Holding Gun Manufacturers Accountable

In response to the recent mass murder in Maine, there have been renewed calls from some who want to penalize gun manufacturers for the actions of those who use them illegally, for their advertising, and other various reasons.  Indeed, one of the goals of the new White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention is to increase accountability.   

Currently, gun manufacturers are shielded from lawsuits by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) of 2005, which prevents lawsuits from being brought against firearm manufacturers for damages incurred due to the illegal use of their product.  

This entry takes a closer look at the subject of gun manufacturer liability, advertising, and related considerations.  I'll begin with a look at how new guns are brought to market.  

Ease of Purchase
I regularly hear how some gun manufacturers make it too easy for those with ill intent to procure their products.  As someone who's purchased more than their fair share of firearms, I'm baffled how anyone can credibly make this statement, because there are a number of steps in the supply chain between a gun manufacturer and the ultimate consumer, but they all lead to an FFL.  

Again, for the cheap seats:  All new firearms are sold to the public by independent FFL dealers located in the buyer's state, not directly from the manufacturer.  The larger firearm manufacturers (S&W, Colt, Ruger, etc.) are one step further removed from that chain in that they sell their guns to distributors, who only ships the guns to Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders (aka licensed gun dealers).  Some of the higher end, low volume, and custom gun makers will ship directly to an FFL.  The end customer can purchase directly from a manufacturer, but must take delivery through an FFL.  I did this recently, with a custom built pistol; I ordered and paid for the gun directly with the builder.  However, when it was completed, the gun still needed to be shipped to an FFL, where I completed what felt like my hundredth Form 4473.  I apparently wasn't subject to a background check, because I hold a conceal carry permit.  I'm not a fan of that, to be honest, but it's the law here in North Carolina.

When collecting their new gun from the FFL, the purchaser is required to complete the aforementioned  ATF Form 4473, which collects information about the buyer, the gun, and asks the purchaser to affirm they're not a criminal, etc.  From there, the dealer will call in for authorization, per their respective state's law.  Most states are now on the NICS system, which ties to the FBI's database.  Note the gun manufacturer has long since exited the transaction, at this point.  There are many states that still allow private sales between parties without a background check, but those are exclusively used guns.  In short, any claim of manufacturers being careless and allowing their products to get into the wrong hands is utter nonsense spewed by the ignorant.   

Because I've been seeing more articles relating to "US gun manufacturers fueling gun violence by the cartels and in Eastern Europe", I'll quickly address those claims.  How are these foreign entities procuring these evil weapons?  None of the US gun makers is air dropping their product into other countries to be grabbed by whomever happens upon them, so it must be something else.  With the cartels, it should be obvious the guns are being purchased in the US (because it's close, duh) and being smuggled into Mexico, where the border is comically porous and guards can be bought.  

Eastern Europe is a completely different situation in that the guns are almost certainly being imported legally.  If US guns are being discovered more frequently in the region, they aren't additive.  More accurately, they're taking market share from incumbents.  Both Turkey and the Czech Republic have thriving firearm industries, particularly the former, where the government invested a significant amount of money in expanding capacity, so the Turkish military wouldn't have to buy their weapons from manufacturers outside the country.  This has led to a boom in the number of guns their manufacturers (Tisas and Girsan in particular) are exporting even into the US.  Their 1911's are better than what you'd get from Colt, at a third of the price.    

Manufacturer Liability
As I noted in the first paragraph, gun manufacturers are currently shielded from liability stemming from criminal acts committed with their product.  I agree with this, because as I outlined above, gun manufacturers have zero input into who ultimately buys their product.  After the murderer in Waukesha plowed through a throng of parade goers, no one was screaming that Ford should be held liable.  

There are those that claim guns are inherently defective, because they're designed to kill.  This is utter nonsense.  Guns are designed to reliably and safely fire a round of ammunition manufactured to SAAMI specifications.  Nothing more or less.  Some guns are specifically built for use in competition; are their manufacturers producing a defective product if they're used against a human?  For those guns that were meant for personal defense, there's no way to prevent them for being used to take a life versus saving one.  To be clear, the only way a firearm is defective if it doesn't reliably and safely fire the ammunition it was designed to accommodate.  I'm looking at you, Taurus.  Finally, the type of ammunition used plays a significant role in a gun's lethality.  You could be hit by half a dozen round nose bullets and survive quite easily, whereas the same number of hollow points would end your life.  

Advertising
Finally, let's talk about advertising, where there have been claims made about ads promoting violence and turning the viewers into mass murderers.  Again, I consider this to be nonsense.  First, where are people seeing these ads?  I haven't seen a gun ad in a decade.  Am I to believe mass murderers subscribe to Guns and Ammo?  That's a big stretch, kids.  And the kid thing?  Do people really think kids are running out and buying AR-15's?  Maybe a complete idiot would consider this realistic...

A landmark case on the firearm advertising front related to the Sandy Hook shooter.  Before going any further, it shouldn't need to be said, but I'm in favor of addressing contributors to such tragedies taking place; none of my comments should be taken as me diminishing the trauma to the families and community.  Anyway, the families sued Remington mostly over their ad campaign that centered around the message of getting your man card back.  The company settled the suit for $73 million.  (Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster rifle, who was owned by Remington at the time.)

Personally, I don't see how it can be argued such a message would lead to a mass shooting.  Even if it did, there's absolutely no evidence the ad influenced Adam Lanza's mother in her purchase or that she'd even seen the ad.  That's right, the shooter didn't even buy the gun and was not the legal owner.  

The most recent example of an evil advertisement causing a mass murder comes from the Uvalde massacre, where the manufacturer of the AR-15 that was used, Daniel Defense, published an advertisement (where??) someone didn't like because it promoted teaching your kids how to shoot and the dumb people call that grooming (stay tuned for an entry on that subject).  A fuck ton of us grew up, learning to shoot when we were in single digits and no one became a mass shooter.  Anyway, does anyone think this kid saw the ad in the first place?  What almost certainly happened is he Googled "Best AR-15".  The link below is the first hit you get in that search.    

https://www.pewpewtactical.com/best-ar-15/

If you click the link, here's what you'll find:  

The shooter likely saw that and said, "Daniel Defense is the highest rated; I'll buy one of those".  

In case you're wondering, if you Google "best gun to commit mass shooting", there are only stories about the AR-15; no tutorials or buying guides.   

This entry is part of my "Gun Series" that focuses on providing insight into the gun debate and gun violence.  You can find the other entries in the series HERE.  

About the author: Sean R is a recovering conservative who owns a consulting firm specializing in strategic marketing.  He's been a competitive shooter since the early 90's and holds a High Master classification in PPC and a Master classification in USPSA.  Additionally, he's served as an instructor for gun safety and competition courses.  He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina with his overly vocal white dog, Sadie.

I Killed My Parents

 I obviously haven't literally killed my parents, but I've done so in my mind; they're dead.  God, what sort of horrible son would think that way?

The story starts with my father, who I'd been keeping my distance from for a number of years.  Perhaps as I aged, I began to see his questionable ways and view him for the slimeball he was.  Plus, he refused to quit drinking, despite me informing him I wanted nothing to do with him in his condition; he didn't give a fuck.  For those who are thinking addiction, stop; the fucker quit drinking without consequence when he had to during the course of events.  The final straw was a drunken admission over the phone that he'd had a decade long affair with a family friend.  As a result, I visited in Florida as infrequently as possible, often going years between trips. Now is as good of a place as any to say I'm their only child.   

Then, one day in 2019, the bastard reached out to say he and my mother would need to move in with me, because he had no more money left.  It turned out he'd given his money to some incredibly unsophisticated scammers.  He only got emails from Yahoo and Gmail addresses, despite them allegedly originating from various bank officials.  He didn't perform even a minimal amount of due diligence.  As an example, he received an email (yahoo of course) from someone claiming to be the governor of the Central Bank of Turkey.  The name given did have that role...until two years before when Erdoğan canned his ass.  The scumbag even believed he was conducting no less than two online affairs with the women scammers.  He actually spoke with these two women, who claimed to be French and American.  Except one of the males found my number and called me (due to circumstances not worth going into).  This dude's accent was unmistakably sub-Saharan Africa...literally, the stereotypical Nigerian scammers.  It turned out the fuckhead had some money left, which I calculated was just enough to let them stay in their house, so long as they lived an austere existence.  I admonished him to break contact with the scammers, which he committed to do.  Of course, he lied and gave them the rest of his money.  That dumbfuck managed to let himself be scammed out of well over a million dollars!

And so, by the end of August of 2020, he'd truly exhausted his funds.  I was obviously livid.  He not only lied to me, but as their only child, fixing his fuck up fell on my shoulders.  He and my mother would need to be near me in Kansas City and remain tethered as an albatross until he died.  So I went to work, finding them an apartment, putting a deposit on same, addressing utilities, listing their house, getting them packed and addressing the things that wouldn't fit in their new apartment.  They'd both put powers of attorney in place a year before, which helped break down quite a few barriers.  They were both in poor health at this time, so I even wound up unpacking 80% of their belongings.  I took my father's car, because he was no longer safe to drive as well as informed him I would be assuming control of his finances.  The last thing I needed was him giving away the proceeds from their house.  I also adopted their dog, fulfilling a commitment I'd made that she wouldn't be surrendered back to the shelter, were they unable to care for her.  Only good thing to happen in this story...

Then, just when I thought things had settled down, my father had a brain injury that manifested itself and required emergency surgery.  The surgeon indicated his years of alcohol abuse was the main factor.  But I soldiered on and managed some sympathy for the piece of shit.  

To say my father put me through hell would be a massive understatement.  

Ultimately, things did settle down and I continued to manage their money.  The funds received from the house were eaten into pretty quickly by a massive IRS bill my father had racked up, along with other debts accumulated as the result of him sending everything he had liquid to the scammers.  I also paid their rent from this account, and most of their other monthly costs.  For the sake of my mother, we'd have dinner together on Sunday evenings.  

Unfortunately, I became unemployed and after I'd burned through everything else, I wound up borrowing from the account.  My father consented to this; after the hell he put me through, the least he could do was float me a short term loan.  

Once we'd moved from KS to NC, my father became somewhat vocal about wanting control of his funds back.  I obviously declined and informed him he would have zero safety net from me if that happened.

By the time I was working again, he'd become downright nasty and obsessive over regaining control of the funds.  Before I'd even received a full paycheck, he retained counsel to send me a letter demanding the remaining funds and revoking my powers of attorney for both parents.  It was at that moment they absolved me of any responsibility with respect to their well being.  Gave all your money to scammers again and you're gonna be homeless?  Not my problem and there's no way in hell you're living with me.  Find a good refrigerator box, asshole.

So, I complied with his attorney's dumb letter, which threatened shit that wasn't even legal (he must have been cheap), and sent a check for the remaining funds and began repayment, fulfilling the commitment I'd made.  Conspicuously absent from the attorney's letter was the amount I owed, so I did the calculation and mailed it to the slimeball (father, not attorney).  For the sake of simplicity, I'll use round numbers that don't remotely resemble the actual figures.  Let's say the house had $100k equity in it.  $50k had been spent on the costs I noted above, I borrowed $20k, leaving $30k in the account.  I mailed him a check for the $30k, leaving the $20k I owed.  My father was livid, insisting I owed not $20k, but $70k (the proceeds from the house less the check I'd sent).  I declined to engage, as he was either delusional or attempting to steal from me.

Next came the email, threatening me with a lawsuit in which he'd make sure any and all of my assets were seized, particularly my Porsche, and sold at auction.  He's been so jealous of my having one, that he obsesses over it, going to far as to type Porsche in red font (the car is red).  This email was downright nasty and again, threatened me with shit that doesn't happen.  I reminded him of the various expenditures I'd made on his behalf, to which he responded "prove it".  Once again, I disengaged, this time with a hearty "go fuck yourself".

He made good on his promise and a few weeks later, I received a registered letter containing a civil suit that had been filed on his behalf by a different attorney.  The suit is nothing short of ridiculous, having no basis in reality.  It alleges the POA's were granted to assist in selling their house and that I refused to turn the funds over, when they were received, despite repeated demands to do so. (yeah, no shit, scammer dumbfuck)  That I deprived them of the funds that were desperately needed.  Furthermore, because of the dollar amount involved, I'm automatically guilty of fraud, making me liable for punitive damages.  Can we stop a moment and reflect on the wisdom of filing a fraudulent lawsuit against literally your only lifeline, at a time when your health is in steep decline?  Quite a bold strategy.  And never mind that he'd be homeless or dead had I not stepped in.  But it was clear from the few final email exchanges he wanted to inflict as much pain as possible on me, making a statement to the effect of he may have to pay attorney's fees, but it'll be worth it to punish me more.  

After my initial "what the ever loving fuck?" reaction, I started laughing at the suit because I got the receipts that prove he's a lying fuck.  I deprived him and my mother of needed funds?  Here are the records that say otherwise.  I spent an hour with an attorney, who explained the answer process and how to submit one.  With that, I penned said answer to the suit and it left nothing out.  My goal was to make it clear to opposing counsel the suit was DOA, bordering on fraudulent, and if pursued, I would ensure my attorney pulled out all the stops to destroy the liar's and subject him to the maximum level of humiliation.  I can't imagine his attorney would advise him to pursue the matter further, but it's honestly a toss up whether he accepts that sort of advice.  Worth noting is my father had been showing signs of early onset dementia for some time.  I'm convinced he's had a complete break with reality.  I don't give a shit though.  Doesn't matter why your leopard has become a face eating leopard, you keep it the fuck away from you.     

This leads me back to killing my parents.  Saying they died the day they filed their bullshit suit just didn't resonate, because it's implied that you mourn when your parents die.  I'm not fucking doing that.  However, if you kill someone, it's pretty much a given you despise them and want them gone; mourning isn't in the equation.  

For the record, I have no interest in actually killing my parents, nor do I wish them dead.  I don't wish them anything because they've ceased to exist to me.  

GVA Lazy

 Disregard this post, unless you care about mass shootings by state over the past three years.  I did this because Gun Violence Archive was too lazy to do it themselves.

Mass Shootings Deux

Last night, there was yet another mass shooting, this time in Illinois, where at the the moment, reports are 1 dead and 20 wounded.  

On June 7th, one occurred in my home town of Richmond, Virginia.  Two people were killed and another five were wounded.  I'd actually begun writing this after that incident, but knew I wouldn't have to wait long for another one, making this a more timely entry.

May 23rd saw a mass shooting in Florida's Hollywood Beach that injured four.  

There was a mass shooting (actually mass murder) on April 15 in Dadeville, Alabama that took four lives and wounded an astonishing thirty two others.  

Each was quickly met with the standard outcries from the left of "we need more gun control" and "ban assault weapons now!"  

Then, these shootings disappeared from the media and the minds of most people, except the victims, obviously.  Hell, the one last night in Illinois didn't cause a ripple on social media today.  I saw its first mention from fucking Gateway Pundit, of all places, and not until almost 1 p.m.  In contrast, the shooting in Nashville, back in March, still has a fair amount of mindshare, for some reason.  

This entry is about why the disparity exists.  

First, it may be a good time to go back and review the definitions of what constitutes a mass shooting versus a mass murder.  You can find my entry on the topic HERE, along with some spoilers for this entry.  The short version is a mass murder is typically characterized by a lone gunman "lost boy", who wants the world to know he's important.  These are exceedingly rare.  While the Dadeville shooting was technically a mass murder, I'm calling it a mass shooting, for reasons that will become clear.  

The mass shootings that have become all too common all tend to fit in a mold.  The the shooter and intended victim know each other and have had some sort of disagreement or ongoing feud.  The shooting takes place in a public place, typically during a celebration, with or without alcohol present.  The shooter rarely owns the gun(s) used legally and they're always handguns.  The shooters obviously can't take their illegal guns to shooting ranges, so they can't hit shit, resorting to spraying an area with bullets, which is why there are multiple injuries / fatalities.  The shooters and victims are typically lower income.  When a shooting happens, I'll make these predictions, then look like The Amazing Kreskin, when I'm proven right.  

A lot more people are dying as a result of the these sorts of shootings, but why don't they receive the same amount of attention as mass murders?  I've narrowed it down to two reasons; racism and inconvenience.  Oh yeah, I'm going there.  

These events are inconvenient because they don't fit a specific narrative.  You see, there are people who believe semiautomatic rifles are the root of gun violence.  It doesn't matter that they're only used in ~2% of all firearm homicides, these people want them banned.  Because these events almost universally involve handguns, not rifles, they don't allow the assault weapon haters to further their agenda.  In fact, because the shooters largely can't legally own a gun in the first place (they're typically stolen), there's no fodder for supporting any further measures to restrict the public's access to purchase guns.  

One common factor I haven't mentioned is that these events are almost universally black shooters attacking black victims.  To be blunt, I don't think many white people, or black people in some cases, care about poor blacks killing other poor blacks.  Based upon my exposure to the far right, I think there's a non insignificant portion of our society that sees these crimes as either "that's what blacks do because they're animals" or "a couple more dead blacks is a good start".  Yes, there are plenty of people who, in 2023, still view blacks as inferior and savages.  Besides, it's not as though white people have much to be concerned about, in terms of being caught up in one these melees.  

But why do these things happen and can those factors inform how we stop these horrific events from taking place?  As I've considered these question, my mind has gone a few different places, opening up further questions.  First, because these targeted killings take place out in the open, there has to be an expectation on the perp's part that he'll be caught and be punished with jail time.  So, what causes them to still pull that trigger?  In my opinion, there are two potential reasons.  First, they see their lives as not having value in the first place; that their future seems hopeless, so going to jail is neither a bad nor a good outcome.  The second is that black culture is similar to those who settled the South in that a perceived sleight is a sufficient and valid reason to kill someone.  Your honor must be defended at all costs.  Fixing these issues requires a societal change, something I'm not an expert on.  Perhaps, someone who is can take the torch.

This entry is part of my "Gun Series" that focuses on providing insight into the gun debate and gun violence.  You can find the other entries in the series HERE.  

About the author: Sean R is a recovering conservative who owns a consulting firm specializing in strategic marketing.  He's been a competitive shooter since the early 90's and holds a High Master classification in PPC and a Master classification in USPSA.  Additionally, he's served as an instructor for gun safety and competition courses.  He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina with his overly vocal white dog, Sadie.

It's The Guns - The Finale

IT'S THE GUNS!!! 

In every discussion about some noteworthy shooting, someone throws out the above talking point.  I've done some analysis in the past, but decided to update my numbers as well as add my own $.02 on the subject.  

I'll begin by stating the obvious, which is the US has a higher level of gun related homicide than most other non-third world countries.  Who gives a shit?  No other country represents a proper comparison to the US.  Europe doesn't matter because they were all monarchies until WWI.  How many other countries have the right to own guns enshrined in their constitution?  You can read a lot more on the US gun culture HERE.  We have more homicides committed with guns; deal with it.

I'll throw out the chart below, which provides a graphic representation of gun ownership versus gun homicides per 100k capita.  You'll note gun ownership hasn't significantly changed in the past 30 years, although it's been slowly trending downward.  Homicides were pretty damned high in the late 80's, then trended downward, settling into a nice valley from 2009 through 2014, then beginning to climb again in 2015.  The jump has been dramatic, too; a 44% increase between 2014 and 2021.  

How does that compare with gun ownership?  Reviewing the six year period from 2009 through 2014, average gun ownership was 41% and gun related homicides per 100k averaged 3.6.  Compared to the six year period from 2016 through 2021, where average gun ownership remained at 41%, but the per 100k average jumped to 5.  

Perhaps a more granular view would be of value.  I think most of us have seen maps similar to the one below, which invariably show southern states as having the highest murder rate per capita.

The message has been the more lax the gun laws, the greater the homicide rate.  But is that true?

To find out, I decided to compare states using three metrics:  

Gun ownership - Supposedly, more guns, more homicides

Murder rate / 100k capita

Giffords Law Center rankings - This provides a benchmark of how tough or lax gun laws are in a specific state.  It's a simple 1-50 ranking; the higher the number, the further toward the bottom, the less stringent the gun laws are.

For the purposes of this particular exercise, I used the 6.6 / 100k average noted on the above map.  Below is what shook out for me.  The first column represents the top 20 states in terms of gun ownership.  The second has the bottom 10, plus a few states I was interested in.  Red highlighting means the state's murder rate is above the national average, yellow indicates it's above but close, red means it's above the national average.

As you review this information, I'll call your attention to a few noteworthy items.  First is how wide the range is in terms of gun ownership.  From Montana, where over half of the population owns them down to NJ, where less than one in five have a gun.  The top five states in terms of gun ownership are near the bottom of the Giffords ranking, yet are at or below the national murder rate average.  There are a few other gems, such as the Dakotas and Kansas.  To be clear, they're gems solely for this metric and literally no other way.  On the flip side, you've got low gun ownership / high Giffords ranking states, such as PA, MI, DE, and IL that still have high murder rates.  And look at NH, which Giffords ranks in the bottom half of states for Draconian gun laws, yet has the lowest murder rate of all.

What does all of this mean?  Well, it's certainly clear that high gun ownership and lax gun laws don't always mean higher murder rates.  In fact, the data suggests it's not the guns.

So, what is it?  I've been reading a few articles that point to factors you may not see coming.  I've already begun work on that entry and hope to have it published by end of week.  This is a complex subject without simple answers.

This entry is part of my "Gun Series" that focuses on providing insight into the gun debate and gun violence.  You can find the other entries in the series HERE.  

About the author: Sean R is a recovering conservative who owns a consulting firm specializing in strategic marketing.  He's been a competitive shooter since the early 90's and holds a High Master classification in PPC and a Master classification in USPSA.  Additionally, he's served as an instructor for gun safety and competition courses.  He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina with his overly vocal white dog, Sadie.

Another ATF Dickstravaganza

 While I'm ranting about the ATF being goat fucking asshats over pistol braces, I thought I'd chime in on another subject where they eagerly blew donkey dicks.    

In the pistol brace entry, I mentioned tax stamps and how they were required for any NFA item.  What you're probably not aware of is that you can build your own silencer, which uses the same approval process as a short barreled rifle; the creatively named Form 1.  I began building my own silencers while I was waiting for my "store bought" unit to clear ATF waiting hell.  A store bought suppressor takes close to a year for approval, whereas a Form 1 is closer to 30 days.  

Building your own didn't require you to have a machine shop, because various manufacturers made the components to build your own.  However, they were marketed as solvent trap parts and not drilled, so they were legal.  The ATF even said so.  Once you drilled through the cups and end cap, you had a silencer.  Various vendors even sold drill jigs to make sure your holes were properly centered.  Of course, my fellow enthusiasts (because of course there was an internet message board or two devoted to the hobby) and I dutifully waited for our Form 1's to be approved before we started drilling or even ordering parts.  We were online talking about silencers which made us ripe targets for the jack booted thugs.  None of us wanted the felony conviction, thanks.  Again, EVERY SILENCER I'VE BUILT HAS AN APPROVED FORM 1. Is the microphone on?

One of the other enthusiasts dropped the money for a real dB meter and some major innovation began taking place.  New cone designs were yielding amazing performance.  A few I built are ridiculously quiet, even using it on a high powered rifle.

And then, the ATF decided a particular vendor ventured too close to selling silencers, because he sold kits, with the cones center market and jigs.  This poor guy lost everything and was sentenced to serious jail time, because ATF fucking sucks and is fucking capricious.  And then, they got ugly.  Others had gone under, but it was different this time, because ATF went through his customer list.  I had been a customer, so I received an intimidating letter from the special douchebag agent in charge of the Detroit field office, informing me I may have committed a felony and I had 30 days to surrender the parts, which were now considered silencers themselves.  I worked it out, because the parts had already been consumed to build approved Form 1 silencers and my dog didn't get shot.  The agent I spoke with was actually quite pleasant; I told her she wasn't a big enough asshole to work for ATF.  (They know they're hated, so she accepted the compliment.)

The ATF had changed their interpretation of what a silencer was and it was so broad that if I bought a potato, with the intent of shoving it on the end of the barrel of a gun, it was a silencer and I committed a felony the moment I left the grocery store.  If you were a machine shop and bought bar stock to build your approved silencer, that bar stock was technically a silencer, according to the ATF.  And suddenly, Form 1 submissions required schematics of your planned build.  I heard a few people wrote that they hadn't even thought about it, to stay legal, and they would procure raw material from a titanium mine.  

With this capricious decision, the Form 1 salad days ended.  The best vendors closed up shop and technology has returned to the most rudimentary.  

All of that being said, I'm fully aware that those of us who earnestly tried to remain within the law (whatever it was at the moment) represented perhaps 10% of those who were building their own cans.  I'm also fully aware a previous ATF director testified that silencers shouldn't even be on the NFA.  The only way they're lethal is if you bean someone over the head with one. 

So, there's another example of why I oppose laws pertaining to limiting shooting equipment; they provide the ATF with further fodder to screw the shooting community.

This entry is part of my "Gun Series" that focuses on providing insight into the gun debate and gun violence.  You can find the other entries in the series HERE.  

About the author: Sean R is a recovering conservative who owns a consulting firm specializing in strategic marketing.  He's been a competitive shooter since the early 90's and holds a High Master classification in PPC and a Master classification in USPSA.  Additionally, he's served as an instructor for gun safety and competition courses.  He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina with his overly vocal white dog, Sadie.

Addressing Gun Violence

I've been pretty vocal about what won't work to curb gun violence, which has led a few folks to challenge me on what I think would be effective.  In my opinion, there are larger societal issues that require addressing that would yield greater benefits than screwing with gun laws.  But, no one wants to talk about them, so I guess we'll address the symptoms and skip the cure for now.

My suggested gun measures generally fall into two categories; preventing the wrong people from getting their hands on them and heading off unwanted behavior, once guns are in hand.  

These require a bit of give and take from both sides, but I think they'd yield dividends.

Keeping Guns Out Of The Wrong Hands

Minimum Age To Buy a Gun - 21...this seems like a no brainer to me.

Expanded Background Checks Required For ALL Gun Purchases - Apparently, there are still states (including my own, NC) where private gun sales aren't required to go through an FFL and thus, have a background check performed.  That's fucking batshit!  The "expanded" part would involve including things such as mental health issues, sealed or expunged criminal records, and protection orders.  So many crimes are pled down to lesser offenses that don't trip the threshold for failing a background check.  This measure is probably the most important, but will require a major expenditure on infrastructure to link everything.  

Stronger Measures to Prevent and Prosecute Straw Purchases* - A not insignificant number of the guns used to commit felonies, including murder, are obtained illegally and straw purchases are one method used by these criminals.  ATF has been doing spot checks, where individuals have bought a bunch of the same gun in a short period.  

Safe Storage Laws With Stiff Penalties For Violations - If you have guns and kids at home, they should be locked up, period (the guns, obviously; kids are optional).  Anyone whose kid commits a crime with that gun will automatically be charged with the same crime, but as an adult.  If the police are required to visit the home and see a gun not locked up, the owner may be charged.  Oh, it's a felony that's ineligible for a plea deal.

Optimize Conduct For Those Who Own Guns

Mandatory Training for New Gun Buyers - Standardized training and curricula, to include basic gun safety, base level laws (i.e. is transporting your gun in a box on your car's back seat legal?), and most importantly, a lengthy presentation showing gunshot wounds from both handguns and rifles.  This could also work to keep guns out of the wrong hands, because the instructor would have the latitude to fail a student if they acted in an erratic or suspicious manner (i.e. an instructor told me of a student who asked him about shooting police dogs and why couldn't he.  GONE).

National Concealed Carry Permit w/ Standardized Training Process - If you intend to carry a gun, you should be required to understand the applicable laws specific to lethal force, and demonstrate your ability to safely handle and shoot a gun.  Like the new buyer training, the curricula should be standardized.  I've been force to take carry classes in KS and NC; the KS one was a joke but I was impressed with the course in NC.  Passing gets you a concealed carry permit that's good across all 50 states.  

End Constitutional Carry - Fun fact on one of the many downsides:  Constitutional carry is state specific, so you still can't carry in federal no gun zones.  For example school, zones (1,000 feet radius around the facility) are defined in US code.  That means if you drive by a school with a gun in your possession, you're committing a felony.  

Red Flag Laws -  If someone has clearly become a danger to themselves or others, they shouldn't be in possession of guns, period.  Also, if you have a PFA against you, your guns are confiscated until the case is adjudicated.  If the PFA's duration lacks an end date, cope harder.  The danger with this one is it could be abused by vindictive sorts.  

Common Sense Extras
Allocate Resources for Mental Health Access in Schools - The GQP, who claims there's a mental health crisis, consistently shoots this measure down.  Let's stop fucking around with our kids, shall we?

Removal of Silencers** and SBR's From The National Firearms Act (NFA) - Silencers aren't deadly unless perhaps if you bludgeon someone with one.  Even one of the heads of the ATF indicated they should be removed from the NFA.  Worth mentioning is the approval time for a silencer is a YEAR or more, which is bullshit, no matter what your position on guns. Short barreled rifles are another stupid one; if you have a carry permit for your pistol, why can't you carry an SBR (that you can't conceal anyway)?  

Fuck the ATF - These rat bastards are becoming more draconian every year, by changing the rules or making them up on the fly, resulting in law abiding citizens becoming felons, literally overnight.  They just changed the criteria for who was considered a gun dealer and it's so broad as to include half of gun owners in the country.  I guess the measure would be to strip their power to constantly reinterpret gun laws in order to boost their arrest numbers and generally be douche canoes.  

Perhaps the last two aren't common sense to non gun owners, but they'd mean a lot to those of us who own guns and could serve as sufficiently solid concessions in order to gain traction on passing measures the 2A crowd wouldn't like.  

* Straw Purchase - When a person who'll pass a background check purchases guns in order to resell to those who would be denied.  Also used as a way to bypass local gun restrictions (i.e. Indiana residents buying guns and selling them to Chicago residents).

** Silencers don't make a gun silent, as Hollywood would lead you to believe.  I own a suppressed 300 Blackout AR-15 rifle, with a Form 1 silencer that's been specifically designed for the cartridge mounted to it.  The combination is documented to be in the 120 dB range and is the quietest option out there.  For reference, a commercial jet taking off is about the same loudness.  Car horns average 110 dB.  A suppressed rifle round measures 132 dB with a really good suppressor on it, which is the same sound level as a jackhammer.  Also, a rifle round creates a sonic boom (sounds like a crack) because it breaks the sound barrier.  

This entry is part of my "Gun Series" that focuses on providing insight into the gun debate and gun violence.  You can find the other entries in the series HERE.  

About the author: Sean R is a recovering conservative who owns a consulting firm specializing in strategic marketing.  He's been a competitive shooter since the early 90's and holds a High Master classification in PPC and a Master classification in USPSA.  Additionally, he's served as an instructor for gun safety and competition courses.  He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina with his overly vocal white dog, Sadie.