Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[ghotihook]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/19/7poi...last-year.html

Not super helpful with 7M+ Americans not even having a bank account.

https://www.fool.com/credit-cards/20...redit-card-her

And 28% of Americans not having credit cards.

These are things that people in poverty are less likely to have, which is one of the reasons why these ID laws are designed this way. But that's a topic for another thread.

Those stats boggle my mind that 2% of Americans don't have any kind of bank account. And many bank accounts are free.
I don't have any problem with people not having credit cards, they are EVIL!

I mean don't get me wrong I am NOT for voter ID. The number of "fake votes" is so low it's inconsequential.

[Edge-]

Those stats boggle my mind that 2% of Americans don't have any kind of bank account. And many bank accounts are free.
I don't have any problem with people not having credit cards, they are EVIL!

I mean don't get me wrong I am not FOR voter ID. The number of "fake votes" is so low it's inconsequential.

Why have a bank account if you have no money to put in it? Or if you have so little money there's no point and you're just risking potential fees etc.

[ghotihook]

Why have a bank account if you have no money to put in it? Or if you have so little money there's no point and you're just risking potential fees etc.

Like I said many are free, but you do need to be careful. I would also be interested on a stat of what % of the people that have no bank account also don't vote.

[Zan15]

Like I said many are free, but you do need to be careful. I would also be interested on a stat of what % of the people that have no bank account also don't vote.

Free*

Mine is free as long as i also open a savings account and have at least 5 transactions a month

finding an absolute free with no * outside of being a student is really hard.

[Draco-Onis]

"You can't ask me to register mah gun! I have a right to PRIVACY" types the idiot, on a cell phone that is collecting metadata and locational data and aggregating all that information to sell to advertisers who will notice you visited your mom, and your mom buys a different toothpaste than you, so maybe if you see ads for your mom's toothpaste brand, you'll consider switching to her brand.

Shit your phones actively do all the time, I'll note. They don't even have to listen in and process language; they have access to locational data for you and other phones and purchase histories with partners like Amazon or Visa or your bank and can extrapolate connections between all of that just fine.

But sure; whine that the government knows you own a gun. Makes total sense to loudly complain about that through Facebook and on Twitter from your portable wiretap and aggregator device.

Even worse these MUH privacy people are all over social media posting everything for the world to see.

- - - Updated - - -

Like I said many are free, but you do need to be careful. I would also be interested on a stat of what % of the people that have no bank account also don't vote.

I am not sure about where you are but most savings and checking accounts I have seen require you to either have a high balance or deposit a certain amount of checks every month or pay a monthly fee. I think really free checking died a couple of years ago that's when all my banks sent me the notice, I have to keep 5-10K to not get charged.

[PhaelixWW]

This is not the place for a discussion on voter ID requirements, and you all know it.

Back on topic:

The San Jose shooter apparently had three handguns that were all "the type that would be legal in California", carried 32 magazines, yet fired only 39 rounds, killing 10 people (including himself).

I can flat out guarantee that this tragedy will be used to push for proposed gun control that affects none of the particulars of this incident, however. We'll also continue to hear about how rifles are "so much more lethal" than handguns, despite the 5% to 90% discrepancy in their use in shooting homicides, as well as how magazine size is also a determining factor.

Does anyone want to opine on what proposed gun control they think could have prevented this tragedy?

[Edge-]

Does anyone want to opine on what proposed gun control they think could have prevented this tragedy?

I could, but you won't like the proposal.

[PhaelixWW]

I could, but you won't like the proposal.

You can propose whatever you'd like, even if you don't think I'd like it. That's the nature of a discussion. Ideally, just be prepared to back up your position.

As long as you don't lie about things, or make shitty accusations against people who disagree, I'm good.

[Captain N]

Shooter is Samuel Cassidy, described as a loner by coworker and public records show he made about $100,000 a year. Why would he be disgruntled who knows.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ktv...ail-gunman.amp

As a rail worker it's not the work that's the issue. It's co-workers and management that are just outright cruel and attempt to make "jokes" out of everything from sexual orientation to the appearance of your children. Management also consistently threatens to remove jobs, and demands unrealistic goals because it looks possible to do on paper yet not in actual practice. Being constantly singled-out via radio (the primary mode of communication in a rail yard) and ridiculed on top of whatever other stress someone might be dealing with can push someone over the edge.

[postman1782]

Free*

Mine is free as long as i also open a savings account and have at least 5 transactions a month

finding an absolute free with no * outside of being a student is really hard.

I don't have one, and mine was only free, if I kept at least $300 in it, which a great deal of Americans don't even have. Hell they literally did a study recently that said that.

[ghotihook]

I am not sure about where you are but most savings and checking accounts I have seen require you to either have a high balance or deposit a certain amount of checks every month or pay a monthly fee. I think really free checking died a couple of years ago that's when all my banks sent me the notice, I have to keep 5-10K to not get charged.

You probably need to dig in more. My local bank (TCF) only has a requirement of an opening Deposit of $25 for their Free Checking. No monthly charges, no minimum balance.
Free Checking

https://www.bankrate.com/banking/che...king-accounts/

[Draco-Onis]

You probably need to dig in more. My local bank (TCF) only has a requirement of an opening Deposit of $25 for their Free Checking. No monthly charges, no minimum balance.
Free Checking

https://www.bankrate.com/banking/che...king-accounts/

it seems it is different for everyone probably varies by state and bank but there was a time where every bank offered free checking no strings attached.

[Coolthulhu]

The San Jose shooter apparently had three handguns that were all "the type that would be legal in California", carried 32 magazines, yet fired only 39 rounds, killing 10 people (including himself).

I thought the AR-15 was the weapon of choice of mass shooters because the whole muh assault weapon & high capacity nonsense. Well, as it's easy to gather (and just as easily inferred by the large number of magazines the guy had on him), the perp, having fired 39 rounds, either took his sweet time removing a fixed magazine (as opposed to a detachable magazine, an absurdity that only exists in California), or used detachable magazines, meaning his pistols were "assault weapons" as per California's draconian gun laws, which are stricter than even those of many gun-hostile European countries (according to CA laws a flash suppressor is as valid a reason to classify a weapon as an "assault weapon" as an attached grenade launcher, further proof that those laws are made by people who not only lack knowledge in matter of firearms, but basic common sense). Plenty of food for thought for those who support the inane concept of "assault weapon" - not that they're willing to analyze it, so in their minds a grenade launcher is actually as dangerous as a flash suppressor... now that sounds utterly nuts to me, but I am a gun owner so I am a nutter a priori, you know how it works with those who parrot politicians and journalists instead of examining the actual laws, and keep doing so despite evidence of the absurdity of such laws having been posted regularly, from official sources such as government sites, for years. In this very thread. And not only do they keep ignoring them, but they have leeway to resort to personal attacks ranging from baseless accusations to outright "go fuck yourself". Oh well.

[I]
Does anyone want to opine on what proposed gun control they think could have prevented this tragedy?

Mandatory psychiatric evaluation and thorough background checks in order to own guns; considering how the guy was known to be a weird loner, abusive towards partners and all, he wouldn't have been able to obtain guns. Not legally at least, there's no solution for the black market - as to unregistered weapons, I don't know why Americans are so afraid of having their firearms registered. In fact, most of them aren't; my American branch of the family has plenty of guns, all of them registered, mostly for insurance purposes (which is still a good reason to register them, if I had a gun stolen from me, for instance, I'd very much like to have it covered or better yet returned to me should the police manage to find it and seize it from the hypothetical thieves). But I understand that pushing the "all gun owners are nutters who keep firearms hidden inside their walls" narrative is very convenient to the hoplophobic lot.

[ghotihook]

it seems it is different for everyone probably varies by state and bank but there was a time where every bank offered free checking no strings attached.

Oh I 100% agree with you. It's definitely not like it used to be. Also the overdraft fees on some of these accounts are practically predatory.

[Zan15]

You probably need to dig in more. My local bank (TCF) only has a requirement of an opening Deposit of $25 for their Free Checking. No monthly charges, no minimum balance.
Free Checking

https://www.bankrate.com/banking/che...king-accounts/

Most of those are online banks with no branches. Have to do everything on line. Can't make cash deposits. Have to have smartphone since not every ATM will accept deposits of checks.

Other got-ya "Approximately 47 percent of checking accounts that don’t earn interest are considered free"

The second one that actually has branches: "If you live outside of the northeast, mid-Atlantic, Louisiana or Texas, there is no access to bank branches."

Third one: Yield: None. Physical branch: One branch

etc etc.

[PhaelixWW]

Well, as it's easy to gather (and just as easily inferred by the large number of magazines the guy had on him), the perp, having fired 39 rounds, either took his sweet time removing a fixed magazine (as opposed to a detachable magazine, an absurdity that only exists in California), or used detachable magazines, meaning his pistols were "assault weapons" as per California's draconian gun laws...

No, handguns with detachable magazines are only considered an AW in California if they also have another feature:

30515. (a) Notwithstanding Section 30510, “assault weapon” also means any of the following:

(4) A semiautomatic pistol that does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of the following:

• (A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
  
• (B) A second handgrip.
  
• (C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning the bearer’s hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
  
• (D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.

Mandatory psychiatric evaluation and thorough background checks in order to own guns; considering how the guy was known to be a weird loner, abusive towards partners and all, he wouldn't have been able to obtain guns.

California has a red flag law, and despite how people are now freely admitting that he was not a good guy, nobody stepped forward when doing so would have done some good. There's no indication that he would have failed any kind of background check, as all they've managed to find so far are traffic tickets.

As for the mandatory psychiatric evaluation, I'm not sure to what level considerations would have to arise to to allow the legal blockage of a Constitutional right, but I'm sure that most people would be able to lie well enough to forestall a normal type of evaluation from exposing what they didn't want to show. In order for such an evaluation to really work effectively, they'd need to be able to treat the person like a suspect of a crime, get access to their private property, and ask questions of all their acquaintances. And that level of privacy violation without due cause would likely run afoul of the Constitution, as well.

[Coolthulhu]

No, handguns with detachable magazines are only considered an AW in California if they also have another feature:

Right, but doesn't make the whole legislature any less draconian. Besides with that being taken into consideration, what's the reason for point 5? How many guns are manufactured to accept fixed magazines? Because scrounging through American gun forums questions about this matter are a recurrent, almost weekly topic, and one that greatly disorients people who live in places where there are no such contrived laws, not even outside of the US.

California has a red flag law, and despite how people are now freely admitting that he was not a good guy, nobody stepped forward when doing so would have done some good. There's no indication that he would have failed any kind of background check, as all they've managed to find so far are traffic tickets.

As for the mandatory psychiatric evaluation, I'm not sure to what level considerations would have to arise to to allow the legal blockage of a Constitutional right, but I'm sure that most people would be able to lie well enough to forestall a normal type of evaluation from exposing what they didn't want to show. In order for such an evaluation to really work effectively, they'd need to be able to treat the person like a suspect of a crime, get access to their private property, and ask questions of all their acquaintances. And that level of privacy violation without due cause would likely run afoul of the Constitution, as well.

If he was as weird and abusive a person as it is described, a psychiatric evaluation would've actually worked. Plus, there's no need to treat someone as a suspect or get access to their private property / question their acquaintances for a check to be effective. It just has to be thorough and coordinated (the psychiatric check is only given after an evaluation from someone's state-appointed general practitioner (as opposed to a private one), who's more likely to know the patient and has right to outright stop the application there, or pass information to the psychiatrist. The point is that despite having our privacy constitutionally protected, we're able to run very effective checks and get our hands on whatever we damn well please (no nonsensical "assault weapon" bans, magazine limitations and the like). All it takes is the will to go through the initial process and then follow up on routine evaluations depending on the license type (yearly for CCWs, every 5-6 years for hunting/sporting, and the collector's license doesn't require any further evaluation, though most collectors also have a proper "gun permit"). Renewing a license isn't nearly as difficult as obtaining one in the first place, since many parts are skipped or sped-up, and it can be done in advance, as to never have one's license expire (and those who decide not to shoot anymore can keep their weapons even without a license, renewals are only needed to keep using the weapons - outside one's private property, someone whose license has expired can still shoot in his backyard if he doesn't endanger or disturb anyone for instance).
That being said, I'm convinced that a huge part of the American issue with guns is cultural, and there's little to be done about it. But a lot of episodes could've easily been prevented with a reasonable amount of gun control - this guy was weird already, and many of the most famous shooters (those that made it to the headlines regardless of the body count) were completely nuts and it didn't even take a psychiatrist nor privacy violations of any sort to realize as much (those who displayed their insanity on social media/youtube/public forums come to mind, some of which were already diagnosed with some kind of mental illness and/or on meds, and despite that they managed to get their hands on weapons).

[PhaelixWW]

Besides with that being taken into consideration, what's the reason for point 5? How many guns are manufactured to accept fixed magazines? Because scrounging through American gun forums questions about this matter are a recurrent, almost weekly topic, and one that greatly disorients people who live in places where there are no such contrived laws, not even outside of the US.

The CA laws are written the way they are because, frankly, people are creative. The bullet button was invented to allow for magazines to legally be replaceable, despite the fact that those firearms were technically deemed "fixed magazine", based upon the legal definition of "detachable magazine".

So even though the fact that manufacturers wouldn't otherwise manufacture a fixed mag firearm with any sizeable capacity, people were modifying and selling existing firearms to be considered "fixed mag" even if they could have their magazines removed. In fact, the law change in 2016 mostly just redefined "detachable magazine" to include any magazine that could be removed without disassembling the firearm.

Then, even while politicians were busy slapping themselves on the back for the "wonderful" job they did in 2016 of banning the bullet button, people were already creating new workarounds. Heck, people are even faster at reloading now with the new inventions than they were with the bullet button.

Here's the combination of the AR Maglock and the KingPin (he does a speed test at the very end of the video):



So, really, what changed?

Similarly, you wouldn't consider that there'd be a huge market for semi-automatic handguns with a fixed magazine and the capacity for only one round, would you? Yet these firearms were sold somewhat frequently in California prior to 2015. This is because CA only allows the purchase of handguns that are on their roster of "safe" handguns, though they did provide a few exemptions, including one for single-shot handguns. So people would buy a "single-shot" semi-automatic handgun, take possession, then modify the firearm back into a detachable magazine state. And this was all legal.

If he was as weird and abusive a person as it is described, a psychiatric evaluation would've actually worked.

I have no idea why you're so confident about this. First, I doubt that he was abusive in all aspects, at all times. Abusive people are also often quite good at covering up their abuses. The guy was investigated by the CBP, even found his "journals", and yet nothing came of it.

That being said, I'm convinced that a huge part of the American issue with guns is cultural, and there's little to be done about it.

This is really the root of the problem. America's issues with gun violence is largely just an extension of its issues with crime in general. If we really want to get serious about reducing violence, then we need to tackle the actual socioeconomic issues that underlie said crime and violence.

But a lot of episodes could've easily been prevented with a reasonable amount of gun control - this guy was weird already, and many of the most famous shooters (those that made it to the headlines regardless of the body count) were completely nuts and it didn't even take a psychiatrist nor privacy violations of any sort to realize as much (those who displayed their insanity on social media/youtube/public forums come to mind, some of which were already diagnosed with some kind of mental illness and/or on meds, and despite that they managed to get their hands on weapons).

Not all mental illnesses or medications are legitimate grounds for blocking a Constitutional right, otherwise that would cover over 25% of adults. Those that are deemed a potential danger to themself or others are already prohibited from purchasing a firearm and won't pass a background check.

And aside from the most obvious social media accounts, most of the online presence you're talking about are anonymous enough to require a forensic search through private property to uncover. They'd easily be enough to stymie a non-criminal investigation, especially if the subject knew that his/her publicly tracked statements would be observed before being able to purchase a firearm.

[Zan15]

I've had free checking w/o minimum balance for the last 15-16 years. It doesn't make any interest, but it doesn't cost me anything, either.

technically its costing you the lost interest and since inflation exist you are losing money every year.

Checking should be totally free for every individual since the banks make more then enough money on your balance to offset the cost of the checking count, by multiples.

[Coolthulhu]

So, really, what changed?

Very little, evidently. Which goes to further my points about CA's laws being draconian and made by people who know nothing about firearms (because if they did they would've covered the loopholes). Kind of like the politicians and journalists some people love to parrot. All of this is why I always stress the difference between reasonable/proper gun control and idiotic gun control, the points and video you added are a good example of why idiotic gun control is, well, idiotic.

I have no idea why you're so confident about this. First, I doubt that he was abusive in all aspects, at all times. Abusive people are also often quite good at covering up their abuses. The guy was investigated by the CBP, even found his "journals", and yet nothing came of it.

I mean, the guy was described as a weird loner who gave bad looks even by co-workers, and then there's neighbors and exes. Should've been enough to make someone act under the red flag law or hinder his ability to acquire firearm with proper background checks. I'm not "confident", I am "pretty sure" it would've helped if proper checks had been conducted. But considering the fact that:

Not all mental illnesses or medications are legitimate grounds for blocking a Constitutional right, otherwise that would cover over 25% of adults. Those that are deemed a potential danger to themself or others are already prohibited from purchasing a firearm and won't pass a background check.

Many notorious mass shooters were diagnosed with conditions that alter one's perception of reality and/or on meds that do the same (some even prior to them acquiring the weapons they used to carry out the attacks), I'd say that's a problem. And again, I'm not saying you're wrong, I don't have a list of the illnesses and meds that are legitimate grounds for blocking the right to bear arms, but examples come to mind where people with diagnosed judgement-impairing illnesses (and/or on meds with the same result). An autism diagnosis coupled with a potent BDZ prescription is one such example - that particular guy wouldn't have been able to get his hands anywhere near a gun here, but he went through the proper channels there. So either the checks aren't thorough enough, or the criteria should be re-evaluated. Coincidentally my example also had a huge online presence, both on "famous" platforms such as YouTube and more underground ones. People even predicted he would've ended shooting up people.

This is really the root of the problem. America's issues with gun violence is largely just an extension of its issues with crime in general. If we really want to get serious about reducing violence, then we need to tackle the actual socioeconomic issues that underlie said crime and violence.

That goes for all kinds of violence though. Take away guns, criminals will use knives. Still, the mass shooting thing only exists in the way that it does in the US, aside from very sporadic episodes (e.g. Breivik), none of which took place in the EU countries with the laxer gun laws. Breivik is also not the typical American spree killer, he's a literal terrorist.