Lots of shootings...

[MaxOfMetal]

My alarms start going off any time someone says there's a problem that's broad but the solution to it are only the things that restrict other people unlike myself. Like orchestrating a perfect policy scenario where no poor people have guns but make sure I don't have to fill out one more form, or have my name appear on one more list. Incredibly convenient.

I'm also weary of "I don't support [very specific policy that reduces incidents now but doesn't eliminate them entirely now], I only support [vague uninstitutable series of cultural charges that may bear fruit several generations later]". Because it's again, easy to recommend things that don't inconvenience you, but also remain vague and unattainable, so that there's no benchmarks for success but you're allowed to remain right in theory.

Then they'll blather on about the "big changes" and still vote against them at every level because there's no way a mainstream right of center candidate would ever endorse that kind of structural progress.

 

[StevenC]

The comparison to drunk driving - but how hard is it to buy a car? What policies are in place for vehicle ownership? Do drunk drivers who kill people steal the cars they use, or were they sold legally? Etc.

Cars are actually vital for life in the USA yet you need to pass (a joke of) an exam and keep insurance. I don't know if those crazy guys have an equivalent to MOT testing, but I hope so.

 

[odibrom]

CDC stats seem to suggest a 10 to 20% reduction in alcohol related crashes with checkpoint implementation. That means they likely save more lives than reducing mass shootings in the US to zero would. Does they violate individual rights? Some people think so, only 38 states allow sobriety checkpoints. But the inconvenience of driving through an occasional checkpoint is pretty minor compared to, for example, banning cars or banning alcohol or even mandatory breathalyzers in every car- which would be solutions more similar to the media/politician proposed gun control du jour.

I think background checks are probably the most influential "gun control law" in reducing gun violence. In 1993, a majority of guns used in violent crimes were purchased legally. In 1994 a federal background check requirement was implemented for handguns purchased at retail sources. In 1993 you could have prior convictions, walk into a gun store and buy a gun anywhere that didn't have state or local laws requiring a background check. If you look at more recent data a very small proportion of firearms used in crime were purchased legally at a retail source (about 10%). These are somewhat apples and oranges because there are still firearms sales conducted privately without background checks - although it is generally illegal for felons to purchase and posses guns, so such a sale wouldn't be legal. The missing variable here is potentially new criminals buying guns legally in private sales. This report using data from 2016 indicates only about 10% of criminals obtained their gun by purchase or trade at a retail source: https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

Background checks are never going to be 100% effective, and I understand concerns from people like @wheresthefbomb that they may disproportionately disenfranchise some populations that have been targeted by the criminal justice system. There are other concerns about privacy and how that data gets handled, too, but yeah - that is probably the most productive on the "gun control" side of things if you are so inclined. For the record, I think that a proposal that expanded background checks but included robust privacy and data handling provisions could likely get bipartisan support.



I understand that you don't know me, so your strong racial overtones comment is more understandable than if you did know me.

Mass shootings are a legitimate concern. They are also extremely rare as a cause of death in a country of 330m people. We are still hearing about Buffalo and Uvalde in the news every day even though more people are killed every day by drunk driving than both of those tragedies combined.

You have already contended in this thread that being victimized by violent crime is lifestyle dependent. I get that public shootings aren't that way (unless you eliminate your risk by being a hermit). That might make them more frightening, but the odds are still incredibly low. People talk about extremely rare occurrences as "one in a million", being killed in a mass shooting is like a one in three to nine million occurrence.

I'm not saying nothing can or should be done to reduce mass shootings. I don't claim to have all the answers. I do believe that stripping basic human rights from over a hundred million people because a few dozen people commit atrocities is not justified. If you start (as some people do) from the point of view that everyone with a gun is just one bad sandwich away from becoming a murderer I could see how you might think that way, though. I am bringing stats into the discussion because a few YouTube videos or news articles about people being irresponsible with guns is not representative of the majority of gun owners (contrary to the celebratory dogpiling over irresponsible behavior throughout this thread).

Lots of people on this thread fantasize about the mindset of gun owners, how they must think, how they are just itching to pull the trigger and end another human life. Do some people think that way? Sure. Just like some anti-gun politicians fantasize about running over children (amiright Beto?). But I don't think it is a majority - and if it is a majority, then people sure do a great job of repressing those urges because a tiny fraction of gun owners commit most violent gun crime. I know several people I've talked to that recently received licenses to carry have told me that they feel more of an obligation to deescalate conflicts like road rage than before because escalation could be fatal to one or both parties.



