The main issue I have with laws like these is… once the person who “needed to cool off” has the gun all they need is to get hot-headed again and this time there isn’t a cool-off period for them to access it.
The psychology “test” is all fine and good, but a test doesn’t tell you what an actual licensed psychologist can. Way too easy for someone to just lie on a test if they know what the “right” answers are. A lot more difficult to hide dangerous personality traits in front of another human being. Step it up one more notch to requiring a psychological evaluation.
Would any psychologist risk their entire career and criminal liability to grant anyone a pass to obtain a firearms license? For what is ultimately a hobby?
I think an evaluation is just unreasonable considering how overworked mental health professionals are. I would genuinely hate it if someone who wants to get better and work out some issues can’t because there is better money in talking to the gun nuts.
Nah. I am a firm believer in chains of liability. Kid shoots up a school? Whose gun was that? Dad? Dad is now liable for a pretty major charge. Oh? He didn’t keep it locked up in a safe? Who sold Dad that gun? Herman? He better have ALL his paperwork in order and he better have followed every single required step to make sure Dad knows how to store a gun properly and has a gun safe and so forth. He didn’t? What distributor did he buy that gun from? And so forth.
Obviously US biased, but we put more effort into making sure someone buying a car has insurance than we do making sure someone buying a gun even understands why keeping “one in the chamber” is one of the dumbest things you can do.
So pass that on. Because if that guy who wants a people killer gives bad vibes? That isn’t just your license mister gun store man, that is potentially your freedom if he goes after the woman who turned him down for coffee. And if you are a gun company and you sell to sketchy stores that “lose shipments” all the time? You might not be a company the first time a serial number is run. Suddenly EVERYONE starts caring about actually doing due diligence.
And obviously that model is incredibly prone to racism and bias. But that also matters a lot less if the guy who will sell a gun to any white man with a swastika on his neck goes to prison after the first murder.
The issue I can see with that model is that, depending on how exactly it is implemented, it might end up spilling into places that involve people who were doing nothing unreasonable. For example, suppose a criminal makes a pipe gun, or a 3-d printed one, and uses that in a crime. If we’re always looking down the chain, do we also hold responsible whoever sold them the pipes, or the printer, or other machining tools? The easy enough answer is to except steps that don’t usually have to do with firearms I suppose (where the people involved would not generally have reason to expect the purchaser is using what they buy for those purposes), but in taking that obvious step, one would create a situation where acquiring guns through less traceable and safe means becomes easier than the ways that can be tracked, which is rarely a good thing if you want rules to actually be followed.
Personally, I think that, rather than the guns themselves, the focus of gun control measures should be on the ammunition they fire. It doesn’t last as long as a gun potentially can, and is disposable, meaning that the large number of guns already in circulation poses less of an issue, and is harder to manufacture at home due to the requirement for explosive chemicals. Further, most “legitimate” civilian uses for a gun either don’t require all that much of it (like hunting), or can be done in a centralized location that can monitor use (like sport target shooting at a professionally run shooting range).
What I would do, is put a very restrictive limit on how much ammunition a given person may purchase in a given year, and only allow exceptions to that limit if the person can provide proof that an equivalent amount of their existing allotment has been fired, returns old ammunition for exchange, or purchases the extra at a licensed range that as a condition of the license must monitor patrons and ensure those bullets are either fired or refunded before the shooter leaves.
3d printed guns/ghost guns are a whole different mess that can be trivially solved by controlling the barrels. People underestimate how much material science goes into making a gun barrel and can just look at any documentation on The Troubles for how often pipe guns exploded in the hands of those who use it.
Also, people don’t like it but that can also be more or less trivially solved through simple (basically computer vision but) AI/ML that can detect if you are printing a glock or if that cavity is the perfect size for an AR-15 fire control group. And companies like Bambu are already doing everything they can to lock down slicers to proprietary software that will make this easy.
but in taking that obvious step, one would create a situation where acquiring guns through less traceable and safe means becomes easier than the ways that can be tracked, which is rarely a good thing if you want rules to actually be followed.
Which sounds like a good thing to me. I would much rather people have to have technical know how (because printing that STL you bought on the fun site is not as easy as you would expect. Old Vice had a great video on this) rather than just buying a gun at walmart or one of the many “untraceable” guns that “fell off the back of a truck” on their way to said walmart.
I am also a fan of controlling ammunition (buy as much as you can shoot at the range but you need to keep it there) but it really doesn’t take much ammo to wipe out a kindergarten class.
Right it’s a law that is on the liberal -> fascist pipeline. They don’t want to ban guns (why not?) they just want to make sure that only certain people can have them based on subjective evaluation. How is this good for anyone? It does nothing to prevent things like this in the future. I guess it makes low-information voters feel good?
The main issue I have with laws like these is… once the person who “needed to cool off” has the gun all they need is to get hot-headed again and this time there isn’t a cool-off period for them to access it.
The psychology “test” is all fine and good, but a test doesn’t tell you what an actual licensed psychologist can. Way too easy for someone to just lie on a test if they know what the “right” answers are. A lot more difficult to hide dangerous personality traits in front of another human being. Step it up one more notch to requiring a psychological evaluation.
Would any psychologist risk their entire career and criminal liability to grant anyone a pass to obtain a firearms license? For what is ultimately a hobby?
I think an evaluation is just unreasonable considering how overworked mental health professionals are. I would genuinely hate it if someone who wants to get better and work out some issues can’t because there is better money in talking to the gun nuts.
Nah. I am a firm believer in chains of liability. Kid shoots up a school? Whose gun was that? Dad? Dad is now liable for a pretty major charge. Oh? He didn’t keep it locked up in a safe? Who sold Dad that gun? Herman? He better have ALL his paperwork in order and he better have followed every single required step to make sure Dad knows how to store a gun properly and has a gun safe and so forth. He didn’t? What distributor did he buy that gun from? And so forth.
Obviously US biased, but we put more effort into making sure someone buying a car has insurance than we do making sure someone buying a gun even understands why keeping “one in the chamber” is one of the dumbest things you can do.
So pass that on. Because if that guy who wants a people killer gives bad vibes? That isn’t just your license mister gun store man, that is potentially your freedom if he goes after the woman who turned him down for coffee. And if you are a gun company and you sell to sketchy stores that “lose shipments” all the time? You might not be a company the first time a serial number is run. Suddenly EVERYONE starts caring about actually doing due diligence.
And obviously that model is incredibly prone to racism and bias. But that also matters a lot less if the guy who will sell a gun to any white man with a swastika on his neck goes to prison after the first murder.
The issue I can see with that model is that, depending on how exactly it is implemented, it might end up spilling into places that involve people who were doing nothing unreasonable. For example, suppose a criminal makes a pipe gun, or a 3-d printed one, and uses that in a crime. If we’re always looking down the chain, do we also hold responsible whoever sold them the pipes, or the printer, or other machining tools? The easy enough answer is to except steps that don’t usually have to do with firearms I suppose (where the people involved would not generally have reason to expect the purchaser is using what they buy for those purposes), but in taking that obvious step, one would create a situation where acquiring guns through less traceable and safe means becomes easier than the ways that can be tracked, which is rarely a good thing if you want rules to actually be followed.
Personally, I think that, rather than the guns themselves, the focus of gun control measures should be on the ammunition they fire. It doesn’t last as long as a gun potentially can, and is disposable, meaning that the large number of guns already in circulation poses less of an issue, and is harder to manufacture at home due to the requirement for explosive chemicals. Further, most “legitimate” civilian uses for a gun either don’t require all that much of it (like hunting), or can be done in a centralized location that can monitor use (like sport target shooting at a professionally run shooting range).
What I would do, is put a very restrictive limit on how much ammunition a given person may purchase in a given year, and only allow exceptions to that limit if the person can provide proof that an equivalent amount of their existing allotment has been fired, returns old ammunition for exchange, or purchases the extra at a licensed range that as a condition of the license must monitor patrons and ensure those bullets are either fired or refunded before the shooter leaves.
3d printed guns/ghost guns are a whole different mess that can be trivially solved by controlling the barrels. People underestimate how much material science goes into making a gun barrel and can just look at any documentation on The Troubles for how often pipe guns exploded in the hands of those who use it.
Also, people don’t like it but that can also be more or less trivially solved through simple (basically computer vision but) AI/ML that can detect if you are printing a glock or if that cavity is the perfect size for an AR-15 fire control group. And companies like Bambu are already doing everything they can to lock down slicers to proprietary software that will make this easy.
Which sounds like a good thing to me. I would much rather people have to have technical know how (because printing that STL you bought on the fun site is not as easy as you would expect. Old Vice had a great video on this) rather than just buying a gun at walmart or one of the many “untraceable” guns that “fell off the back of a truck” on their way to said walmart.
I am also a fan of controlling ammunition (buy as much as you can shoot at the range but you need to keep it there) but it really doesn’t take much ammo to wipe out a kindergarten class.
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/7849/pg7849.txt
Right it’s a law that is on the liberal -> fascist pipeline. They don’t want to ban guns (why not?) they just want to make sure that only certain people can have them based on subjective evaluation. How is this good for anyone? It does nothing to prevent things like this in the future. I guess it makes low-information voters feel good?
Yeah, American thoughts and prayers system works better, not.