Cont: School shooting Florida - pt 2

From Salon: A new frontier in gun control: Can online sites be stopped from selling guns to criminals?

Last week a new front opened up in this legal terrain: A Wisconsin appeals court ruled that a lawsuit filed by the Brady Campaign against the site Armslist, on behalf of a murder victim's daughter, could go forward. If the Brady Campaign prevails in this case, it could make become significantly more difficult for people who can't pass background checks to use the internet to circumvent the law and acquire guns.
Click to expand...
As Kris Brown, the co-president of the Brady Campaign, explained to Salon, Haughton then went on Armslist and found "a private seller that offered a semiautomatic handgun and three high capacity magazines." He arranged "to buy the firearm and ammunition in an all-cash transaction in a fast food restaurant parking lot," Brown said. The next day, Haughton went on his murderous rampage.

The reason it was so easy for Haughton to find a seller willing to participate in such a shady transaction, Brown said, is because Armslist "has basically designed and operated the website in a manner that allows people to circumvent the law."

The site has a search function that allows a potential buyer to search for private dealers only, knowing that such dealers, at least in some states, are not required to run background checks. Armslist also has no registration requirements, making it easy for people eager to skirt the law to set up a transaction without creating any record of the sale. In addition, while the site allows users to flag posts for removal for all sorts of reasons, it does not permit users to report posts that appear to encourage illegal conduct.
Click to expand...


The Salon article references a study, summarized here:

NEW STUDY FINDS 1 IN 5 US GUN OWNERS OBTAINED FIREARM WITHOUT BACKGROUND CHECK
One in five U.S. gun owners who obtained a firearm in the past two years did so without a background check, according to a new national survey conducted by researchers at Northeastern University and Harvard University.

The study also found the share of gun owners who acquired firearms via private sale without background checks was significantly larger (57 percent) in states without laws regulating such purchases than in states with legislative regulations (26 percent).
Click to expand...


The research paper itself:
Firearm Acquisition Without Background Checks: Results of a National Survey
 
crescent said:
From Salon: A new frontier in gun control: Can online sites be stopped from selling guns to criminals?





The Salon article references a study, summarized here:

NEW STUDY FINDS 1 IN 5 US GUN OWNERS OBTAINED FIREARM WITHOUT BACKGROUND CHECK



The research paper itself:
Firearm Acquisition Without Background Checks: Results of a National Survey
Click to expand...

Armslist isn't a gun seller. It's like craigslist. It allows people to list classifieds for local sales. In the pre internet age, someone may have sold a gun by buying space in the classifieds section in the local newspaper. That doesn't make the paper a gun dealer.

The argument that armslist is set up to allow people to circumvent the law is specious at best. Private sales are legal. People have legitimate reasons for not wanting to go through a dealer. Buying second hand from a private owner is often a good way to find a better bargain.

If a state thinks there is a problem with private sales, they can pass laws like others have requiring their own paperwork and checks be run for all sales within the state. It's not a loophole, its full compliance with local laws. I don't see why people shouldn't be able to sell their own personal firearms. FFL's use their license power as rent-seekers, often charging high rates for the privilege of receiving a package and picking up the phone.
 
Last edited:
jimbob said:
School shootings would involve highly emotionally-charged individuals, and it's not a stretch to think that a "mean looking" weapon will be more attractive to such a person.
Click to expand...

I've posted about this before, but it seems relevant at this point. I'm involved at the moment with trying to get a relative in my wife's family into full time care as his parents can no longer cope with his needs and behaviour. Things came to a head the first time because he threatened, in front of witnesses, to kill someone (he has an on going and almost entirely imaginary feud with the next door neighbour) but he then went on line and started looking for combat knives rather than going down stairs and grabbing a kitchen knife (or planning to, since in fairness I don't think he's likely to go through with anything), the violent fantasies which fuel these events aren't based on reality, they are about emulating popular culture and looking the part, the cool weapon is part of that.
 
Aridas said:
Hand guns are good for self-defense in some circumstances, both passively and actively. That's certainly a benefit, and one that is quite worth remembering, in part because it's one of the few actually good arguments in the NRA's arsenal. Whether it's worth the costs is rather debatable, but, as Meadmaker has repeatedly pointed out, the question of whether to ban handguns is rather moot. Handguns can certainly be restricted, though, and are, to a limited extent.
Click to expand...

