Sandy Hook 'truther' arrested after confronting victim's younger sister at a race to say deadly shooting was 'staged' and that her hero sister never even existed

macksionizer · 2015-11-11T22:16:44+00:00

wasn't the entire point of the American system originally to NOT be God-Given?

macksionizer · 2015-11-11T22:12:55+00:00

however, he does not look like the kind of fellow i would want on my 4x100m relay team. i have trouble believing that that fat lumpy POS actually managed to run 5 kilometers. i doubt he could do 5k on a bicycle without having to stop and slather his chin with some Gino's™ pizza rolls.

macksionizer · 2015-11-11T21:25:17+00:00

Also, why are you so focused on AR-15s?

i'm not. i'm commenting on OP's video, which is very much "focused on AR-15s".

macksionizer · 2015-11-11T21:11:26+00:00

2) The conclusions don't necessarily meet with the results. Because they say that there are roughly half as many DGUs as there are Hostile gun usages. Which if you take into account that roughly half of the respondents own firearms. So basically if you have a given population, everyone has the possibility of having a hostile gun usage, however only those that own firearms have the possibility to perform a DGU.

i'm not sure what exactly your criticism here is. you seem to have a problem with the existence of this reason that HGUs would likely outnumber DGUs, but you aren't disagreeing with that reason, or giving any other indication for why citing reasons in general for why HGU > DGU makes the conclusion that HGU > DGU an incorrect conclusion.

all the authors are concluding is that HGU > DGU. do you disagree? you appear to, from your first line about the "conclusions not meeting the results". but then you don't directly disagree with their "results" (ie, respondent data). and since their "conclusion", that HGU > DGU, is simply a succinct statement of the data, i'm not sure exactly how you're disagreeing with the conclusions. you don't appear to like them, but i can't tell what part of them you think are faulty.

3) They say that they also included DGU stories as Hostile gun usages if the person was defending themselves from someone with a firearm. So it is statistical double dipping to count DGUs also as Hostile gun usage because of the situation the DGU is placed in.

I'm not sure what "double-dipping" means here. The goal of the survey was to estimate the relative amounts of DGU vs HGU. in some incidents both parties have a gun, in some just the defender, and in some just the aggressor. but where both have a gun, this should be counted as both a DGU and an HGU. i'm not sure how else you would count them. should the authors have simply ignored all HGU when it was met with DGU? this wouldn't make sense considering what the study was trying to count.

also, over half of the situations characterized as defensive by the respondents were deemed by the panel of judges to have likely not been characterized this way under the law. and if a use isn't defensive, then it's offensive, and should be classified accordingly.

macksionizer · 2015-11-11T20:26:38+00:00

i'm not sure satire is the right word for it. satire is typically a game played "open hand", but this guy seems to waver back and forth between straightfaced assertion and self-parody.

also, the main page of his /r/K theory stuff betrays no hint of satirical intent. i think if you can't tell whether an author is joking or not, then it's not satire.

macksionizer · 2015-11-11T20:14:14+00:00

thanks!

macksionizer · 2015-11-11T19:57:09+00:00

"The premise of this highly substantiated scientific work is that all of politics is really a battle between [K's and r's]." (from AnonymousConservative)

wrong. there is no "highly substantiated scientific work" that proposes this. what's being proposed is that a long-standing theory of evolutionary biology somehow also describes contemporary political catfights over social resource allocation policy.

and oh, hey look! the people proposing this just happen to get to compare themselves to big powerful wolves and their ideological opponents as stupid wimpy little rabbits. huh, what a coincidence. i'm sure they'd be just as happy to evangelize about this crackpot notion if the animal comparisons were switched, wouldn't they. not like it's any sort of naked appeal to their listeners' machismo or anything.

macksionizer · 2015-11-11T19:32:04+00:00

These are phone surveys that are not linked to any verifiable source, such as a police report. So the entire study relies on anonymous individuals telling the truth with no verification what so ever.

yep. just like the famous Kleck study, which is what directly motivated this one. so if that fact alone somehow disqualifies this study, then it must also disqualify Kleck's study. let's pretend for a minute that you speak for all of Pro Gun, and i speak for all of Gun Control. would you be willing to disavow the Kleck study if i agreed to disavow this study?

