Church gun policy announced

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Dan McClellan said:

No. I don't want to do it. But I know the laws very, very well.

None of those laws prohibit mailing a used AR-15 from a private seller to a non-FFL buyer, provided it ships in-state. 

It's not incorrect. 

This only applies to guns purchased from FFLs. 

None of this is relevant. A private seller in a state like Utah that have not closed the private sale loophole may ship a used AR-15 to a buyer provided it ships in-state. All the rules you cited apply only to purchases from an FFL and shipment across state lines. Any claims that internet purchases must always ship to an FFL are simply false. There is no such federal law, and very few states have enacted any such laws. The internet is the wild west of gun sales. There are barely any regulations, and especially not in states like Utah. From the ATF's own website:

For federal law on online gun sales, see the following:

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/interstate-and-online-gun-sales/

If you think I'm wrong, by all means, point to the federal regulation governing online gun sales.

Of course it is relevant. 

Let’s try to be transparent about what we are claiming. Private sales between individuals, purchases from legitimate sellers over the internet, in-state or out-of-state, etc. What I provided was for internet purchases from licensed dealers. Postal regulations are also relevant.

Access to the internet is what’s irrelevant. One can buy a gun from a neighbor or relative. Or from a shady guy in downtown Tacoma. Without worrying about federal, postal, or state laws. Washington is trying to tighten such regulations, but if a criminal or mentally ill person wants to get a weapon, there is no law that will prevent it. Even in Seattle, Chicago, LA, or New York. You and I would obey existing laws, but there are many who won’t. Those are the ones I worry about.

Quote

My question is: why do gun legislation opponents want to make it easier for people who shouldn't have guns to access guns?

Who here advocates for that? Does anyone advocate for that?

Edited January 2, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

Excellent post!!!  I add my libertarian two cents.  Why on earth do we have legislation (the Second Amendment) favoring the gun industry?  The gun industry should be on equal footing with knife and chainsaw makers.   Let tort law put pressure on the gun makers.

By all means, if a manufacturer is making defective widgets, let the torts begin.  Pardon my ignorance, but does the Second Amend actually prevent that?  If so, how do you recommend that we correct the problem?

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Compare that to the pain of a possible death averted if only there wasn't an easily accessible firearm in the house when someone was suicidal.

Are more lives saved by having a firearm than taken in suicide and accidental shootings?

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/

Sadly, there are other methods that are equally lethal, effective, and accessible.

[LoudmouthMormon]

11 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

My question is: why do gun legislation opponents want to make it easier for people who shouldn't have guns to access guns?

Heh.  

 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Sadly, there are other methods that are equally lethal, effective, and accessible.

But not all three at once speaking generally and therefore, no, not as lethal when talking about overall.  See the link I posted.

oops, that wasn't the one I was thinking of, will look for it (see last one I posted below for this)

This is useful too.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-availability-suicide.html

Edited January 2, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/magazine_article/guns-suicide/

Quote

While suicide prevention requires a holistic approach, there are evidence-based gun policies that are associated with reductions in firearms suicide:

Permit-to-purchase laws (also known as handgun purchaser licensing or PTP) create a robust system to screen out prohibited individuals (whether it be for severe mental illness or criminal history) and hold gun sellers accountable by only allowing them to sell to someone with a valid license. These laws are associated with reductions in firearms suicide – this could be related to delaying acquisition of a firearm during a time of crisis or access to more records by state and local law enforcement enabling them to better identify those who may be at risk of harming themselves. These laws are particularly relevant for first-time handgun purchasers or those who otherwise do not have ready access to a firearm

Waiting periods have been found to be associated with lower rates of firearm suicide. These laws require an individual to wait a certain number of days after purchasing a handgun before the purchaser can take possession of the gun. Waiting periods can delay the impulsive purchase of a handgun, which could reduce the likelihood that gun would be used in a suicide attempt if the moment of crisis passes prior to the purchaser taking possession of the gun.

Child Access Prevention (CAP) laws require that gun owners store their guns in a manner that prevents unauthorized or unsupervised access to firearms by youth or adolescents under a certain age. More than 40 percent of fatal suicides by those age 17 and younger are committed with a firearm. Restricting access to the most lethal means among a high-risk group is an important step to prevent youth suicide. States with CAP laws have rates of youth firearm suicide that are eight percent lower than states without these laws.

Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO, sometimes referred to as ‘red flags’ laws) allow for family members or police to petition for the temporary removal of firearms from individuals exhibiting behaviors that indicate they are at risk of harming themselves or others. These laws provide due process through the court, and firearms can be returned to the individual when the risk has passed. Evaluations of ERPOs suggest that they are protective against firearm suicide.
 

https://americanhealth.jhu.edu/article/how-do-gun-laws-affect-suicide-rates

Edited January 2, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

I need to doublecheck this second stat, but even if ten times as much (50% instead of 5%), it is still dramatically different that firearms.

https://everytownresearch.org/reports/disrupting-access/

Edited January 2, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

 

• A study from 2014 showed that those people that died from accidental shooting were more than three times as likely to have had a firearm in their home as those in the control.
• A 2001 study found that regardless of age, people are nine times more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns.

https://www.aftermath.com/content/accidental-shooting-deaths-statistics/

[Calm]

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/case-fatality/

Since this was from 97, I didn't post it earlier, but combined with the other data I posted I think it demonstrates suicide by other methods are not as lethal in terms of what actually happens.  Harder to change one's mind once the trigger is pulled than even throwing oneself in a river (the next most lethal at almost 20% less "effective").

Quote

The bar graph below shows “case fatality” (the percent of people who die in a suicide attempt) for several methods of suicide. It is based on a study that used emergency department data and death certificate data from 8 U.S. states. Firearms have the highest case fatality, and drug/overdose ingestion and cutting have the lowest.

Edited January 2, 2020 by Calm

[Bob Crockett]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

By all means, if a manufacturer is making defective widgets, let the torts begin.  Pardon my ignorance, but does the Second Amend actually prevent that?  If so, how do you recommend that we correct the problem?

Rescind the Second Amendment. Nobody has the guts to do that. Just as there is no courage to use the amendment in procedure to give abortion legislation back to the States. 

[blarsen]

19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 . . .   We also need to go back to the day when the mentally ill were housed in mental hospitals.  Instead, we house them in expensive prisons -- after they commit horrendous crimes.   . . . .

This is a fundamental problem my RN wife has complained about for years, having been a psychiatric nurse (no, I didn't meet her on the closed ward).  These people used to be confined for their own  good, at least brought in for extensive evaluation.

[blarsen]

16 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Excellent post!!!  I add my libertarian two cents.  Why on earth do we have legislation (the Second Amendment) favoring the gun industry?  The gun industry should be on equal footing with knife and chainsaw makers.   Let tort law put pressure on the gun makers.

But the tort law should be addressing defective manufacturing and perhaps design, not holding gun manufacturers responsible for how their 'tools' are being used.

Edited January 2, 2020 by blarsen

[blarsen]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

If I'm serious about committing suicide, this shows me guns are the way to go.

Drowning/submersion/suffocation/handing also indicate fairly serious intent.  Poison by gas is also probably quite decisive, especially if you removed instances where the gas was discovered by someone coming on the scene early enough to save the person.  And jumping?  Also decisive, provided you remove those cases where the jumping didn't go high enough.  Stats for jumpers of the Golden Gate Bridge (jump/drownng) are probably quite decisive, for instance.

Also lacking in this stat compilation, is a sorting out of those who made these unsuccessful attempts but went on to make later successful attempts.  My guess is that there are quite a few suicides that had one or more prior attempts.

The real question is:  would removing all guns from non-criminal citizens greatly reduce the number of  suicides.  I for one, doubt it.

 

 

Edited January 2, 2020 by blarsen

[BlueDreams]

46 minutes ago, blarsen said:

If I'm serious about committing suicide, this shows me guns are the way to go.

Drowning/submersion/suffocation/handing also indicate fairly serious intent.  Poison by gas is also probably quite decisive, especially if you removed instances where the gas was discovered by someone coming on the scene early enough to save the person.  And jumping?  Also decisive, provided you remove those cases where the jumping didn't go high enough.  Stats for jumpers of the Golden Gate Bridge (jump/drownng) are probably quite decisive, for instance.

Also lacking in this stat compilation, is a sorting out of those who made these unsuccessful attempts but went on to make later successful attempts.  My guess is that there are quite a few suicides that had one or more prior attempts.

The real question is:  would removing all guns from non-criminal citizens greatly reduce the number of  suicides.  I for one, doubt it.

 

 

That’s literally what the stats calm posted point to: less guns ==> less lethal suicide attempt ==> less dead people. So if you can keep them from dying the first time, you’re likely to have just saved a life period. Guns reduce that chance to life. Yes, people may repeat attempts. But far fewer then you may think

“Nine out of ten people who attempt suicide and survive will not go on to die by suicide at a later date. This has been well-established in the suicidology literature. A literature review (Owens 2002) summarized 90 studies that have followed over time people who have made suicide attempts that resulted in medical care. Approximately 7% (range: 5-11%) of attempters eventually died by suicide, approximately 23% reattempted nonfatally, and 70% had no further attempts.”

 

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/survival/

Also, you can’t remove cases of attempts that were unsuccessful just because they weren’t successful in execution or they didn’t jump high enough. If someone, messed up setting up a gun, pulled the trigger and the bullet didn’t fire, that doesnt mean it wasn’t a serious or real attempt. It means they got lucky.  The point with attempt lethality is that certain forms of attempts have greater likelihoods for not working for a variety of reasons. Guns are efficient and fairly straightforward, thus the far higher lethality rates.

 

though no one is actually calling for all guns to be removed, it would definitely reduce the amount of deaths. Almost all available research on this points to that fact. 
 

With luv, 

BD 

[LoudmouthMormon]

35 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

That’s literally what the stats calm posted point to: less guns ==> less lethal suicide attempt ==> less dead people. So if you can keep them from dying the first time, you’re likely to have just saved a life period. Guns reduce that chance to life. Yes, people may repeat attempts. But far fewer then you may think

[...]

though no one is actually calling for all guns to be removed, it would definitely reduce the amount of deaths. Almost all available research on this points to that fact. 

Yeah, unless it doesn't.  It could also just point to committed suicidal people picking the best tool available, and if that tool weren't available, they'd pick the next best thing.   And suicide attempters (i.e., less serious than suicide committers), prefer methods they can survive.  Or even that attempting suicide with a handgun and not pulling the trigger, keeps people from being counted as a statistic.

If we've got a handgun, can we "attempt suicide" without pulling the trigger?  If you're gathering statistics, the answer is no.  But if we sit there with a loaded gun in our mouth for 30 minutes arguing with ourselves and failing to work up the gumption to pull the trigger, it's hard to argue that wasn't an attempt - it just doesn't appear in the statistics being discussed.  It's analogous to someone who cuts themselves, just not deeply enough.  Or someone who takes some pills, but not enough, or barfs before they die.  Or someone who tries to hang themselves, but struggles free.  These latter folks end up as statistics, the firearm guy doesn't. 

With this point in mind, I personally know three people who survived a suicide attempt with a firearm, only one of them pulled the trigger.

 

Edited January 2, 2020 by LoudmouthMormon

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, blarsen said:

This is a fundamental problem my RN wife has complained about for years, having been a psychiatric nurse (no, I didn't meet her on the closed ward).  These people used to be confined for their own  good, at least brought in for extensive evaluation.

In my official capacity, I have several times asked for a PET team (Psychological Evaluation Team) to check people in Los Angeles, but the standard was always Are they a danger to themselves or to others?  They used a very high bar, and it made me very sad to see them living lives of squalor and madness, on a downward spiral, no one to help them.  Now it has come a cropper for L.A., with rats and bubonic plague in the offing, offal and urine in the streets, drugs readily available.  The mise en scene of "Bladerunner" used to be fiction, now become a sad fact.

I once helped several friends get a guy to the County Harbor Medical Center (a UCLA teaching hospital for the whole county of L.A.).  They left me there to watch him and restrain him while we waited hours to get him seen.  The lines are long.  After about 6 hours, a psychiatric nurse came down from the upper floors and asked him if he wanted to be committed for observation.  Luckily he was in a good mood and said "yes."  Within 24-hours a couple of his uncles arrived and took him under their wing.  Most such cases don't end that well.

My late wife worked for years as a psychiatric nurse (APRN) at the Utah State (Mental) Hospital in Provo.  She worked in the section with the criminally insane, guys guilty of horrific rapes and murders, whose names you've seen in the newspapers.  Why are we so reluctant to place such people in lockdown facilities before they commit major crimes?

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Rescind the Second Amendment. Nobody has the guts to do that. Just as there is no courage to use the amendment in procedure to give abortion legislation back to the States. 

And you claim to be a libertarian?   However, in polls over the years, the Bill of Rights doesn't actually do very well with the American public, and I have heard that the millennials would be willing to get rid of the whole thing.  Brave new world?

[Bob Crockett]

Yes I am a libertarian.  Gun policy should be governed by tort law.  Abortion law should be left to the States.  

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Yeah, unless it doesn't.  It could also just point to committed suicidal people picking the best tool available, and if that tool weren't available, they'd pick the next best thing.   And suicide attempters (i.e., less serious than suicide committers), prefer methods they can survive.  Or even that attempting suicide with a handgun and not pulling the trigger, keeps people from being counted as a statistic.

If we've got a handgun, can we "attempt suicide" without pulling the trigger?  If you're gathering statistics, the answer is no.  But if we sit there with a loaded gun in our mouth for 30 minutes arguing with ourselves and failing to work up the gumption to pull the trigger, it's hard to argue that wasn't an attempt - it just doesn't appear in the statistics being discussed.  It's analogous to someone who cuts themselves, just not deeply enough.  Or someone who takes some pills, but not enough, or barfs before they die.  Or someone who tries to hang themselves, but struggles free.  These latter folks end up as statistics, the firearm guy doesn't. 

With this point in mind, I personally know three people who survived a suicide attempt with a firearm, only one of them pulled the trigger.

 

It could but it’s unlikely. Different people choose differing methods and some of that’s tied to gender and access. It’s not about commitment usually. I’ve had people with varying types of plans and attempts. I’ve never seen the method correlate with their willingness to carry it out. (For the record I haven’t had anyone have a lethal attempt.) 
 

from what i’m reading the 3 friends you mentioned likely count as people who attempted. There’s effort to have uniform definitions and what you describe counts as type 1. the type that does cause some form of injury is type 2 attempts (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_terminology). The gun example would be as one who collected the means, started initiating said means, and then decided against it before really enacting the form of self injury. (Which is also why there’s a wide difference in attempts stats). I can’t say which type is included in the research and stats though. Considering the sources i would assume they would use definitions recognized in the field of research.  
 

still the problem still exists with guns that is less so for other methods. With guns the margin of error in attempts is a lot slimmer than other methods. And there’s no way around that. With less access to guns people struggling would be less likely to die. I think of it as feeling certain that you should go to Florida. One Chooses a plane, another a car, another a horse, and another by foot. All of them have the potential to get there. But the exit points are fewer and the destination more likely on plane than on foot. Determination has little to factor in there once they get going. 

with luv,

BD

 

[Bob Crockett]

4 hours ago, blarsen said:

But the tort law should be addressing defective manufacturing and perhaps design, not holding gun manufacturers responsible for how their 'tools' are being used.

That is not true.  If a barkeep sells a drink to a drunk who says he is headed to his car, the barkeep is liable for an accident.  

[Calm]

4 hours ago, blarsen said:

The real question is:  would removing all guns from non-criminal citizens greatly reduce the number of  suicides.  I for one, doubt it.

Did you see the stats comparing the 'lots of guns' states to 'not so many guns' states?  Non firearm suicides only were 100 more while there was more than  10,000 less for gun deaths with population numbers being about the same in each group.  Even if we assume states with less guns tend to have less people experiencing suicidal thoughts or better mental health treatment options, the difference between 25,000 and 14,000 is highly unlikely to be attributed to everything but having guns more accessible.

Edited January 2, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

It could also just point to committed suicidal people picking the best tool available, and if that tool weren't available, they'd pick the next best thing

So what you are saying is committed suicide people primarily live in high gun numbers states while low gun number states have far fewer ones set on killing themselves?  Because the stats show that "choosing the next best thing" increases nongun deaths from 9100 to 9200 iirc in lowest gun numbers states, but there are over 10,000 less gun deaths.  If your premise was correct, we would be seeing a much larger jump of nongun deaths in Low gun numbers states...as in more of the 10,000 would be showing up than 100 deaths.

Edited January 2, 2020 by Calm

[Amulek]

57 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

5 hours ago, blarsen said:

But the tort law should be addressing defective manufacturing and perhaps design, not holding gun manufacturers responsible for how their 'tools' are being used.

That is not true.  If a barkeep sells a drink to a drunk who says he is headed to his car, the barkeep is liable for an accident.  

Only barkeepers are alcohol retailers - not alcohol manufactures.

If a bartender over-serves someone who says they are planning on driving home, why should that impose a legal liability upon Smirnoff, Jack Daniel's, Jim Beam, or any other alcohol manufacturer?

The manufacturer had no relationship with the individual and had no way of knowing the individual had any sort of intent to use their (perfectly legal) product negligently, so why should they be liable? 

 

[LoudmouthMormon]

3 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

from what i’m reading the 3 friends you mentioned likely count as people who attempted. There’s effort to have uniform definitions and what you describe counts as type 1. the type that does cause some form of injury is type 2 attempts (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_terminology). The gun example would be as one who collected the means, started initiating said means, and then decided against it before really enacting the form of self injury. (Which is also why there’s a wide difference in attempts stats). I can’t say which type is included in the research and stats though. Considering the sources i would assume they would use definitions recognized in the field of research.

The guy who pulled the trigger counts, the police and medical treatment were involved.  But how would the other two count as people who attempted?  How would the people who gather these statistics find out about them?  There's no hospital or police record.  If they sought counseling, counselors don't report them into any database.   

Edited January 3, 2020 by LoudmouthMormon

[Rajah Manchou]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Why are we so reluctant to place such people in lockdown facilities before they commit major crimes?

So the shooter in the Texas church had a history of aggravated assault with weapons, arson and had warrants out for his arrest in other states.

In 2012, a district judge in Oklahoma ruled him mentally incompetent to stand trial and ordered him committed to a psychiatric facility for treatment. A forensic psychologist who examined him in 2012 wrote that “Kinnunen currently evidences signs that are consistent with a substantial mental illness and that meet the inpatient criteria of a ‘person requiring treatment.’” 

Kinnunen was charged with felony assault and battery with a dangerous weapon after he allegedly attacked the owner of a Chickasha, Oklahoma, doughnut shop, as well as third-degree arson charges for a separate 2011 incident in which he allegedly started a fire in a cotton field.

“Keith is a violent, paranoid person with a long line of assault and battery w/ and without firearms,” Glasgow-Voegle said in the petition. She also wrote that Kinnunen was prone to religious fanaticism and “says he’s battling a demon.” (source)

This is the real problem. Individuals who are known to be so mentally incompetent that they can't even stand trial for their violent offenses can legally carry legally-acquired shotguns into places of worship.