Today's Mass Shooting

[plague311]

My post just disappeared after I made it, but lets try this again. Wal-Mart is out of the handgun sales business, and is dropping a bunch of ammo. I say, good for them:

Walmart said Tuesday it will discontinue all sales of handgun ammunition and sales of short-barrel rifle ammunition that can be used with military style weapons, following two “horrific” shootings at Walmart stores this summer. It will also stop all handgun sales in Alaska, marking its complete exit from the handguns category.

They're also asking anyone that's not a cop to stop carrying in their stores.

 

[Thermal]

My post just disappeared after I made it, but lets try this again. Wal-Mart is out of the handgun sales business, and is dropping a bunch of ammo. I say, good for them:



They're also asking anyone that's not a cop to stop carrying in their stores.

So they were tickled to stockpile shooters till it happened in one of their stores?

I guess ya take what ya can get.

 

[plague311]

So they were tickled to stockpile shooters till it happened in one of their stores?

I guess ya take what ya can get.

Well, to be fair they made most of the changes to handguns awhile ago. Alaska was the last hold out with regards to handguns, and they changed that now despite there not being any issues in Alaska.

The rest is absolutely true though, but I am happy at least someone is doing something.

 

[William Parcher]

Defined here as one incident where 4 or more people are shot;

https://www.massshootingtracker.org/about

and the number of shootings here;

https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data

which is 342 as per today (so far) which since today is day 244, is more than one a day.

This link shows that mass shootings do not occur every day. Some or most days have multiple mass shootings while some days have no mass shootings at all.

As an example, look at what happened on August 27th and 28th.

 

[jimbob]

That point is not missed. The other thing that should not be missed is the real potential for someone to be killed or harmed by someone that they already know in a non-spree event, or other shootings of a different nature.

I don't know what the statistics are but there may be some way to calculate odds...

The probability of being a victim in a random mass shooting in a public space (being in the wrong place at the wrong time). Compared to...

The probability of being a shooting victim of an incident of a different nature.

Well, a long time ago - Unfortunately the link in the conversation is now broken, I think... it looks as though about 26% of the life expectancy gap between the US and the UK, for example, can be explained by gun violence.

The remaining 74% looks to be due to healthcare.

Are you sure the US lifespan is lower or are you only looking at statistics where other effects that have nothing to do with the quantity and quality of healthcare haven't been accounted for? Turns out that if you do account for those factors, the US life expectancy is actually higher than in most other countries.

You missed my point:

You are proclaiming the economic performance more than compensates for more expensive healthcare.

I would argue that life expectancy (from all causes) is a better proxy measure of economic well-being, on the grounds that people would tend to spend whatever they can to prolong their life.

If the deaths come from guns guns, then that is still a death, and a society where fewer people are maimed or die violently could be considered more wealthy.

Anyway, gun deaths only account for about 25% of excess mortality:

I have found one estimation, in what seems like an appropriate journal.

Thank for for your research.

"The United States thus suffers from a life expectancy gap of 1.7 years."

Now add 1.7 years to your previous stats and tell me were we are.



Keep in mind that this is only one factor to be considered.

"These deaths account for 26.86 percent of the U.S. males' excess mortality when compared to peer nations, and 8.7 percent of the racial gap between black and white males in the United States."

So, yes Jerome, it is significant, but only explains about a quarter of the difference between the US and the other thirty-four other richest countries.


In fact I am surprised at the magnitude of the effect, but it still leaves 74% unexplained by gun-deaths.

​

ETA: it looks to be based on this study:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3519957?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

https://www.fox.temple.edu/cms/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/JeanLemaire.pdf

 

[Checkmite]

According to NBC, law enforcement sources have found that the Odessa-area shooter failed a background check in 2014 when he attempted to buy a weapon at a gun store, but was able to buy one later from a private seller because private sales don't require background checks.

This is from TV, so I don't have a link.

 

[plague311]

According to NBC, law enforcement sources have found that the Odessa-area shooter failed a background check in 2014 when he attempted to buy a weapon at a gun store, but was able to buy one later from a private seller because private sales don't require background checks.

This is from TV, so I don't have a link.

Link:

John Wester, an agent with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, confirmed the gunman had previously failed a federal background check for a firearm. Wester did not say when or why the check was failed.

 

[Trebuchet]

Obviously this proves background checks don't work, so we should get rid of them entirely. [/NRA]

 

[William Parcher]

Wester did not say when or why the check was failed.

Wall Street Journal has a headline saying that he failed because he was mentally unfit. But the article is behind a paywall.