But does having them make you safer? There are certainly good reasons not to wear your seat belt and it is an advantage in some situations. But it doesn't make one safer.

How about getting guns covered by basic consumer safety regulations so that the government can mandate a recall on a defective gun?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-02-28/how-defective-guns-became-the-only-product-that-can-t-be-recalled
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Armslist isn't a gun seller. It's like craigslist. It allows people to list classifieds for local sales. In the pre internet age, someone may have sold a gun by buying space in the classifieds section in the local newspaper. That doesn't make the paper a gun dealer.
Click to expand...

Salon's headline is misleading, you're right about that.

Reuters has an article that better breaks down the legal argument being made:

A how-to guide for suing websites that allow private gun deals
The Wisconsin case, unlike the many gun liability suits that have examined the scope of state and federal laws shielding licensed gun makers and sellers from liability for shootings, turned on the court’s interpretation of the Communications Decency Act.

As you’re no doubt aware, a crucial section of that law says websites cannot be held liable for publishing content provided by users. The protection can shield sites like Yelp, for instance, from libel suits when a reviewer posts defamatory comments or YouTube from copyright liability when a user uploads copyrighted content.
Click to expand...

The Wisconsin appellate panel acknowledged the weight of that precedent – but it said case law is not as uniform as Armslist asserted.

....

The complaint, filed by lawyers from The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Manatt Phelps & Phillips and Cannon & Dunphy, alleges that Armslist is designed to allow gun sales to people who can’t buy weapons legally. (Among the site’s supposedly enabling features: Prospective buyers don’t have to register to use the site; the site uses the phrase “premium vendor” to signal which sellers are licensed and must therefore conduct background checks; and Armslist does not allow users to flag purportedly illegal content.) “Armslist knew that because of the design content it created, persons prohibited from possessing firearms would - and did - quickly, easily, anonymously, and illegally obtain guns, no questions asked,” Daniel’s lawyers said.
Click to expand...
 
ponderingturtle said:
But does having them make you safer?
Click to expand...

In some ways, yes. They can and do act as a deterrent and defense against most people with violently ill intentions, as an easy example. In some ways, no. If one makes a small mistake, they can certainly harm themselves or engage in significantly riskier behavior that puts them in a much less safe situation.

ponderingturtle said:
There are certainly good reasons not to wear your seat belt and it is an advantage in some situations. But it doesn't make one safer.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you're trying to compare apples and oranges here. Safety being one and various other considerations being another. Once again, though, I'll refer back to the "in some circumstances" that I qualified my statement with. In some circumstances, it does make one safer, which is why the self-defense argument is viable in the first place. In some cases it doesn't, but that tends to have much more to do with user error, which tends to make for a rather weak basis for an argument. Of more note is how it affects the safety of other people, really, if you want to try to find something safety related to make an argument against out of.

ponderingturtle said:
How about getting guns covered by basic consumer safety regulations so that the government can mandate a recall on a defective gun?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-02-28/how-defective-guns-became-the-only-product-that-can-t-be-recalled
Click to expand...

And that's an entirely different bag of worms from the self-defense argument, really. As a general matter, though, I'm supportive of regulations that get defective products out of circulation.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
I think they choose the AR's or other rifles like it because it's the best for their chosen mission. But I don't think that it is essential.

AR's dont shoot any more rapid than any other semi auto rifle, many of which wouldn't be affected by any assault weapon ban. The mini-14 is a commonly cited example. Same caliber as the AR, fed from a box mag. But since it's a classic rifle stock as opposed to pistol grip, it's not an "assault weapon".

Passing an AWB would certainly negatively affect gun owners who have lawful intentions for owning these firearms, but would, at best, insignificantly reduce the lethality of mass shooters, who themselves are a tiny source for gun deaths in this country. And while many Americans may see these "assault weapons" as unworthy of protection, more expansive gun bans would meet resistance of all the American casual gun owners who see their types of firearms as reasonable and worth protecting.
Click to expand...

I think this post assumes that an assault weapons ban would be identical to the legislation passed in the Clinton era. There's no need for that to be the case. Can the mini-14 fire just as many bullets just as fast as an AR-15? Well then, ban it too. If it was not banned last time that doesn't mean we need to repeat that mistake.