Every loss of life is tragic. That isn't being reduced to just a number, or just a statistical debate - at least that isn't my intention. That said, if faced with a choice between pulling two levers, and pulling one of them saves 11,000 people, and pulling the other saves 100 people - would you make your decision based on how many people are saved or how many people are saved per event? That doesn't mean we cant have a multifactorial approach to reducing senseless killings but in this thread just about everyone is debating how to pull the 100 person lever - few people seems to care about the 11,000 person one.



Thank you. It is refreshing to hear at least someone understands that it may be justifiable to use a weapon to avoid being raped, killed, etc.



I mean, "melt 'em all down" (a position of several in this thread) is in effect saying no one gets any weapon at all. I guess you could argue maybe you are ok with melee weapons but not guns like @odibrom (where you are skilled and responsible enough with your unlicensed saber and home-made nunchaku).



Your approach, generally speaking, seems to be more reasonable than many. You unfortunately seem far too reasonable to be a politician or make decisions on public policy, though. I would add a fourth leg to this tripod to make it a table (where's James Hetfield?) and say that social and economic factors (@Randy if that is racist I can use the SSO approved term HDI?) greatly influence violent crime. I also recognize that ending gun violence isn't the same thing as ending violence, although many people treat it as such.

I'd "love" to hear news of mass killing by nunchaku or a blunt sword perpetrated by one only man... maybe in a right wing political rally...?... death by blunt nuchaku... yeah, there ain't any, right? I wonder why...

As far as I know, melee weapons are kind of one-on-one shit shows, giving the opponent a way higher chance of survival. Also, it makes the kill way harder to perform since one is at a breath range. Guns put the killing in a way less personal action and therefore easier for the empty headed...

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Cars are actually vital for life in the USA yet you need to pass (a joke of) an exam and keep insurance. I don't know if those crazy guys have an equivalent to MOT testing, but I hope so.

Not really, some states have trivial safety inspections, but they're really a joke when you see what does and doesn't pass. There is emissions testing...unless you don't have to in your area or your vehicle fits a certain profile.

 

[spudmunkey]

Why do any measures have to always be about some grand, multi-faceted "plan"?

Like...why can't there just be logical baby steps that pretty much everyone can agree on, and easily pass? Like, no matter what side of the gun control debate you fall, it seems like there wouldn't be any argument about creating an official, structured, go-forward gun buy-back program. If someone has a gun that they don't want anymore, rather than selling it, they can turn it in for disposal rather than it being stolen or sold to someone else. It literally takes guns off the "streets"? Yes, it would likely get mostly old hunting rifles, but every time some community runs a gun drive, there's always handguns and high-powered rifles in the mix. Why would this have to be a part of some larger "package"/"deal"?

 

[tedtan]

Why do any measures have to always be about some grand, multi-faceted "plan"?

Like...why can't there just be logical baby steps that pretty much everyone can agree on, and easily pass? Like, no matter what side of the gun control debate you fall, it seems like there wouldn't be any argument about creating an official, structured, go-forward gun buy-back program. If someone has a gun that they don't want anymore, rather than selling it, they can turn it in for disposal rather than it being stolen or sold to someone else. It literally takes guns off the "streets"? Yes, it would likely get mostly old hunting rifles, but every time some community runs a gun drive, there's always handguns and high-powered rifles in the mix. Why would this have to be a part of some larger "package"/"deal"?

We currently have a gun “buyback” drive going on in Houston. They are offering:

- $50 for a non-functioning firearm of any kind;
- $100 for a functioning rifle or shotgun;
- $150 for a functioning handgun; and
- $200 for a fully automatic rifle.

I expect some people will go for this, but any gun is worth more than the city is offering, so unless the goal of the seller is specifically to have the gun destroyed, why would they give up so much money to turn it in rather than sell it to a gun store? That’s not rational.

For perspective, a decent gun costs as much as a decent guitar (think a minimum of $400), a fully automatic rifle is likely into the tens of thousands of dollars, and I’ve seen custom one-off hand made shotguns in the $250-500K range (one four barrel Purdey .410 shotgun at Gordy & Sons in Houston comes to mind). Granted, those expensive ones are quite rare, but any gun is worth more than what Houston is offering.

 

[Mike_R]

Mike, first off, this and - especially - your second post here are thoughtful, articulate, and while I don't agree with you, I appreciate having a non-knee-jerk dissenting opinion in this conversation.

Thank you - I am honestly not expecting many people to agree with me here, but I still think it is worth discussing. I also appreciate the opportunity to voice my opinion and thoughts (which is somewhat the point of a forum, especially this subforum addressing politics, right?), which at least haven't so far been met with, "haha, gun owners have smooth brain and smol, soft pp" posts yet (although I suspect somebody will be along to rectify that shortly, and that certainly is a feature in this marathon of a thread).

Is US drinking, drug use, and gun violence somehow uniquely American?
Put simply, I don't think these are especially analogous. The US wild west may have been notoriously boozy... but so too was the British empire, and drinking culture was embedded pretty thoroughly globally. It's not like the rest of the world was sober and upstanding before Prohibition and the States were just a bunch of booze bags and something needed to be done - every "modern" civilization featured heavy drinking when the US Temperance movement was getting up to speed. Likewise, I'd also say the US isn't unusually druggy - illegal drug use is a global issue, and much of the drug trade exists outside of the US (and, ironically, is fueled by the flow of guns in the opposite direction). Gun violence, meanwhile, IS a uniquel American problem - we drink and use illegal drugs at a per capita rate in line with global first-world norms, but shoot each other to death at a rate FAR above any other first world nation. That implies there's something uniquely American about gun violence, and while correlation is not causation, an obvious point to start is the fact that US per capita gun ownership is also way above first world norms.

My comparisons to Prohibition and the War on Drugs aren't intended to suggest that these factors are uniquely American. The comparisons are more directly intended to highlight that changing human behavior by legislating objects is notoriously ineffective, and that the cost of enforcing such laws is non-zero. In both cases (Prohibition decades ago, and perhaps the War on Drugs more recently) people have come to understand that the benefits of enforcement are not worth the costs (direct and indirect) of enforcement, and focused instead on alternative mitigation policies.

I do not agree that gun violence is a uniquely American problem, but I understand that the US certainly is an outlier among "first world nations". That first world nations bit is part of my point, though. The US has one of the highest poverty rates in the OECD, and has a higher rate of poverty than Mexico according to OECD data (which is considered a "developing economy", i.e. not a first world country by the UN). If guns per capita are what causes gun violence it would be impossible to explain why Finland, Iceland, Canada, Norway, Sweden, etc... have far less violent crime than Central America in spite of a higher number of guns per capita. Is the only difference that affects violent crime between Denmark and the US that the US has more guns?

I believe that the fact that nearly 1 in 5 Americans live in poverty (by OECD standards anyway) has something to do with why violent crime rates are higher here than other "first world" countries.

If Prohibition and the War on Drugs were eventually abandoned in favor of harm mitigation, what might that look like for gun violence?
That, honestly, is. question I think I'll just turn over to you. If we abandoned prohibition for alcohol and drugs, and instead adopted policies like criminalizing drunk driving, legalizing and taxing less personally harmful drugs like pot, and providing safe injection sites and clean needles for heroin (as well as methedone for addicts looking to manage withdrawal symptoms), and if we believe these are the best ways to "combat" drug and alcohol use... if we were to apply the same model to gun use, how would we go about doing that?

This is an excellent question. I don't have all the answers, but I think this warrants further discussion. This is perhaps more rambly than my already TLDR posts.

More than half of US gun violence is suicide. An assault weapons ban, magazine capacity restrictions, or other similar measures are likely to have zero impact on the gun suicide rate. This one I think is primarily mental health and sometimes economic in nature. Policies that address those factors are key in reducing gun (and overall) violence.

The next category (in terms of prevalence) would be general violent crime (whether that is related to gangs, drug trafficking, theft, etc). A smaller subset of this category would include personal conflicts (including affairs, disagreements, and the like). For this category, I think that policies that center on lifting people out of poverty would have the greatest effect on this type of gun violence. I think the next biggest impact is addressing recidivism. We haven't figured that out as a country, so I won't pretend to know how to solve recidivism - that might be a "look to Scandinavia" sort of scenario.

Mass shootings take up an overwhelming share of policy discussion despite being one of the least common forms of gun violence. This one, I think, is again mental health and occasionally economic in nature- not like grand theft auto, but lack of future prospects. The Buffalo shooter cited among other things the great replacement theory as inspiration for his violence, which is a conspiracy theory rooted in political and economic grievances.