 

[William Parcher]

A man who went on a deadly mass shooting spree across West Texas Saturday was barred under federal law from owning or buying firearms because a court had previously determined he was mentally unfit, according to law-enforcement officials.

Paywalled article...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-...g-firearms-because-mentally-unfit-11567540321

 

[plague311]

Wall Street Journal has a headline saying that he failed because he was mentally unfit. But the article is behind a paywall.

Link

Seth Aaron Ator, 36, failed a background check in 2014 because he had a "disqualifying mental health issue," sources told NBC News.

ETA: It doesn't give any specific details on what the mental health condition was though. He didn't have any active warrants, so that's something...

 

[Blue Mountain]

Paywalled article...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-...g-firearms-because-mentally-unfit-11567540321

As of right now (September 2019) you can remove the WSJ paywall by appending "?mod=rsswn" to the URL.

This works for me: Texas Shooter Had Been Banned From Buying Firearms Because Mentally Unfit

Of course, the "?mod=rsswn" trick isn't guaranteed to work forever.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

As of right now (September 2019) you can remove the WSJ paywall by appending "?mod=rsswn" to the URL.

This works for me: Texas Shooter Had Been Banned From Buying Firearms Because Mentally Unfit

Of course, the "?mod=rsswn" trick isn't guaranteed to work forever.

Requiring a NICS background check be run for all sales is probably a law that could easily pass and only upset the most ardent gun rights advocates.

I would hope that any such law would be written that any private citizen could process the sale themselves, but I doubt that will be the case. More likely any law would effectively end the private sale, and all sales will now have to be brokered by a licensed dealer, who will be free to charge a fee for the privilege. As much as I hate rewarding rent-seekers, this strikes me as more than acceptable.

 

[plague311]

Requiring a NICS background check be run for all sales is probably a law that could easily pass and only upset the most ardent gun rights advocates.

I would hope that any such law would be written that any private citizen could process the sale themselves, but I doubt that will be the case. More likely any law would effectively end the private sale, and all sales will now have to be brokered by a licensed dealer, who will be free to charge a fee for the privilege. As much as I hate rewarding rent-seekers, this strikes me as more than acceptable.

The cost of a current background check is like $15-20USD. NICS checks are free unless the state is doing them, but I don't feel like that's unreasonable. I would set it up where if you're going to buy a firearm privately you have to present a complete background check from within the last 7 days at a licensed retail shop (or the shop can run it for x amount). Where they sign off on the transaction and record the serial number of the weapon on a receipt. Hand each person a receipt and you're good to go.

Just my 2 cents. I'm sure there are more efficient ways as well.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The cost of a current background check is like $15-20USD. NICS checks are free unless the state is doing them, but I don't feel like that's unreasonable. I would set it up where if you're going to buy a firearm privately you have to present a complete background check from within the last 7 days at a licensed retail shop (or the shop can run it for x amount). Where they sign off on the transaction and record the serial number of the weapon on a receipt. Hand each person a receipt and you're good to go.

Just my 2 cents. I'm sure there are more efficient ways as well.

My understanding is that regular citizens cannot run a NICS check to determine if someone is eligible to purchase a firearm. Licensed dealers run NICS check as part of completing a 4473 form with the ATF to make a sale.

Not sure it would be a good thing for Joe Schmoe to just be able to run NICS on anybody for any reason. FFL holders are at least somewhat professional and have certain responsibilities around maintaining their license. My concern is the information could be abused for reasons unrelated to conducting a firearms sale. It would be bad policy if people could just phone up NICS and find out some person, unrelated to a gun sale, was ever institutionalized or imprisoned, for example.

Requiring a FFL to broker might be the most practical solution, despite the downsides.

 

[plague311]

My understanding is that regular citizens cannot run a NICS check to determine if someone is eligible to purchase a firearm. Licensed dealers run NICS check as part of completing a 4473 form with the ATF to make a sale.

Not sure it would be a good thing for Joe Schmoe to just be able to run NICS on anybody for any reason. The information could be abused for reasons unrelated to conducting a firearms sale. Requiring a FFL to broker might be the most practical solution, despite the downsides.

Yup, that's why I said the individual purchasing the firearm should have to present it. They go to the system, put in their social security number, Drivers license number, or ID card number. Whatever they want to use for the system, and get it on themselves.

I agree though, having a local gun dealer or shop supervise the transaction for whatever theirs might be seems practical. I'm not sure what downsides you're referring to, but we've seen the downsides of not doing it. Even if it saved a few mass murders a year it would pay itself off. If it would or not is a different discussion, and one that I know gun enthusiasts despise because any limitation, change or extra step seems to be a huge issue or is claimed that it won't work.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Yup, that's why I said the individual purchasing the firearm should have to present it. They go to the system, put in their social security number, Drivers license number, or ID card number. Whatever they want to use for the system, and get it on themselves.

I agree though, having a local gun dealer or shop supervise the transaction for whatever theirs might be seems practical. I'm not sure what downsides you're referring to, but we've seen the downsides of not doing it. Even if it saved a few mass murders a year it would pay itself off. If it would or not is a different discussion, and one that I know gun enthusiasts despise because any limitation, change or extra step seems to be a huge issue or is claimed that it won't work.

The downsides are small and probably negligible compared to the positives.

It is already the case that many FFL's operate on a rent-seeking, middlemen business model. They make money because they hold a government license, and the only way to buy a gun is through such a licensee (unless a private sale). Most serious shooters already cut out the local gun store by buying ammo online, where selection, price, and availability is much better and no special license is required. Many also order guns from online stores, but they still have to process them through their local gun stores who hold a license. Some stores can compete with online outlets, but many local gun stores are basically just using their exclusive government license as a business model.

What you describe would be nice. Showing up with pre-cleared paperwork showing that a buyer is eligible would be better. I would love to be able to mail off a completed and cleared 4473 to an online outlet and have the gun delivered to me personally by mail, rather than involving these middlemen who do very little besides collect their fee and file paperwork.

The whole licensing scheme smacks of privatization of a government function for profit, which I oppose. At the very least, it would be nice if FFL's had to compete with government offices for that function, like having local police or DMV, or post office capable of handling such transactions.

 

[Dr. Keith]

It is already the case that many FFL's operate on a rent-seeking, middlemen business model. They make money because they hold a government license, and the only way to buy a gun is through such a licensee (unless a private sale).

The FFL license is very inexpensive if you are serious about your gun hobby. The reason most hobbyist don't want an FFL is that then the government will be able to track their purchases and . . . something, something, Hitler, Hillary . . . reasons.

For reference:

If you want to be a dealer in standard firearms (non-NFA), then you can be up and running for three years as an FFL for $250.93 (that’s $200 to the ATF, $49.95 for your Get Your FFL course, and two postage stamps at 49 cents a piece). If you want to be a manufacturer, especially of NFA firearms, it’s going to cost you a bit more.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The FFL license is very inexpensive if you are serious about your gun hobby. The reason most hobbyist don't want an FFL is that then the government will be able to track their purchases and . . . something, something, Hitler, Hillary . . . reasons.

For reference:

The ATF is not keen on issuing these licenses solely for personal use. I can't find a specific citation, but the i'm pretty sure the ATF won't issue an 01FFL for 100% personal use. Dealer licenses are for those interested in the business of selling firearms.

Even with all the kranks and nuts in the gun community, this would be more common if allowed, even with all the record keeping requirements. There are plenty of C&R FFL holders (myself included) that subject themselves to such oversight for the privilege.

Edit: From the ATF appliation form:

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/form/form-7-7-cr-application-federal-firearms-license-atf-form-531012531016/download

Type 01, 02, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, and 11 licenses issued under 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44:

c. Are business licenses, and will NOT be issued to an applicant solely intending to enhance a personal firearms collection.

The C&R license (03) is the only license available solely for personal collecting and only applies to vintage firearms.

 

[Dr. Keith]

The ATF is not keen on issuing these licenses solely for personal use. I can't find a specific citation, but the i'm pretty sure the ATF won't issue an 01FFL for 100% personal use. Dealer licenses are for those interested in the business of selling firearms.

Even with all the kranks and nuts in the gun community, this would be more common if allowed, even with all the record keeping requirements. There are plenty of C&R FFL holders (myself included) that subject themselves to such oversight for the privilege.

Edit: From the ATF appliation form:

Type 01, 02, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, and 11 licenses issued under 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44:

c. Are business licenses, and will NOT be issued to an applicant solely intending to enhance a personal firearms collection.

But if you buy firearms with the intent to sell you have to have an FFL.

Whether a person has been engaged in the business of dealing, manufacturing, or importing firearms, is made on a case-by-case basis. Considerations include, but are not limited to: the quantity of firearms sold, manufactured, or imported; the frequency of transactions over a period of time; the intent of the person in acquiring and disposing of firearms; and any representations made to the buyer regarding the person’s ability and willingness to obtain or transfer firearms.

So, if you are at all interested in the trade it is safer to have an FFL than to not have one.

I know people who are actively doing everything they can to not get an FFL because they have so much fear of the government, even though they buy and sell dozens of guns every year.