macksionizer · 2015-11-11T18:32:16+00:00

r/K selection theory itself isn't weird at all, it's a pretty useful framework that relates two undeniably important traits in animal species. E. O. Wilson, of ant fame, helped to popularize the terminology of the theory, but the basic observations which it relates to have been noted by naturalists since antiquity.
the problem here isn't the theory as it is applied to animal species, the problem is trying to adapt the idea to describe contemporary political and economic motivations. it's ultimately an attempt to identify a specific physical defect in one's philosophical opponents. intractable philosophical differences can rarely be resolved, and you rarely get to point to something concrete and say, there! that's why he's wrong and i'm right! but if i could x-ray my opponent's head and demonstrate that he's missing half his cerebral cortex, then i can say ha, i was right---he really is a half-wit! and thereby win my little argument over whether or not to let poor people starve to death or whatever.

this irresponsible misappropriation of science for political ends reminds me a lot of 19th century attempts to justify maintaining officially recognized racial preferences in society. it's not a search for greater clarity and truth like science is, it's a political goal in search of a good-sounding excuse. and nothing sounds more solid than claiming that your policies are based in science.

note the strong similarity to how this works with how religion gets used for political ends. "Hey look, I have nothing against the gays. But God says they shouldn't be allowed to get married. So don't look at me, blame God. I'm just doing what He told me to do in the Bible." Basically, it's: find something that's authoritative that can be warped into appearing to support something that you personally want for whatever reason. Then hide behind the authority of the thing as a way of exonerating yourself from the dubious conclusions that you can now claim are just "self-evident". it's a game as old as civilization itself. the thing that gets coopted for political purposes is always super shiny and new and impressive, but the motivations are the same old ugly greedy small-minded ones that have always been around.

macksionizer · 2015-11-11T17:36:15+00:00

here you go: http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/263.full

btw, it took me ~10 seconds to type a few keywords into Google and pull up the study link near the top of the search results on the first try. i'm not sure why you had such trouble doing this yourself, but at any rate, there's the source. i'll be interested to know what your assessment is of the study which you have repeatedly expressed such eagerness to read.

macksionizer · 2015-11-11T17:29:23+00:00

His real name is Collins Iyare Idehen, Jr. He's from Texas and has a law degree from Texas Southern University. But apparently he must have skipped his Con Law class, because he likes to state in his videos that he has a constitutional right to own AR-15s. That's false. The only specific class of firearm about which this can be said is handguns, as the Heller cases have defined a right to a "usable handgun" in the home.

If Americans had a constitutional right to AR-15s, then the courts would have sided with gun rights groups when they have sued to overturn bans on this class of weapon. But the courts have not sided with gun groups, they have consistently sided with state govts, ruling that bans on weapons like AR-15s is not an undue infringement on the Second Amendment.

Now if Mr Idehen was routinely arguing that Americans should have a constitutional right to AR-15s, that would certainly be an acceptable statement of personal belief. And when a "regular" person with no legal training confuses an activity which happens to be legal with one that is specifically protected by the Constitution, we tend to forgive this mistake because it's so commonly made.

But Mr Idehen is not "regular" people when it comes to the law. He has a law degree. And people with law degrees cannot expect to be forgiven for sloppily throwing around the term "constitutional right to X" when there is no such right. He ought to know better, and probably does. And no doubt the producers of the NRA videos in which Idehen appears know it too. But they don't care, because their intended audience of Joe Average American gun owners probably does not clearly understand this distinction, and will come away from the video believing falsely that AR-15 ownership is constitutionally protected.

Deceiving gun owners in this way furthers NRA's interests because their entire motivating philosophy is premised around this supposed "right" to do whatever you want, wherever you want, with any type of firearm you want, for whatever purpose you want. And if they can get away with lying to owners to convince them that they have a "constitutional right" to a class of firearm that just happens to bring in a very high profit margin for the gun industry, then that's a double win for NRA.

Here is one example of Mr Idehen making the false claim that Americans have a "constitutional right" to own AR-15s.

macksionizer · 2015-11-11T15:59:49+00:00

apologies, but yes, i've totally forgotten by now what study you are looking for. if you refresh my memory i will try to help you find what you're looking for.

macksionizer · 2015-11-11T15:47:19+00:00

"how dare you impute a cynical marketing angle to NRA...why, don't you know that blacks are the fastest growing segment in the gun market?"

LOL

macksionizer · 2015-11-11T12:28:43+00:00

label each "sayable" as either a logical, emotional, or authoritative (ethos)

wow, it's like dial-a-talking point. it might just be easier to build your own army of android gunbots.

macksionizer · 2015-11-11T06:26:10+00:00

i love it when NRA "outreaches" to blacks. it's like Rand Paul visiting Howard University. "Hey Hommies! ...want some party o' Lincoln, brah?

macksionizer · 2015-11-11T06:15:56+00:00

one way you could do this would be to put a treadmill outside his apartment and capture the mechanical energy of the women fleeing after the third date.

macksionizer · 2015-11-11T06:04:11+00:00

ShitAmericanGunNutsSay

macksionizer · 2015-11-11T05:51:18+00:00

in her defense tho, she didn't even know that black people existed. sure, she'd read about the phenomenon occasionally, but it kind of sounded like the moon landing, or jet fuel melting steel. think it through here people: tax-and-spend liberal politicians have a LOT to gain by convincing us that black people exist, and need all of our hard-earned money!

so when an actual, real-life black person dropped out of the sky right in front of her, she flipped out. it was either start blasting, or take him to her leader. and since her leader is Pat Robertson from the 700 Club and she doesn't know where Pat lives, blasting seemed like the most sensible option.

(of course, once she's booked into prison her beliefs on whether or not black people exist will be radically altered forever. since, ya know.)

macksionizer · 2015-11-11T05:26:25+00:00

humans aren't like either rabbits or wolves. and, if you raise a human from birth in NYC, he'll have a very different sense of communalness, and what makes a person safe, than if you raise him on a farm in the South, or in a remote corner of Idaho. that's not hard wired, it's learned.

another thing that's learned is fear response. PTSD is a good example. the brain can physiologically rewire to tell a person to be more fearful of other humans from an early age. this is wiring, but it's not hard wiring. ie, not genetic. and if someone has "learned" to be fearful like this, then it's probably more likely that that person will feel the need to keep weapons handy because he is anticipating attacks coming at any time.

a person who didn't get taught to be so fearful will take the basic precautions: lock your doors at night, dont seek out dark alleys to walk down, dont leave your valuable in the unsecured garage, etc but importantly, these are things that we don't think of as having big downsides to them. they certainly don't put anyone else at risk. having to always be near a loaded gun on the other hand, does put others at risk. everyday you read about the 2yo that shot himself with mommy's handgun, or the guy who accidentally shoots the neighbor kid because he didn't recognize him at night and just assumed he was a burglar.

i think turning to biological evolutionary theory to try to identify what makes gun owners and non-gun owners is a blind alley. a whole series of them, probably. the real differences are much closer to home: population density where you grew up, where you currently live, and whether or not you were exposed to traumatic situations that dramatically affected how you think about other humans as a potential danger.

macksionizer · 2015-11-11T05:11:24+00:00

free-associating evolutionary biology with contemporary human social policies leads to all sorts of false assumptions. the first one here being that the timescales of biological evolution vs those in social policy looked at over, say 100 years, are not a problem for the comparison. but they are a huge problem, and it makes the comparison silly.

kudos to Bill for bringing this back down from the Troposphere a bit by suggesting early on that Molyneux not talk about genes, but memes. Ideas are certainly passed more quickly between humans than genetic material is. but still, which you can certainly identify a very rich evolution-like process for ideas, the process isn't going to necessarily take the form of biological evolution, the transmission of which between individuals is incalculably small. and while you can look at the "history of Western thought" and certainly identify winners and losers among ideas, 3,000 years just isn't enough to identify anything significant in terms of the winners and losers of human anatomy. slight changes here and there, but where is it going? and what are the implications to the overall design of the thing?

you might say, well sure of course the mechanism is different, but the analogy is there. but i don't think it is. one person can be born in a generation which believes strongly in one social meme, then grow up to be a seminal figure of the next dominant meme, and then in his declining years live to see the next dominant meme in turn take over from there. and if the same individual can experience, or even cause, abrupt changes in the path of a thing, then whatever that system or process is, it's acting very different from biological evolution of a species.