I want to ban the weapons that are best for these mass killers' chosen mission. Would the reduction in lethality be insignificant? I suppose that might depend on whether your daughter was the 17th person killed at Parkland. Reducing that lethality might seem pretty significant in that case.

Of course, benefits have to be weighed against costs because even though the above rhetorical point is true, we really do have to treat deaths as statistics when considering legislation, and if the stats don't change much, then imposing a high cost would seem unreasonable. However, here's my opinion. Banning AR-15s and any weapon that can provide sustained fire at the same rate as an AR-15 would have basically zero cost to society. Some people who think they are cool to play with wouldn't be able to buy new toys. Some people who make their living selling them would have to find new work. Some crazy people who think they will use their AR-15 to fight off the tyrannical government that is poised to overthrow the United States might suffer increased anxiety. I don't count any of those as significant costs. Therefore, ban the cursed things.

And if that meets resistance from casual gun owners? Oh, well. That's politics for you. I want them banned. Others don't. We try to persuade people to change their minds and vote for people who will agree with us. I'm hoping that, for the first time in a while, the NRA agenda of more guns everywhere meets some resistance from casual parents who don't want their kids included in future statistics on mass killings.
 
Last edited:
crescent said:
Salon's headline is misleading, you're right about that.

Reuters has an article that better breaks down the legal argument being made:

A how-to guide for suing websites that allow private gun deals
Click to expand...

I would take any legal claims made by Brady with a large grain of salt. Some of the prior legal actions they have taken were borderline frivolous. An example is when they were ordered to pay the legal costs of an online ammo seller that supplied the Aurora shooter. In addition to ordering Brady to pay legal costs for the defendant, the judge said:
It is apparent that this case was filed to pursue the political purposes of the Brady Center and, given the failure to present any cognizable legal claim, bringing these defendants into the Colorado court where the prosecution of James Holmes was proceeding appears to be more of an opportunity to propagandize the public and stigmatize the defendants than to obtain a court order which counsel should have known would be outside the authority of this court."
Click to expand...

Brady likes to make large, splashy PR statements with their legal filings. Few ever result in anything other than harassment of defendants via the legal system.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
I want to ban the weapons that are best for these mass killers' chosen mission. Would the reduction in lethality be insignificant? I suppose that might depend on whether your daughter was the 17th person killed at Parkland. Reducing that lethality might seem pretty significant in that case.
Click to expand...

Making law based on the perspective of a victims angst is a terrible idea in general. All sorts of bad policy could be justified based on the emotional extremes of a victim. I am very sympathetic to these parents, but we shouldn't abdicate reason in responding to the problem.

Of course, benefits have to be weighed against costs because even though the above rhetorical point is true, we really do have to treat deaths as statistics when considering legislation, and if the stats don't change much, then imposing a high cost would seem unreasonable. However, here's my opinion. Banning AR-15s and any weapon that can provide sustained fire at the same rate as an AR-15 would have basically zero cost to society. Some people who think they are cool to play with wouldn't be able to buy new toys. Some people who make their living selling them would have to find new work. Some crazy people who think they will use their AR-15 to fight off the tyrannical government that is poised to overthrow the United States might suffer increased anxiety. I don't count any of those as significant costs. Therefore, ban the cursed things.

And if that meets resistance from casual gun owners? Oh, well. That's politics for you. I want them banned. Others don't. We try to persuade people to change their minds and vote for people who will agree with us. I'm hoping that, for the first time in a while, the NRA agenda of more guns everywhere meets some resistance from casual parents who don't want their kids included in future statistics on mass killings.
Click to expand...

The politics is the issue here. The assault weapon ban was largely successful in becoming law because it was narrowly focused on "scary" guns. There are a lot of gun owners in America and a wide spectrum of feelings about gun legality in this country. The AWB was successful because it narrowly focused on those guns that even many gun owners didn't care about.

To actually do anything about lethality of available weapons, law would have to address more intrinsic features than the AWB ever did. Realistically, a ban would have to address all semi-automatic rifles or pistols, magazine limits, and/or caliber restrictions, with no grandfather clauses. This would likely make otherwise cooperative gun owners in this country reject the measures.

The only gun control that could garner enough public support in this country is the neutered kind that don't really do much to address gun violence.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
To actually do anything about lethality of available weapons, law would have to address more intrinsic features than the AWB ever did. Realistically, a ban would have to address all semi-automatic rifles or pistols, magazine limits, and/or caliber restrictions, with no grandfather clauses.
Click to expand...

