It takes a trip to your nearest FFL willing to run a background check, and who will usually charge for it. And oops! Your next-door neighbor's name matched a different person who has a criminal record, and she now has to wait three days to transfer the gun. And oops again! She already got raped and beaten to death by her ex in the time it took for NICS to clear her.

The idea that a seller/gifter of a gun should be responsible for doing a full background check on a recipient seems preposterous.

As far as I know, in Massachusetts anybody who has a license to carry has already passed a background check. If the recipient has an LTC, then you know they're okay. And as the transferer, you most likely want to be entering the transaction into the state's database of ownership ^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h transfers so that if something nefarious is done with the gun, they don't come looking at you.

Of course the waiting time (and possible hoops, depending on city/town/class/race/etc) to originally get your license to carry dovetails right into your (hyperbolic) point. And I don't particularly enjoy having to register personal property with the state, nor needing a license to possess personal property. And overall Massachusetts is known as one of the most restrictive firearm regimes in the nation. Still I just feel its worth looking at how existing regimes tackle the problem, to see where their pain points and loopholes are. I feel electronic databases would be a lot less onerous in general if they were built with foundational cryptographic privacy, with a public audit log for every access.

Overall I feel like we'd be better off focusing on fixing our society's pervasive mental health problem rather than turning the whole country into a padded room by myopically focusing on inanimate objects. Mentally healthy people don't want to shoot up schools/trains/churches.

(I'm aware my comment is full of non-partisan nuance. Downvote away)

Alternatively, we can continue to have mass killings, single killings, and lots of crime by guns bought by people that should have been blocked.

For every person you cherry picked getting raped that would have stopped the assailant with a gun, many more are killed under the current system.

Instead of picking outlying events and trying to put them forth as common, why not look at common events to start with? You'll get much better policy and understanding from that.

> For every person you cherry picked getting raped that would have stopped the assailant with a gun, many more are killed under the current system.

The CDC disagrees with you. In the study that is fairly well known at this point, the CDC estimates 500k defensive gun uses every year in the US. Note that I am giving you the lowest number in their range. However there are about 40k deaths due to gun usage every year. 75% of all deaths due to gun usage are suicides. In actuality, there are 10k deaths due to gun usage we need to look at during discussion of gun regulation in the United States.

The CDC does not agree with you, because you are grossly misrepresenting what they said [1].

When they cited a number they gave a range: 60,000 to 2.5 million. Quite the uncertainty there. They've since replaced the wording on that page entirely, because the CDC doesn't actually know: the CDC is effectively prohibited from investigating gun violence [2]

[1] https://www.thetrace.org/2022/06/defensive-gun-use-data-good...

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment

We completely need to look at suicides as well. At least 2/3 of suicides are based on a fleeting desire, which means interrupting the act without any other intervention will save a life. Making it harder to commit suicide with a gun could save 20k+ people a year. Which actually makes it (from a public health perspective) even more important than preventing all other forms of gun death.

Also, since I've never heard of this CDC study, you should provide a link if you plan to cite it. I think it's more common in your social circle/internet bubble than with the general population.

No, we will not regulate gun ownership based off suicides. Suicidal people will do what they do regardless of if guns are legal. Do not remove rights of others because of an overwhelmingly small minority.

Fund mental health if you want to help the suicidal people.

I've heard this argument before and it seems off to me somehow, but I haven't quite put my finger on it.

> At least 2/3 of suicides are based on a fleeting desire

How do you know?

I'm not being snarky. I'm genuinely curious.

We obviously can't ask someone who was successful at committing suicide about their mental/emotional state, eh?

For the sake of discussion let's assume the point.

These suicides by gun due to "a fleeting desire" would be presumably among people who already had guns? How fleeting is the desire? Is the idea that if someone who has been struck by the "fleeting desire" to kill themself has to go get a gun first then there's time for the "fleeting desire" to wear off before they can act on it?

Non-snarky answer: You look at the rates of people attempting suicide a second time if their first attempt was interrupted, and you do your best to identify only the serious first attempts.

The point isn't that people buy a gun to commit suicide, it's that if you already have a gun you will use it when overwhelmed as opposed to attempting to kill yourself in a less successful way.

Thanks for replying. I appreciate it.

FWIW the argument still seems weak to me. The methodology here is still unclear:

> You look at the rates of people attempting suicide a second time if their first attempt was interrupted, and you do your best to identify only the serious first attempts

You find people that definitely attempted suicide and were interrupted, then track them (for how long?) to see if they try again? An attempt is counted as "serious" only if they try again (within some time frame)? Are you saying that 2/3 of them don't try again?

- - - -

> if you already have a gun you will use it when overwhelmed as opposed to attempting to kill yourself in a less successful way.

Okay, but then what's the intervention here?

Are you saying that we remove guns from everyone just in case someone has a really bad day and offs themself? (I do not mean to sound flippant, I hope I'm not coming across that way. I'm thinking of Hunter Thompson here, RIP, who arguably should not have had access to firearms in his condition.)

> Are you saying that 2/3 of them don't try again?

Yes.

> ou find people that definitely attempted suicide and were interrupted, then track them

Pretty much. Obviously, people's natural lifespans exceed how long these studies have been going on, so there's a natural timelimit. I think most studies look 5 years out.

> An attempt is counted as "serious" only if they try again

No, the exact opposite. You try to find out if the interrupted attempt was serious. I'm saying that the 2/3 number isn't counting people who idly speculate about suicide or write a note. It's counting people who take steps that realistically can be interpreted as an attempt.

Of those people who made a "serious" attempt, 2/3 will not try again.

> Okay, but then what's the intervention here?

I mean, if you're jumping from "suicides are irrelevant" to "what policies can prevent them", I'm not sure. If we didn't care about self-defense, there would be lots of policies (requiring guns to be locked up at ranges or something), but people do care about self-defense. And any barrier that will prevent suicide likely will prevent that. Consider some magic program that assesses mental state. You're probably under similar emotional stress in both suicide and self-defense.

But as is, that does seem to be one thing "red flag" laws are for.

The most 'common' event for someone buying a gun is that the shoot it at the range a few times a year, maybe hunt with it occasionally or put it in their waistband as a means of self-defense. If you want common to the exclusion of the less common, there it is.

If you're not involved in gang banging / drugs then in the extremely uncommon chance you die by firearm, it's most likely it was a choice of suicide. In Europe and many other developed nations with harsh firearm laws, suicide via physician is an option so a more comforting and society-approved solution rather than firearm becomes more favored for suicide.

> Alternatively, we can continue to have mass killings, single killings, and lots of crime by guns bought by people that should have been blocked.

Sounds possible in theory, but not so much in practice. Let's say I live my whole life as a model citizen, then one day buy a gun with the intent to kill a bunch of people. No background check in the world would deny my purchase. What now?

That’s not realistic. People don’t “just snap.”

In any case, your hypothetical model citizen wouldn’t be bothered by background checks and waiting periods, so there’s no harm in restrictions that prevent crimes that would be stopped by a mandatory cooling off period.

The Vegas shooter had no priors and no discernable motive, so people definitely do "just snap." The Texas clocktower shooter also appears to have gone crazy over a relatively short period of time due to a brain tumor.

It is far, far more likely that the domestic/partner violence perpetrator will have a gun than the use of a gun to defend against such violence by female victims.

It is quite common that the perpetrators of mass shootings have previously had the police called to them by their partner. Rarely is anything done about this, but that's the motivation for "red flag" laws.

> Rarely is anything done about this

There were reasons things were rarely done. Most importantly, under 18 or non-married calls didn't count as red flags. Congress just passed a bill fixing those two issues going forward that Biden is extremely likely to sign into law.

3 days? If only it were 3 days, i. many jurisdictions it’s 10 days

> Yes to both. It takes 30 seconds to run the check. They're not required to interview kindergarden classmates or something crazy.

In CA it takes two visits to an FFL for each transfer (to them and back to you) with a 10 day waiting period in between the two visits and a $35 fee. Your "it takes 30 seconds" tells me you have no idea the reality of how gun laws affect the law abiding.

That sounds like you're describing a current transfer regime. We're talking about requiring background checks. An NICS background check completes in 30 seconds.

California's more draconian rules than what's been proposed has no bearing on anything.

California's (and other states') rules have a huge bearing on the issue, because they're clear examples of what gun control advocates are trying to implement since they're what they've actually implemented.

To have access to NICS you need to be an FFL. So you at least have to go to an FFL. They will charge you to do the check and federally required paperwork (which takes longer than 30 seconds). The only thing that the other poster said that isn't something universal at the federal level is the waiting period.

It's actually quite germane, considering that this is the way your proposal is implemented in real life.

> It takes 30 seconds to run the check.

I just bought a rifle in Nevada a couple weeks ago. It took multiple days to run the check.

No to both.

Nevada built their own background check system on top of the federal system and already legally requires private sellers to run one. Therefore the costs won't increase by a federal law requiring background checks and the length of time can decrease is the Nevada public safety department is better funded.

Nobody was wondering about how it works at this moment. We're interested in a better future system.

Being interested in a better future system necessitates understanding the risks thereof, including those currently revealed under the current system.

In California it takes 10 days - if you’re lucky and they don’t extend it to 30+ because they don’t feel like coming into the office (aka Covid).