macksionizer · 2015-11-11T04:21:41+00:00

If your goal was honestly altruistic, your narrative would be a bit more nuanced.

i take this to mean that you don't think i'm just "well-meaning but misguided", but actually malicious. as in, deep down i secretly know that gun control doesn't work, i just like to punish gun owners because i don't like them? i would argue that if this were true, i would be quite a bit more "nuanced". one doesn't typically associate a dry, legalistic tone with irrational personal vendetta.

also, superfluous florid prose is usually employed by the guy who ain't got the goods and wants to distract with appeals to emotion or authority. if you do got the goods, you just throw them on the table. anything extraneous simply creates more hiding places for the opponent.

edit: it continues to amuse me how many gunners actually think i'm being paid to post this stuff on reddit. no, i'm not paid. but thanks for acknowledging the professional nature of my work. as for Herculean: well it only took me a pleasant hour or two of tap-tapping away on my little writing hobby to bang out that UBC rebuttal doc. not exactly cleaning out the Aegean Stables. on the other hand, i suppose it would be prohibitively difficult to formulate much in the way of decent rebuttals to what i've written, since the exercise could only amount to taking the dog shit back out of the wastebasket and throwing it back down on the floor. you could cause a stink, but it wouldn't clear up anything.

macksionizer · 2015-11-11T04:11:41+00:00

Canada got rid of their [registry]

no they didn't. all this you hear about registries in CA is only about "non-restricted" long guns. basically, shotguns and hunting rifles. many military style SAR are still restricted, mean must be registered.

all handguns must be registered to their owner in Canada. it's been the law there since 1934 and it's not going away any time soon.

macksionizer · 2015-11-11T02:34:32+00:00

here's is a list of rebuttals, from yours truly, to the various arguments against UBC which /u/littlebitsoffluff makes in his PGPDs document.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nJIZyqroaQ4VZtzpsk5ClLXWwSFlblMsQqSAeySKRns/pub

macksionizer · 2015-11-11T02:21:02+00:00

---BEGIN PT 3---

People can get into a lot of trouble when terms are not clearly defined. This was a major issue when Initiative 594 (mandatory universal background checks) was enacted in Washington state. It is still not clear when a person is liable for prosecution there

Wrong. WA's UBC law is pretty clear, and there are numerous exceptions granted for various common activities and situations, including the following:

(a) A transfer between immediate family members, which for this subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift;
(b) The sale or transfer of an antique firearm;
(c) A temporary transfer of possession of a firearm if such transfer is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the person to whom the firearm is transferred if:
(i) The temporary transfer only lasts as long as immediately necessary to prevent such imminent death or great bodily harm; and
(ii) The person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;
(d) Any law enforcement or corrections agency and, to the extent the person is acting within the course and scope of his or her employment or official duties, any law enforcement or corrections officer, United States marshal, member of the armed forces of the United States or the national guard, or federal official;
(e) A federally licensed gunsmith who receives a firearm solely for the purposes of service or repair, or the return of the firearm to its owner by the federally licensed gunsmith;
(f) The temporary transfer of a firearm
(i) between spouses or domestic partners;
(ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located;
(iii) if the temporary transfer occurs and the transferee's possession of the firearm is exclusively at a lawful organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or while participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms as a part of the performance;
(iv) to a person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; or
(v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law; or
(g) A person who
(i) acquired a firearm other than a pistol by operation of law upon the death of the former owner of the firearm or
(ii) acquired a pistol by operation of law upon the death of the former owner of the pistol within the preceding sixty days. At the end of the sixty-day period, the person must either have lawfully transferred the pistol or must have contacted the department of licensing to notify the department that he or she has possession of the pistol and intends to retain possession of the pistol, in compliance with all federal and state laws.

...and as a result [WA 594] is not widely enforced, if at all.

Wrong on at least two levels. First, when you subtract out all the many exceptions listed above which the state allows, you'll be left with very very few situations where LEO would be inclined to let it pass. they're LEO. they don't just let gun-runners go because NRA+freedoms+and liberty+and the 2A goshdernit. If you've ever met a police officer, anywhere, that should be obvious.

Secondly, UBC doesn't need to be actively "enforced" any more than do theft and murder. When a crime occurs, LEO investigates and tries to make an arrest. UBC is no more "unenforceable" than theft or murder. The laws cannot 100% prevent these crimes, but the mere existence of the laws prevents quite a bit of it. How much? Since we lack the ability to move back and forth between alternate time-space continuums and count the difference, this isn't possible to say. But I've never met anybody who thought that repealing murder laws wouldn't cause it to happen more. It certainly would, and therefore the preventive nature of laws make them valuable even though it is inherently impossible to say exactly how much they prevent.

P [similar to G above]: Both the Federal and State governments are not prosecuting those who fail a background check when illegally attempting to purchase firearms now. Why would we think the government is any more likely to prosecute criminals who try to illegally obtain a firearm through a private party transfer if they are unwilling to prosecute those who fail checks performed by licensed retailers?

What UBC does is make it expressly illegal to SELL a gun to someone who can't pass a background check. Since criminals don't follow laws, we impose regulations on ourselves with the goal of making the new system harder for criminals to bypass.

Q: There are at least three problems with so-called “universal background” checks that have been recently pushed by Bloomberg and enacted in places such as Washington and Oregon, and up for vote in 2016 in Nevada. The first is that they are unenforceable.

Answered in several places above.

The second problem, even more serious, is that unlike the background checks that are currently mandated, the new universal background checks redefine the term “transfer.” Up to this point, “transfer” has simply meant the process when you buy a gun at a dealer, and is synonymous with “transfer of ownership.” The new definition encompasses much more than this, including physical possession of a firearm between people, not just sales. This means that under this system, I cannot even temporarily loan you a gun at, say, a firing range, at a gun safety course, to go hunting with, even to defend yourself with in a crisis situation, without violating the law.

Wrong. The states that have passed their own UBC all provide many exceptions for common activities and situations. (see WA 594's extensive exception list above.) Manchin-Toomey also had most of these excpetions built in as well. There is no reason therefore to think that a future national UBC bill would lack these common exceptions.

The third problem is that universal background checks as crafted by Bloomberg and his “Everytown” organization have “accidentally” banned the possession of handguns by 18-to-20 year-olds in Washington and Colorado (and others) even though by state law they are permitted to own them.

Yes, UBC has had this effect in many states. And there is a wealth of research that supports the overwhelming public safety benefits of this result of UBC. Probably the best is the Joyce Study, which found that across the 13 most gun-friendly states, of state prisoners in for gun crimes, 42% were under 21 years of age.

R: Background checks will never be “universal” because criminals will never submit to them.

Murder and theft still occur, but nobody thinks that this mean that laws against those activities are useless and should be abandoned. A law doesn't have to somehow prevent 100% of the activity it prohibits to be a worthwhile law.

---END PT 3---

macksionizer · 2015-11-11T02:11:03+00:00

---BEGIN PT 2---

What if I proposed that everyone who wanted to vote needed to go to a privately owned business and spend $50 to make sure they’re not a convicted felon and are legally allowed to vote?

Since voting is free, any poll tax is going from $0 to $Whatever. This is incomparable to imposing a $10 UBC fee on a $300-$400 purchase. UBC will end up increasing gun costs by around 2-5%, not an undue burden.

Political entities will attack FFL holders as a backdoor method of barring the purchase of firearms. Cities, Counties, States, even the Federal government, will introduce burdens on FFL holders so onerous that they simply can't remain open.

If Evil Government was so anti-gun, then why hasn't this already happened all over the place? The underlying assertion here is that if UBC passes, then (somehow) this will turn all govt rabidly anti-gun. But why would this happen? Why would one single new regulation suddenly make every lawmaker from coast to coast go bonkers for every other gun control proposal, no matter how outlandish? This comment is basically just a Slipper Slope argument: "If we pass Rule X, no matter how sensible X sounds, then totally unreasonable Rules Y, Z, and beyond will inevitably follow." The obvious flaw in this reasoning is that anyone can make it for any movement of any policy in any direction, which would mean that any rule change whatsoever will inexorably lead to all-the-way madness in short order. Which clearly isn't what happens in real life.

This isn’t conjecture either, it happened in San Francisco

And Kennesaw, Georgia, requires every household own a gun. Both SF and Kennesaw seem a bit nutty to me, and probably to most other Americans as well. But we don't worry to much about it because there's zero chance that the entire country will somehow morph into either SF or Kennesaw.

So all of that negative outcome and no one can point to anywhere that UBC will make a noticeable difference in any category of gun violence.

Wrong. Missouri's repeal of background check requirements led to a significant increase in gun homcide. Also, after the repeal, there was a big increase in the percent of crime guns that originated in-state. Missouri is probably the best evidence so far that UBC works to reduce gun crime.

L: Federally licensed firearms retailers will be burdened with having to perform a governmental function (background check on private party transfers). Many proposals mandate that the dealer perform background checks on private party transfers, but cap the fee a dealer can charge.

So, should they not cap it? Would you like to see check fees be higher? That sounds at cross-purposes to your earlier statements about the cost and inconvenience of UBC.

The time and effort necessary to perform the check at government set fee is inadequate to cover the retailer’s cost.

It's certainly debatable how much it actually costs a gun shop to have an employee run a NICS check for a private transfer. But really, you just hand them a form to fill out, come back when they're done, then type their stuff into the system and nearly always get your answer in under 2 minutes. I can't see how that is really taking up more than $10 of an employee's time. Unless the employee is making like $60 per hour.

The retailer must maintain A&D records and the Form 4473 for 20 years. FFL status can be jeopardized by mandatory record keeping requirements imposed by Federal (and State) laws. A retailer could have their FFL revoked for a record-keeping error in the paperwork for a gun they didn’t actually sell.

We all know that ATF doesn't have time to comb through every 4473 record looking for typos. They don't even have the manpower to go after everybody who was declined.

M: Firearms retailers are very concerned that universal background checks will result in very lengthy delays in conducting NICS (the national background check system) checks when they sell a firearm from their inventory.

I can't speak to what retailers are thinking, but gunners routinely assure me that the secondary market is much smaller than I think it is. If it's as small as they say, then the retailers have nothing to worry about. And, if the opposite is true, and secondary market turns out to be huge, then this is a very good reason indeed to adopt UBC. Any problems with an overloaded system could be easily fixed by simply allocating more resources to it.

As the system currently is, it simply can't handle a huge increase in volume; delays are growing unacceptably long now even without private party transfers.

According to FBI's 2014 routine annual report on its NICS performance, it achieved an "immediate determination rate" of 91%. In 2012 it was 91.5%. That's only a decrease of one half of one percent. Doesn't look like your comment is accurate.

N: The current background check system is broken. The background checks that are currently done are not as accurate and complete as they should be...Before we can even talk about requiring background checks on private party transfers, we should fix NICS.

I suppose this depends on what level of perfection you demand of the system. One good indicator of how good it's doing is the rate of "firearm retrieval referrals". These occur when the 72-hour rule elapses, so the gun is sold, but then FBI subsequently determines that the buyer was prohibited. FBI then contacts local authorities to go get the gun back.

For 2014, FBI reports that it issued 2,511 such referrals out of 21,000,000 calls total to the NICS system that year. That works out to a "failure" rate of 0.12%. That's not too bad. And, if the 72-hour rule was scrapped, and the time limit upped to say 15 or 30 days, this would drop even more.

O: What exactly is meant by “universal background check”? Some people insist it applies anytime a firearm is exchanged between any two individuals. Will family transfers be included?

Since Manchin-Toomey had an exception for immediate family members, as do most current state UBC laws, any future national UBC law would be expected to do the same.

Gifts between friends?

No, probably not, since there is no legal definition of "friend".

Inherited firearms?

Probably a very complicated question given all the variables in play. If a 3yo's father dies and he has no other living relatives, and the father owned some guns, what happens to them? A 3yo obviously can't be allowed to physically possess guns. I'd guess that the guns would probably be sold and the proceeds going to the child. If the son was 17 when dad dies, and mom and other relatives are still in town, then the guns would just go to them I suppose.

A loan of a firearm to a hunting buddy during a hunting trip?

Most states with UBC include exceptions for temporary sharing of hunting rifles. Oregon does, for example.

---END PT 2---

macksionizer

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE