller can get a table within a gun show, I've never seen that happen for firearms (guns are not the only thing sold at gun shows; ammo and army surplus gear are also popular items) and I'm pretty sure it's been a decade or more since the organizers of gun shows have permitted unlicensed vendors to sell firearms. They did it, in part, to negate that same "gun show loophole" argument; regardless of the state laws that may or may not permit it.

Yes, private sales are legal in my home state of Kentucky, and I've bought & sold firearms this way myself; but NEVER have I been able to buy a firearm from someone who didn't personally know me, nor have I sold a firearm to someone I didn't personally know. Legal gun owners, who understand the laws and their own culpability regarding those firearms, don't sell to "straw buyers" that they don't know. Only Eric Holder does stupid crap like that.

So while the "gun show loophole" (really private transfers of firearms) does legally exist, it doesn't practically; there is simply too much risk for the law abiding seller. Again, if you encounter some guy anywhere near a gun show (they are never IN the gun show) that doesn't ask for ID, the gun is (very likely) stolen.

 
 
+3 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 17, 2014
"Obviously there's a strong correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths" Is there??

As an engineer, you should know that "obviously" is an obviously poor argument. You need to back up that statement. Is there really correlation? People tend to anecdotally use the US as proof of that concept, while it's only one datum.

In Switzerland nearly every male between the ages of 20 and 30 is REQUIRED to keep an army-issued personal weapon. There are many other examples, so let's not take that "correlation" as a given. It needs data too!
 
 
Jun 17, 2014
Emotions run high on this subject and throwing facts into the mix often just makes people madder.
But I’ll throw in some facts anyway.
You constantly hear about the problem being caused by “too easy access to guns”. Fact: prior to 1968 anybody could mail a money order to a gun manufacturer and get a gun in the mail. That included eight year old kids and convicted felons. History shows that crime and school shootings were not out of control prior to 1968. In fact, most of us would be thrilled if crime was at pre-1968 levels. So the easy access argument is a non-issue.

People often compare us to Japan and England citing their near total gun ban and low murder rate. Fact: both of these countries had very low murder rates before they had the total gun bans. The ban changed nothing. Just south of our border in Mexico they have a nearly total gun ban. Their murder rate is much worse than ours. Australia recently did the total gun ban. Murders with guns, robberies with guns and every gun crime have gone up since the ban. Bottom line: bans don’t work.

I really think the main reason we are seeing all of the school shooting is publicity.
Weak and sick minds see all of the media attention showered on the school shooters and they think “Someday that’ll be me in the spotlight. Everybody will see my picture and know my name”.
Plant a few bombs and you might even make on the cover of the Rolling Stone.

I wish the media would stop turning these mass murders into little rock stars.
Just report the news. Don’t publish the shooter’s name. Don’t publish their picture. Don’t do in-depth stories on their background complete with interviews with his family and pictures of them as children.
I read years ago that local news medias agreed to stop running stories about local suicides because they found that people were less likely to commit suicide when they weren’t going to get media attention from it. The same is true with the school shootings.
 
 
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 17, 2014
Noooo, sorry about the quadruple post!
 
 
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 17, 2014
[Have you actually been to a gun show? I've been to dozens, and the 'gun show loophole' is likely a myth. I've never seen any vendor, at any show, that wasn't required to be a licensed gun dealer; and licensed gun dealers have to perform the background checks every time.]

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Gun-Shows.htm

Maybe you were just in the wrong state.
 
 
Jun 17, 2014
[Have you actually been to a gun show? I've been to dozens, and the 'gun show loophole' is likely a myth. I've never seen any vendor, at any show, that wasn't required to be a licensed gun dealer; and licensed gun dealers have to perform the background checks every time.]

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Gun-Shows.htm

Maybe you were just in the wrong state.
 
 
Jun 17, 2014
[Have you actually been to a gun show? I've been to dozens, and the 'gun show loophole' is likely a myth. I've never seen any vendor, at any show, that wasn't required to be a licensed gun dealer; and licensed gun dealers have to perform the background checks every time.]

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Gun-Shows.htm

Maybe you were just in the wrong state.
 
 
Jun 17, 2014
[Have you actually been to a gun show? I've been to dozens, and the 'gun show loophole' is likely a myth. I've never seen any vendor, at any show, that wasn't required to be a licensed gun dealer; and licensed gun dealers have to perform the background checks every time.]

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Gun-Shows.htm

Maybe you were just in the wrong state.
 
 
Jun 16, 2014
I'm not racist, but as a Canadian who has done a lot of business in the US, I don't see any difference between your average man on the street. Y'now what I talking aboot, eh?

It looks to me like the single biggest contributing factor is a lack of mental health care and intervention . We draw the line earlier between personal freedom and "that guy needs to be confined for the public good" . Handguns and assault rifles make it easier to leverage a diseased brain into harming lots of innocents.




 
 
 
Get the new Dilbert app!
Old Dilbert Blog