Slaughter in vegas

[ImTheCaptain]

it's pretty simple: your gun is held by a gun dealer, the same way a gun bought online is

How does the gun get from the dead man's residence to the gun dealer ( I assume you mean an FFA license holder?). Is the person who takes it to the dealer checked? How? Does someone with an FFA drive around town picking up and cataloging dead people's gun's all day while he loses sales online (to another FFA) or retail customers?

It won't work. Let's pursue the stuff that will. Maybe we can buy dead Gramp's pistol off of Nana with some federal cash before she dies and it goes somewhere bad.


Nothing about guns is simple.

if it's legislated that the executor is legally obligated to transport it to an FFA license holder, then yes, it's pretty simple. will it always be done? maybe not, but it's a legal process that creates a chain of custody and legal liability at minimum and establishes a process to either eliminate the gun stock in the nation, prevents nuts from acquiring guns and also could help guns from disappearing off the grid

 

[ImTheCaptain]

The sensible solution is to require gun owners to carry insurance.

making ownership more expensive is the obvious market solution here.

 

[Brangus]

if it's legislated that the executor is legally obligated to transport it to an FFA license holder, then yes, it's pretty simple. will it always be done? maybe not, but it's a legal process that creates a chain of custody and legal liability at minimum and establishes a process to either eliminate the gun stock in the nation, prevents nuts from acquiring guns and also could help guns from disappearing off the grid

I've handled a fair amount of estates. Most Personal Reps/Executors are stressed out, poorly educated, seedy, or idiots. This is not a procedure you want in the hands of the average Personal Rep/Executor.

The gun safety lobby (I avoided the word "control") should focus on things that can actually be practically done. Magazine capacity limits and cash for guns and associated equipment are doable. The rest is just internet screaming.

 

[DistrictDeacon]

Most of what I inherited, with the exception of some antique revolvers, are hunting weapons. That aside, I ask again, how does the background check take place when the owner dies? Who is the custodian of the weapons?

There are hundreds of millions of guns in this country. The genie is out of the bottle. I prefer trying to find a way to make existing weapons less threatening (magazine capacity limitations, purchase of firearms and related materials as mentioned earlier).

Hunting rifles or shotguns and antique revolvers are no different than other firearms in that they are designed to kill. There's no reason to treat them differently.

If there was a law passed today mandating that firearms be picked up and stored by an authorized custodian, the market would take care of that demand very quickly.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

i also deal with with people handling estate situations and I empathize but I don't think that "dropping rifle off at designated gun dealer or local Dicks Sporting goods is that onerous.

the issue is that, as a culture, we need to start to ingrain a different perspective of ownership and liability, respect and care for firearms. If a person chooses to own guns, they need to recognize the burden of responsibility and that could come in the form of insurance but also a legal and procedural process of transfer upon death.

over and over again i hear ostensibly "good" gun owners here talk about the impossibility of everything except now a few talk about restricting magazine sizes. it's true that the law is not followed all the time but generally, people will try to be honest and follow the rules. I see it every day in an industry where lying and getting away with it is easy.

 

[Brangus]

Hunting rifles or shotguns and antique revolvers are no different than other firearms in that they are designed to kill. There's no reason to treat them differently.

If there was a law passed today mandating that firearms be picked up and stored by an authorized custodian, the market would take care of that demand very quickly.

You can't argue with naive and uninformed people. So I'm going back to work.

It's a shame that ideas that could actually work will get lost in the nonsense debate, nothing will be done, and in a month we'll be talking something trivial again, like Kim Jong Un's haircut.

Have a good day folks.

 

[PhDeac]

You can't argue with naive and uninformed people. So I'm going back to work.

It's a shame that ideas that could actually work will get lost in the nonsense debate, nothing will be done, and in a month we'll be talking something trivial again, like Kim Jong Un's haircut.

Have a good day folks.

This post is hilarious.

 

[RJKarl]

You do not understand silencers.

What a BULLSHIT answer.

Silencers are so that you kill people silently and for gun companies to make more money.

Who cares if gun ranges are a little quieter when compared to the DEATHS silencers will cause. Many more people would be dead in Vegas if his weapons didn't make any noises.

 

[RJKarl]

This is a good start. I'd forbid the manufacture, importation, and distribution of all of the AK's, AR's and their assorted variants (do a buy-back for the existing ones in this country). I'd also require gun manufacturers to provide existing owners of the remaining weapons that use high capacity magazines magazines that comply with the new laws or block kits which make the magazines compliant.

Agree that the "anything that shoots a projectile" language is too vague. It sounds like something Dianne Feinstein would dream up.

This was in anticipation of elkman or another gun nut would say. Remember several people freaked when people called 30,50,100 round drums "clips".

Put whatever word or words you like in for this, it was a way to get started.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

Too bad some value personal satisfaction and arguments of inconvenience more than human life. It’s sad.

 

[Liquid Karma]

What a BULLSHIT answer.

Silencers are so that you kill people silently and for gun companies to make more money.

Who cares if gun ranges are a little quieter when compared to the DEATHS silencers will cause. Many more people would be dead in Vegas if his weapons didn't make any noises.

If that's what silencers are for then they failed because one thing a silencer isn't, is silent. Silencers are for Billy Badasses to look cool. They are a boutique accessory for insecure hombres.

 

[RJKarl]

So many of you guys are firearm virgins that the ignorance can't be measured.

First RJ:


Still 90% would agree with these:

100% background checks on every sale, gift or transfer of a gun, rifle or anything that shoots a projectile. If you don't, then you are liable.

100% background checks at gun shows - there's nothing in the Constitution about how or where you buy a gun

Make manufacturers produce weapons that aren't easily convertible. If they refuse, write a statute that makes them liable for all damages those weapons create. Every other product is liable for such design issues. There's no excuse to create a loophole for guns.

So I have to go through a background procedure to inherit my grandfather and father's heirloom revolvers, low capacity pistols and two round magazine pump 30" barrel wingshooting shotguns? Or to swap the same from a neighbor? Gimme a break. Think. Do it by category of weapon and magazine (don't say clip) capacity.

If you sell or give or bequeath a home or a car to a family member they get re-registered without much problem. There's no excuse no to be able to do it for guns.

Gun shows are sketchy AF so you can have that one.

Anyone can design a conversion method. Don't blame the original manufacturer. They are operating within the law, and there's only so many ways to construct a practical SEMI-automatic rifle. Outlaw and go after the conversion kit guys. Those are the bad actors.

Manufacturers can easily design guns that can't be converted. That's where you start. But you did agree on going after the conversion guys. You should also go after those who bought them.

As for fingerprint logins....wildly impractical. There are tens of millions of firearms in the United States. Putting aside revolvers, semi-automatic pistol has been in high capacity production for 100 years. The M-16 (and its variants) are over 50 years old, the AK even older, and AKs are as common as squirrels. Fingerprint tech is a feel good conversation that accomplishes nothing.

I never said anything about fingerprints. Don't add me into that.

 

[DG3]

What a BULLSHIT answer.

Silencers are so that you kill people silently and for gun companies to make more money.

Who cares if gun ranges are a little quieter when compared to the DEATHS silencers will cause. Many more people would be dead in Vegas if his weapons didn't make any noises.

I think you have a Hollywood idea of suppressors. They don't make a gun, especially a rifle, silent. They're still very loud. The guy in Vegas could have had a fully suppressed barrel and you still would have easily been able to hear it.

 

[DG3]

If that's what silencers are for then they failed because one thing a silencer isn't, is silent. Silencers are for Billy Badasses to look cool. They are a boutique accessory for insecure hombres.

Bingo. Add to that suppressors are typically twice as expensive as the gun they're on and (in NC) there's nearly a year wait to buy one, it's a total non issue. They're basically the lift kit for the gun nut's weapon. It's an aesthetic accessory with little practical use in most all cases.

 

[cville deac]

Fify

Are you including me as a centrist do nothing shithead? I've consistently said I'd be on board with banning assault weapons and banning or seriously restricting handguns. Which puts me to the left of your favorite senator on that particular issue. Or is it I just suck because I'm a centrist on fiscal issues, and everyone who disagrees with you on at least 1 issue sucks on everything?

FWIW, my sarcastic comment was aimed at both Congress and the American people. Dems will grandstand on gun control for a couple of weeks, Pubs will refuse to do anything (as Trump and Huckabee have already indicated), and the Pubs failure to take any action won't hurt them 1 bit in the 2018 midterms. You know, because liberals, BLM and Hillary. Or do you believe that this time the mass slaughter of humans won't be tolerated, and we'll enact new gun restrictions? Color me cynical, but if Sandy Hook and 3 Muslim terrorist mass killings ended up in no legislation, we won't see any this time either.

 

[RJKarl]

I think you have a Hollywood idea of suppressors. They don't make a gun, especially a rifle, silent. They're still very loud. The guy in Vegas could have had a fully suppressed barrel and you still would have easily been able to hear it.

There is no reason to have them. It's only about profit for the gun manufacturers.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

We can’t have some of these reforms because it may impose difficult obligations on executors. I mean. Come on.

 

[thatguy2016]

Here's a BBC article post-San Bernadino showing the long-term impact of Australia's buyback program, and the challenges of implementing in the US:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-35048251

 

[cville deac]

I’m a big Murphy fan. What Democrats should do is just protest on the senate floor indefinitely. Do anything that is a legislative action or on behalf of congress. It’s just sad

I like Murphy perfectly fine. But the Dems are in the minority, and the administration has indicated they're doing nothing on the issue. So it's just noise. It would be useful noise if the issue might come back to haunt Pubs in 2018. But to date, the issue has yet to haunt them in elections.

 

[DG3]

There is no reason to have them. It's only about profit for the gun manufacturers.

So they've convinced their target demographic to purchase something they don't need and has little to no practical use? Welcome to America, enjoy your stay.