False, it's very simple logic that applies to all things. The lower the number of something, the lower the incidence of effects from that thing. Certainly partial bans, in this case stop adding a subset to the existing inventory, won't help as much as removing the entire inventory but it's absolutely false to say it won't help at all.

Examples:

Reducing the amount of poison people absorb reduces the amount of people severely harmed by poison.

Reducing the population of an invasive species reduces the impacts of the invasive species.

Reducing the number of people who refuse vaccinations reduces the spread of the target diseases.

In all those cases a full elimination is obviously better but the partial reduction is also obviously better than no reduction and is far better than allowing an increase in prevalence.
 
paulhutch said:
False, it's very simple logic that applies to all things. The lower the number of something, the lower the incidence of effects from that thing. Certainly partial bans, in this case stop adding a subset to the existing inventory, won't help as much as removing the entire inventory but it's absolutely false to say it won't help at all.

Examples:

Reducing the amount of poison people absorb reduces the amount of people severely harmed by poison.

Reducing the population of an invasive species reduces the impacts of the invasive species.

Reducing the number of people who refuse vaccinations reduces the spread of the target diseases.

In all those cases a full elimination is obviously better but the partial reduction is also obviously better than no reduction and is far better than allowing an increase in prevalence.
Click to expand...

My point is about equivalent substitutes. The AWB was meaningless because equivalent substitutes were available, like the mini-14 or AWB compliant AR's.

For example, instead of alcohol prohibition, imagine they just prohibited vodka. It would reduce vodka consumption, but I doubt very much that total alcohol consumption would be impacted. Vodka drinkers would just switch to some other liquor. Vodka drinkers might grumble, but life would go on and the incentive for smuggled vodka would be insignificant. Most would not risk breaking the law when other very similar liquors were still available. Total alcohol prohibition, however, is a different story altogether. A vibrant, violent black market would arise to meet a population of scofflaws who want to drink.

Gun buyers just bought compliant rifles during the ban. A whole market of AWB compliant rifles sprang up to meet the demand. Similar markets exist now in states with restrictions. Gun enthusiasts grumble, but life goes on as suitable substitutes are still available. A more comprehensive ban with no suitable substitutes, say like a ban on all semi-auto or repeating firearms, would be a different scenario.
 
Last edited:
New NRA President is Oliver North


Dana Loesch tweets

"Thrilled about the Oliver North news. A total warrior for freedom, this is the last person that anti-gun advocates would want as the new President of the NRA board."


That's the same Oliver North that illegally sold weapons to Iran.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
New NRA President is Oliver North


Dana Loesch tweets

"Thrilled about the Oliver North news. A total warrior for freedom, this is the last person that anti-gun advocates would want as the new President of the NRA board."


That's the same Oliver North that illegally sold weapons to Iran.
Click to expand...

He's so keen on people having guns that he was willing to sell them to America's enemies.
 
jimbob said:
Captain_Swoop said:
New NRA President is Oliver North


Dana Loesch tweets

"Thrilled about the Oliver North news. A total warrior for freedom, this is the last person that anti-gun advocates would want as the new President of the NRA board."


That's the same Oliver North that illegally sold weapons to Iran.
Click to expand...

He's so keen on people having guns that he was willing to sell them to America's enemies.
Click to expand...


He wasn't selling guns to America's enemies. He was selling them TOW anti-tank missiles and Hawk anti-aircraft missiles. And parts.

It isn't like he was selling guns.

...

...

He was giving the guns away.

Which makes it okay, I suppose.
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
New NRA President is Oliver North


Dana Loesch tweets

"Thrilled about the Oliver North news. A total warrior for freedom, this is the last person that anti-gun advocates would want as the new President of the NRA board."


That's the same Oliver North that illegally sold weapons to Iran.
Click to expand...

Oh, a traitor and drug dealing criminal as President of the NRA... its an excellent fit!
 
Last edited:
David Hogg's home has been "SWATted".

BBC News said:
Student gun-control activist David Hogg has been the victim of a prank call that saw armed police raid his Florida home.

Broward Sheriff's office said officers were sent to the 17-year-old's parents' home after a report of a hostage situation on Tuesday morning.

David, who is out of the state, called the incident "a distraction".

It comes a day after he and other students activists announced a nationwide tour...
Click to expand...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44373028
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom