Good Guy with a gun, fallacy or not?

[slash2k]

@DrDeth

I have seen them also. Try and buy a gun, they will make you fill out the requisite forms and do a check.

Parking lot sales are private parties. They are against the law in several states, including California.

I don’t know about where you live, but in my part of the world, a private seller is allowed to rent a table for the sale of items from his/her private collection. That’s an entirely private sale, no background check, no paperwork, no forms, cash-only if he wants, on the floor of the show. See this article for a description of a show organized by the company that holds regular shows in the Midwest, including my hometown.

I’ve even seen a vendor who had tables “over here” with guns requiring background checks and a table “over there” filled with guns allegedly from a private collection; the vendor openly advertised that the guns “over there” on the adjacent table were being sold without background checks. He himself held an FFL, and sales from his stock required a background check, but he was facilitating dispersal of a private collection. Show management was aware of what he was doing, and had no problem with it. That was years ago, and he still has an FFL, so apparently the feds didn’t have a problem either (or never found out).

Parking lot sales are not illegal in the majority of states, including mine.

@Bone

It’s a felony to:

Purchase a firearm outside of your state of residence. I think this derives from 18 U.S.C. Section 922(a)(5) but that may be focused on the seller.
It’s a felony to transport that firearm back to your state of residence. 18 U.S.C. Section 922(a)(3)
It’s a felony to knowingly sell a firearm to a person that is not a resident of your state. 18 U.S.C. Section 922(a)(5)
Depending on your home state, the possession of that firearm may be a felony.
Depending on your home state, the importation of that firearm may be a felony.

The person purchasing commits a single felony under 18 USC 922(a)(3). (a)(5) is indeed focused on the seller, and requires “knowing” your purchaser is not a resident; “don’t ask, don’t tell” isn’t just for the military, and no law requires a private seller to make inquiry. If your possession of the gun is a felony in your home state (felon in possession, e.g.), the same holds true for your acquiring it at home; there’s no need to go to another state. California is fairly unusual in having a lot of restrictions surrounding the import of guns, and most states don’t have such rules.

In other words, most people going to another state, buying a gun, and bringing it home are committing a single felony.

@Bone

What we do know is that for those areas we have data, CCW holders are less inclined to commit crimes than the general population. I don’t assume that CCW holders are all honorable and upright - and I don’t think that’s the implication when talking about the relative propensity for criminal activity. CCW holders as a whole self selects and the conclusion I draw is that CCW is not a significant issue to be concerned about when it comes to people committing crime. Before the rise of shall issue CCW, the argument against it was that it would lead to increases in crime, blood in the streets, etc. This hasn’t occurred and we now have 40 states that are shall issue or constitutional carry. So what we know is that the arguments against more permissive CCW are dead.

The question, however, is whether having a gun all nice and handy makes somebody more inclined to use it even when its use is not appropriate (the old guy who pulls out his piece to settle an argument over a fender-bender, e.g., as happened awhile back in my neck of the woods). The answer to that question requires knowing the crime rate for CCW holders versus other people of similar age, etc., who don’t carry, and we don’t have those kinds of statistics.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Bone

It’s a felony to:

Purchase a firearm outside of your state of residence. I think this derives from 18 U.S.C. Section 922(a)(5) but that may be focused on the seller.
It’s a felony to transport that firearm back to your state of residence. 18 U.S.C. Section 922(a)(3)
It’s a felony to knowingly sell a firearm to a person that is not a resident of your state. 18 U.S.C. Section 922(a)(5)
Depending on your home state, the possession of that firearm may be a felony.
Depending on your home state, the importation of that firearm may be a felony.

Ignorance fought. Thank you.

[Bone]

@slash2k

I don’t know about where you live, but in my part of the world, a private seller is allowed to rent a table for the sale of items from his/her private collection. That’s an entirely private sale, no background check, no paperwork, no forms, cash-only if he wants, on the floor of the show. See this article for a description of a show organized by the company that holds regular shows in the Midwest, including my hometown.

This site has a pretty obvious political slant, but they are not bad at summarizing the status of laws:

Eighteen states and D.C. have extended the background check requirement beyond federal law to at least some private sales. Eight states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington State) and D.C. require universal background checks at the point of sale for all transfers of all classes of firearms, including purchases from unlicensed sellers; Maryland and Pennsylvania laws do the same, but are limited to handguns. Four states (Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts and New Jersey) require any firearm purchaser, including a purchaser from an unlicensed seller, to obtain a permit issued after a background check, and four more states (Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska and North Carolina) do the same only for handguns. Illinois also requires a background check whenever a firearm is sold at a gun show.29
Nevada law allows but does not require unlicensed sellers to request a background check on a firearm purchaser.30
Most of these jurisdictions also require unlicensed sellers to keep records of firearm sales or report such sales to law enforcement, as detailed in our summary on Maintaining Records & Reporting Gun Sales.

I’ve even seen a vendor who had tables “over here” with guns requiring background checks and a table “over there” filled with guns allegedly from a private collection; the vendor openly advertised that the guns “over there” on the adjacent table were being sold without background checks. He himself held an FFL, and sales from his stock required a background check, but he was facilitating dispersal of a private collection. Show management was aware of what he was doing, and had no problem with it. That was years ago, and he still has an FFL, so apparently the feds didn’t have a problem either (or never found out).

This is possible because there is no bright line for when one is “engaged in the business”. That is something that can be done through executive order should a president choose to go down that route - subject to the applicable laws on promulgating regulations.

[Boyo_Jim]

@Velocity

Sure. But if he does, that becomes irrelevant.

Let’s say there’s an armed robbery on the street or a home invasion, and the victim has access to a gun. The question in my mind is – if the victim cooperates in being robbed and hands over a wallet or whatever is demanded, is the victim (and other innocents in the vicinity) more or less likely to be injured if (s)he pulls a gun and starts firing.

I don’t know the answer to this question.

[China_Guy]

Bone, you didn’t answer my questions in post #99.

Back to your earlier quotation from Rolling Stone (sorry, I don’t know how to do this properly, so excuse my cut and paste job).

[/quote]
Originally Posted by Rolling Stone, “Gunning for Guns”
"Firearms co-chair Rosenberg says the group is looking to develop strategies to “reframe the debate” on guns. “We’re trying to get away from this notion of gun control,” Rosenberg says. He envisions a long-term campaign, similar to those on tobacco use and auto safety, to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public-health menace. “We didn’t have to ban cars,” he says. “We made cars safer. We made roads safer. We reduced drunk driving. It’s the greatest success story in public health of the last 25 years.”

While the language of public health is certainly applicable – few things are less healthy than a bullet – the NRA won’t fail to note that the measures required to improve this particular problem all revert to gun control of one sort or another." [end/quote] Full disclosure. Bold and italics mine for emphasis. Truncated the remaining sentences to highlight the bolded line.

I’m seeing that the CDC 20+ years ago had the premise that the number of firearms in the US is a direct contributor to firearm related deaths (suicide or murder) versus every other developed country by orders of magnitude. Honestly, to look at the US mass shootings versus any other developed country and say it isn’t a problem is, frankly, asinine. And therefore it is not unreasonable for the CDC to say they want to study the issue, and think it will require an approach akin to that taken with smoking.

That said, it hits the NRA slippery slope hot button big time, and IMHO that’s the biggest rub.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with the CDC making this premise, doing or funding the studies to prove said premise (with data and methodologies made public in interests of total transparency), making recommendations (unpopular though these may be with certain segments) and then the legislative branch making the judgement call on new laws or restrictions. Congress may or may not agree with the findings and the recommendations. In that, I agree with you Bone that the CDC should make the policy but should only do the studies, and make policy recommendations for Congress to evaluate.

Frankly, I find it un-American, anti-freedom and anti-free speech to prevent a government institution like the CDC from conducting the studies. I mean if the data is so cut and dried for a good guy with a gun and defensive gun use, then wouldn’t the NRA want that to be proven?

[DrDeth]

@China_Guy

B
I see absolutely nothing wrong with the CDC making this premise, doing or funding the studies to prove said premise (with data and methodologies made public in interests of total transparency), making recommendations (unpopular though these may be with certain segments) and then the legislative branch making the judgement call on new laws or restrictions. Congress may or may not agree with the findings and the recommendations. In that, I agree with you Bone that the CDC should make the policy but should only do the studies, and make policy recommendations for Congress to evaluate.

Frankly, I find it un-American, anti-freedom and anti-free speech to prevent a government institution like the CDC from conducting the studies. I mean if the data is so cut and dried for a good guy with a gun and defensive gun use, then wouldn’t the NRA want that to be proven?

No, scientists dont decide what they want the results are going to be first, then tailor the study to get those results. That’s bias.

Why Congress Cut The CDC’s Gun Research Budget

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/why-the-cdc-still-isnt-researching-gun-violence-despite-the-ban-being-lifted-two-years-ago/

and the CDC is* not* blocked from conducting said research, what they are blocked from is "None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

[China_Guy]

@DrDeth

No, scientists dont decide what they want the results are going to be first, then tailor the study to get those results. That’s bias.

and the CDC is* not* blocked from conducting said research, what they are blocked from is "None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

First, I’d say it’s a premise from the NRA tha the CDC decided what the results will be first, and then set about proving those results. I haven’t seen a well made case beyond anecdotes 20+ years ago. Certainly this thread doesn’t have anything more than biased media reports and no original documentation that can be debated.

That said, the US has fuckloads higher gun deaths than any other developed nation and also has more guns in circulation (legally or not). It’s a pretty obvious first step to take those two data points as a “smoking gun” and then do the studies that prove or disprove that theory. That isn’t politics nor bias, that’s just common sense that the most obvious reason might actually be ***the ***reason. But we won’t know because Congress has blocked the CDC from doing any studies, nor has Congress manned up to fund a different government related branch to do the research.

Second, the CDC isn’t “blocked”, they just don’t have any “funding” from Congress. Congress made it clear trom cutting past budgets that if the CDC does any accounting gymnastics to actually fund firearm accident/death research, then Congress will cut next year’s budget. So, no, I agree not “officially” blocked, but “effectively” blocked.

[Bone]

Coming back to this post:

@China_Guy

CDC got this funding cut 100% so effectively they can’t do research, making the point moot. Second, it’s unclear for the few examples if the CDC was doing the advocacy or if it was the funded studies done by non CDC folks like Kellerman.

This is incorrect - the restriction only impacts advocacy for gun control, not research.

You’re going to have to define advocacy. And I don’t mean to be snarky. CDC sees the level of gun violence in the US versus any other first world country, and comes to the premise that the levels of individual gun ownership in the US is part of the cause. Then they set about proving or disproving that premise. So far, can we agree this is not advocacy?

Advocacy is recommendation of a particular policy. Establishing hypothesis, conducting research, that’s not advocacy.

If the CDC findings have strong scientific correlation borne out in a statistically relevant manner, and the CDC recommends some actions to congress based on that data. Is this advocacy or is it addressing a health risk?

If they are recommending a particular policy, they are engaged in advocacy.

If you take the example of smoking or seat belts, clearly smoking and not wearing seat belts was a health risk. Was the recommendation to restrict smoking, publicize the health risks, etc advocacy or addressing a health risk? Was the recommendation to make everyone buckle up advocacy or addressing a health risk?

It was advocacy. To avoid the advocacy part, they could have simply presented the disparity in risk of the different behaviors and let Congress or the States determine the course of action. This type of advocacy is less objectionable however since it’s not trying to ban a fundamental enumerated constitutional right.

If Kellerman, in fact, does not release his data, that is a huge black mark. Data has to stand on it’s own. Now, I haven’t dug into Kellerman’s study and don’t plan to, but several of the Kellerman criticisms such as “using epidemiological methods in an attempt to investigate an issue dealing with criminology” is opinion that hasn’t been substantiated.

Kellerman did refuse to release data for approximately 4 years after the study was released. After the eventual release there were additional weaknesses detected in the study methodology. If you have not read the Kellerman study then I’m not interested in going through it with you. It’s really not that long though it takes some effort to parse the tables. If you decide to eventually read it then let me know if you’d like to discuss it then.

Again, I find it frustrating dealing with the NRA positions because they never seem to be substantiated. Start to peel back the onion, and they toss out 3 more onions.

This isn’t the NRA position any more than it is the position of Congress.

@China_Guy

First, I’d say it’s a premise from the NRA tha the CDC decided what the results will be first, and then set about proving those results. I haven’t seen a well made case beyond anecdotes 20+ years ago. Certainly this thread doesn’t have anything more than biased media reports and no original documentation that can be debated.

I don’t know why you keep saying this - the original articles have been linked and quoted. What more did you have in mind with regard to “original documentation”?

That’s why I originally asked if the head of the CDC group that would do the research saying guns should be banned be sufficient. Because if that’s not, then anything else can be handwaved away.

[DrDeth]

@China_Guy

First, I’d say it’s a premise from the NRA tha the CDC decided what the results will be first, and then set about proving those results. I haven’t seen a well made case beyond anecdotes 20+ years ago. Certainly this thread doesn’t have anything more than biased media reports and no original documentation that can be debated.

Second, the CDC isn’t “blocked”, they just don’t have any “funding” from Congress. Congress made it clear trom cutting past budgets that if the CDC does any accounting gymnastics to actually fund firearm accident/death research, then Congress will cut next year’s budget. So, no, I agree not “officially” blocked, but “effectively” blocked.

First, that study is still being widely quoted today, and still doing damage- in fact “it’s more dangerous to have a gun at home” is practically a meme on the internet, even here. (and it’s been totally debunked, not only for bias, but for methodology)

And the cite for the original documentation is right there: *“These problems prompted objections and questions from leading scientists in the field of criminology, such as Yale University professor John Lott, Florida State’s Gary Kleck, and University of Massachusetts sociology professors James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi. Their research had come to vastly different conclusions, and they found the methodology unsound.”
*

More Guns, Less Crime

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

and no it’s not “effectively blocked”, that’s another “Big Lie” from the Gun Control fanatics: "CDC was not banned from doing the research. In fact, CDC articles pertaining to firearms have held steady since the defunding, and even increased to 121 in 2013.

Finally as my cite sez "Tax Dollars Shouldn’t Aim to Influence Politics"

[Slash1972]

@DrDeth

in fact “it’s more dangerous to have a gun at home” is practically a meme on the internet, even here. (and it’s been totally debunked, not only for bias, but for methodology)

Are you saying it’s NOT more dangerous to have a gun at home then it is to not have a gun at home?

[Orwell]

@Slash1972

Are you saying it’s NOT more dangerous to have a gun at home then it is to not have a gun at home?

I suspect it is marginally more dangerous to have a gun at home, along with a knife, axe, chainsaw, circular saw, ladder, step stool, baseball bat, golf clubs, basketball hoop, dog, lawnmower, ATV, motorcycle, car, swimming pool, etc. But every item is a tool or implement for one or more practical and/or recreational uses, just like a firearm. Life is not without risks. But I’ve had guns in my home my entire life as a child and an adult, and have had no mishaps yet, which is more than I can say about some other tools and equipment. And a gun might very well make my household safer, if needed, like a fire extinguisher.

The problem with looking at most gun “statistics”, as promulgated by gun control advocates, is lumping together accidents, suicides, murders, justifiable homicides and everything else into one figure, ignoring the different factors involved with each.

[DrDeth]

@Slash1972

Are you saying it’s NOT more dangerous to have a gun at home then it is to not have a gun at home?

Yes, it’s safer to have a gun at home.

[Slash1972]

@DrDeth

Yes, it’s safer to have a gun at home.

That seems like a weird thing to say. Do you have any links to studies that show that having a gun at home is SAFER than NOT having one?

[Slash1972]

@Orwell

I suspect it is marginally more dangerous to have a gun at home, along with a knife, axe, chainsaw, circular saw, ladder, step stool, baseball bat, golf clubs, basketball hoop, dog, lawnmower, ATV, motorcycle, car, swimming pool, etc.

And a gun might very well make my household safer, if needed, like a fire extinguisher

I’m sorry, but are you saying that having a baseball bat and/or a fire extinguisher in the home is just as dangerous as having a gun?

[slash2k]

@Bone

Coming back to this post:
This is incorrect - the restriction only impacts advocacy for gun control, not research.

Advocacy is recommendation of a particular policy. Establishing hypothesis, conducting research, that’s not advocacy.

That’s not advocacy, IF AND ONLY IF the people making the decisions (in this case, Congress) decides it’s not advocacy. Like the famous line on obscenity (“I’ll know it when I see it”), whether or not something qualifies as advocacy is in the eye of the beholder. It’s all very well and good for you to say “they could have simply presented the disparity in risk of the different behaviors and let Congress or the States determine the course of action”; you’re not the one making the decision. The paymasters, such as the heads of the relevant budget/oversight subcommittees, are free to provide their own definition, and for example to say, “well, you’re presenting all of this data that makes it look like having guns in certain situations is dangerous; that is closet advocacy for banning guns in those situations, and the CDC has now violated the law. Bad CDC! We’re cutting your funding.”

That’s called a chilling effect, and the CDC is understandably wary about funding anything that even looks like it could be close to reaching a conclusion that the NRA finds unpalatable. For example, the CDC did a study on gun violence in Wilmington, Delaware, in 2015; although the study ostensibly looks at ‘opportunities for prevention,’ they conspicuously did NOT investigate how the perpetrators acquired guns, or ways to prevent them from having access to guns, because those questions flirt too close to the line. If for example an investigation revealed that the bad guys bought guns from private sellers (I don’t know whether or not an investigation would reveal that, but let’s pretend), then a flat statement that “bad guys buy guns from private sellers” could be construed by the NRA and its tame lawmakers to mean the CDC is promoting the idea that controls on private sellers would inhibit bad guys from buying guns. Bad CDC! We’re cutting your funding.

So yes, the CDC did a study on guns, but they didn’t ask obvious questions because the answers might be dangerous to the CDC. Looking just at numbers of CDC studies that mention the word ‘firearms,’ without looking at the questions asked or unasked within those studies, is missing the point.

[Orwell]

@Slash1972

I’m sorry, but are you saying that having a baseball bat and/or a fire extinguisher in the home is just as dangerous as having a gun?

Read again. I do not try to rank the danger factor of the various items mentioned in the first sentence, but all are dangerous and cause injuries. Certainly, ladders and saws, not to mention swimming pools, cause many injuries and deaths, but I am not going to bother looking up any stats. As I said, life is not without risk, and I’m not going to evaluate the relative risk of all of the tools and implements I use.

The comparison of a firearm and fire extinguisher should be self-evident, and really needs no explanation, but, no, fire extinguishers probably cause few injuries.

[slash2k]

@DrDeth

Yes, it’s safer to have a gun at home.

If I live in a neighborhood where home invasions are common, maybe. If I live in a home with a spouse or child who suffers from bipolar disorder with psychotic features, maybe not so much. Now, where’s the research that addresses both situations?

[Slash1972]

@Orwell

As I said, life is not without risk, and I’m not going to evaluate the relative risk of all of the tools and implements I use.

Fair enough. So your answer to “Is it more dangerous to have a gun in the house compared to not having a gun in the house?” is “I don’t know, and I don’t care to look”?

[Slash1972]

@slash2k

If I live in a neighborhood where home invasions are common, maybe. If I live in a home with a spouse or child who suffers from bipolar disorder with psychotic features, maybe not so much. Now, where’s the research that addresses both situations?

I found This study:

“Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home”

Of course, that was 2004, so maybe it has become safer to have a gun in the home since then.

[DrDeth]

@Slash1972

That seems like a weird thing to say. Do you have any links to studies that show that having a gun at home is SAFER than NOT having one?

More Guns, Less Crime

Why Congress Cut The CDC’s Gun Research Budget

But those do not directly show that. They simply show that having gun sin general are safer and the the study that showed having a gun at home is more dangerous is bogus- unscientific and biased.

The issue is that home robberies and burglaries that are prevented by having a gun in the home are very poorly studied. Honestly, we dont really know.

So, certainly, in some households, like those with a violent person or a criminal or with small children- it can be more dangerous. In others the extra safety may be better. and of course the extra* sense of security *can’t be valued.

So, I’d say it would have to be a informed decision. Like buying a fast sports car or riding a motorcycle.