People pretend that mass shootings were solved during the 1994-2004 assault weapons and magazine bans. Columbine, which arguably was one of the most influential mass shootings that has inspired dozens of copycat incidents, was right in the middle of the ban timeframe.

A more actionable and specific target here centers on appropriately responding to known threats. One common feature in several mass shootings is that the individuals carrying out the attacks had already indicated a desire to commit a mass shooting and/or murder people that were known to law enforcement and/or the public:

The Buffalo shooter had already been interviewed by police after saying he wanted to commit a mass shooting:

The Buffalo suspect had threatened his high school last year, police say

Authorities in Buffalo say the alleged gunman had threatened a shooting at his school in 2021. He was then sent for a mental health evaluation that lasted a day and a half.

www.npr.org

The Parkland shooter had been reported to the FBI:

FBI Statement on the Shooting in Parkland, Florida — FBI

The FBI issued a statement concerning the shooting in Parkland, Florida.

www.fbi.gov

The Uvalde shooter indicated his intentions ahead of time, too:

'Know the Signs' Could Have Saved Lives in Uvalde

Shooter at Robb Elementary School exhibited warning signs, nobody took action.

www.sandyhookpromise.org

I think that harm reduction for mass shootings should start with identifying and addressing known threats instead of stripping 100m+ people of what I believe to be a natural right.

Similarly appropriate responses to in progress shootings would also reduce harm.

What the media/politician mainstream suggestions are (assault weapons bans, magazine bans, mandatory buybacks, criminalization of firearms ownership) is more Prohibition, and is likely to meet the same lack of success or worse.

My alarms start going off any time someone says there's a problem that's broad but the solution to it are only the things that restrict other people unlike myself. Like orchestrating a perfect policy scenario where no poor people have guns but make sure I don't have to fill out one more form, or have my name appear on one more list. Incredibly convenient.

If you think that I am trying to ban poor people from having guns you might want to re-read what I have said. I think the solution to poverty induced crime is addressing the poverty, not making the impoverished second class citizens. I think that the poor face the greatest risk of being victims of violent crime, and that policies that would deny peaceful people access to means of self defense are immoral.

As far as having a name on one more list, it is more than an inconvenience:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/30/california-gun-owners-data-breach
If you think that sharing a shopping list, names and home addresses of where to find guns to the internet is no big deal and positive for public safety then I guess it is just inconvenience.

 

[Glades]

Cars are actually vital for life in the USA yet you need to pass (a joke of) an exam and keep insurance. I don't know if those crazy guys have an equivalent to MOT testing, but I hope so.

Driving and gun ownership are quite different. Driving is not a right, it’s a privilege.

 

[Randy]

Driving and gun ownership are quite different. Driving is not a right, it’s a privilege.

Here we go, right on cue.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Why do any measures have to always be about some grand, multi-faceted "plan"?

Like...why can't there just be logical baby steps that pretty much everyone can agree on, and easily pass? Like, no matter what side of the gun control debate you fall, it seems like there wouldn't be any argument about creating an official, structured, go-forward gun buy-back program. If someone has a gun that they don't want anymore, rather than selling it, they can turn it in for disposal rather than it being stolen or sold to someone else. It literally takes guns off the "streets"? Yes, it would likely get mostly old hunting rifles, but every time some community runs a gun drive, there's always handguns and high-powered rifles in the mix. Why would this have to be a part of some larger "package"/"deal"?

We currently have a gun “buyback” drive going on in Houston. They are offering:

- $50 for a non-functioning firearm of any kind;
- $100 for a functioning rifle or shotgun;
- $150 for a functioning handgun; and
- $200 for a fully automatic rifle.

I expect some people will go for this, but any gun is worth more than the city is offering, so unless the goal of the seller is specifically to have the gun destroyed, why would they give up so much money to turn it in rather than sell it to a gun store? That’s not rational.

For perspective, a decent gun costs as much as a decent guitar (think a minimum of $400), a fully automatic rifle is likely into the tens of thousands of dollars, and I’ve seen custom one-off hand made shotguns in the $250-500K range (one four barrel Purdey .410 shotgun at Gordy & Sons in Houston comes to mind). Granted, those expensive ones are quite rare, but any gun is worth more than what Houston is offering.

Gun buybacks, as they are now, are bullshit.

It's just away for local PDs to passively accumulate the lowest of the low hanging fruit in a nice box they can take a picture of and go "see, look at all this gun violence we stopped" while not actually doing anything.

They're setup to be ineffective.

 

[Randy]

A more actionable and specific target here centers on appropriately responding to known threats. One common feature in several mass shootings is that the individuals carrying out the attacks had already indicated a desire to commit a mass shooting and/or murder people that were known to law enforcement and/or the public:

The Buffalo shooter had already been interviewed by police after saying he wanted to commit a mass shooting:

The Buffalo suspect had threatened his high school last year, police say

Authorities in Buffalo say the alleged gunman had threatened a shooting at his school in 2021. He was then sent for a mental health evaluation that lasted a day and a half.

www.npr.org

The Parkland shooter had been reported to the FBI:

FBI Statement on the Shooting in Parkland, Florida — FBI

The FBI issued a statement concerning the shooting in Parkland, Florida.

www.fbi.gov

The Uvalde shooter indicated his intentions ahead of time, too:

'Know the Signs' Could Have Saved Lives in Uvalde

Shooter at Robb Elementary School exhibited warning signs, nobody took action.

www.sandyhookpromise.org

I think that harm reduction for mass shootings should start with identifying and addressing known threats instead of stripping 100m+ people of what I believe to be a natural right.

All of which I believe were allowed to buy the guns they used to carry our their crimes legally. The implication is that this is all on authorities dropping the ball to communicate from one entity to the other, but I've seen little indication there's a federal statute that would've prohibited the purchase or seized the weapon even if everyone was talking to everyone like they should've been.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

On top of that, there are zero repercussions for moving parts in the system failing. Even if the local police, FBI, mandatory reporters, etc. fail, nothing happens.

But any way to reduce that fail rate is going to be looked at as a barrier to gun ownership or too expensive which is where the pushback is strongest.

 

[Randy]

On top of that, there are zero repercussions for moving parts in the system failing. Even if the local police, FBI, mandatory reporters, etc. fail, nothing happens.

But any way to reduce that fail rate is going to be looked at as a barrier to gun ownership or too expensive which is where the pushback is strongest.

Bingo. Show me a significant number of "lawful gun owners" that think social media posts should be considered red flag for prohibition or removal.

For all that dick waving earlier about how having a gun makes people think more responsibly about what they say and do, it was just a couple months ago a conservative acquaintance of mine said he wish a [prominent public figure] was infront of him so he could shoot him right between the eyes. With a gun. Which he owns.

But I'm lead to believe there's some mental forcefield that prevents that kind of thought once you have a gun in a holster.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Bingo. Show me a significant number of "lawful gun owners" that think social media posts should be considered red flag for prohibition or removal.

For all that dick waving earlier about how having a gun makes people think more responsibly about what they say and do, it was just a couple months ago a conservative acquaintance of mine said he wish a [prominent public figure] was infront of him so he could shoot him right between the eyes. With a gun. Which he owns.

But I'm lead to believe there's some mental forcefield that prevents that kind of thought once you have a gun in a holster.

I think all the deep dives into how trained law enforcement officers, military, and just random gun schmos act and say on public, and especially private, social media is enough to drive that home.

If you think that some peoples' lives don't matter because they have different political opinions or lifestyles, or race if we're going there, you probably shouldn't be able to have a gun, especially in public.

That's where the ambiguity in "red flags" gets real.

 

[Randy]

I live in a red region, in a red county, in a red town on a red block but most of my neighbors are pretty ambiguous about their political beliefs, for the most part. Typically very few political lawn signs a and the ones that pop-up are usually for friends or family or Joe Random Guy that came by with a petition and was nice.

Then had a guy move in last year with his family, and he's always got lawn signs and Trump this and that flags, Grunt Life wardrobe and the handful of times I've talked to him, figured out a way to work his guns or his politics into the conversation even if it's like two sentences about something unrelated like grass clippings.

Anyway, his wife is much nicer and more approachable than him and on the handful of occasions we've spoken, she's mentioned he's paranoid/prepper guy, super protective of her, his kids and his house. Kill anyone to protect his family.

Welp, two weeks ago the cops escort him out of the house because he beat her up. Loved her so much, he beat her. Loved his kids so much, he jeopardized ever seeing them again. Cares about his house so much, he got dragged out of it and isn't allowed back.

Forgive me if I'm pessimistic or broad brushing gun folks, but I absolutely hear shades of this same facade from all the vocal 2A guys I hear. The projection that you're this altruistic person with this fantastic life that's of greater value than the one you're willing to take, then it turns out you're a shitty coward that created a persona to distract from the fact you're a shitty coward.

 

[CanserDYI]

Interested in some people's takes on a buddy of mine's gun dealer's situation he's in. For reference, I am EXTREMELY pro gun control. I live in Ohio, where its easier to get a gun than sign up for a cell phone plan. I just want to hear opinions on this guys situation.

He owns a small gun shop here in Ohio, 2 people walk in, a man and a woman. The woman says absolutely nothing the entire duration of the visit, the man walking through a few pistols with the clerk and eventually selects one and makes the purchase. There is no waiting period here in Ohio, so they were able to walk out with the purchase.

They go back to their home, and apparently the woman grabs the gun and kills herself.

The gun dealer is now being pursued criminally/legally for the sale, but even as a left winger, "please-make-it-difficult-to-get-guns"-er I see this as ridiculous.

Thoughts?

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Interested in some people's takes on a buddy of mine's gun dealer's situation he's in. For reference, I am EXTREMELY pro gun control. I live in Ohio, where its easier to get a gun than sign up for a cell phone plan. I just want to hear opinions on this guys situation.

He owns a small gun shop here in Ohio, 2 people walk in, a man and a woman. The woman says absolutely nothing the entire duration of the visit, the man walking through a few pistols with the clerk and eventually selects one and makes the purchase. There is no waiting period here in Ohio, so they were able to walk out with the purchase.

They go back to their home, and apparently the woman grabs the gun and kills herself.

The gun dealer is now being pursued criminally/legally for the sale, but even as a left winger, "please-make-it-difficult-to-get-guns"-er I see this as ridiculous.

Thoughts?

Do you have a link to the specifics? If it was a straw purchase, yeah, he can be in some trouble for now, but if need to know more.

 

[CanserDYI]

Do you have a link to the specifics? If it was a straw purchase, yeah, he can be in some trouble for now, but if need to know more.

Unfortunately no, I'm relaying second hand details from word of mouth unfortunately, so for all I know I'm bullshitting you, but from face value if what I'm told is true, you think he'd be on the hook for it? Even if it looked like a completely honest sale? What would the difference be if the woman stayed in the car or something?

And not sure if this isnt clear, but my buddy's friend is the one who SOLD the weapon, not the man who purchased it. Forgive me if that's obvious.

EDIT: Yeah, that's obvious, sorry.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Unfortunately no, I'm relaying second hand details from word of mouth unfortunately, so for all I know I'm bullshitting you, but from face value if what I'm told is true, you think he'd be on the hook for it? Even if it looked like a completely honest sale? What would the difference be if the woman stayed in the car or something?

And not sure if this isnt clear, but my buddy's friend is the one who SOLD the weapon, not the man who purchased it. Forgive me if that's obvious.

EDIT: Yeah, that's obvious, sorry.

Is he actually in trouble, like charges filed, or are cops just asking for specifics of the sale to make sure everything was good?

It just seems like we're missing just about all the details, so it's just not anything I think anyone can really make much of a judgment on.

I think dealers should be held to a high standard, but unless things were really sketchy, I don't see your friend being in too much trouble.

 

[NoodleFace]

Interested in some people's takes on a buddy of mine's gun dealer's situation he's in. For reference, I am EXTREMELY pro gun control. I live in Ohio, where its easier to get a gun than sign up for a cell phone plan. I just want to hear opinions on this guys situation.

He owns a small gun shop here in Ohio, 2 people walk in, a man and a woman. The woman says absolutely nothing the entire duration of the visit, the man walking through a few pistols with the clerk and eventually selects one and makes the purchase. There is no waiting period here in Ohio, so they were able to walk out with the purchase.

They go back to their home, and apparently the woman grabs the gun and kills herself.

The gun dealer is now being pursued criminally/legally for the sale, but even as a left winger, "please-make-it-difficult-to-get-guns"-er I see this as ridiculous.

Thoughts?

I mean, what are you going to do? If someone is going to kill themselves, they're going to do it.

This doesn't sound like a straw purchase to me, which would be the biggest issue. Unless he specifically said or inferred he was buying it for her, I don't see how legally he can be in any trouble. Technically my wife could grab one of my guns and kill herself if she was so inclined.. I certainly wouldn't blame the gun store.