Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Eroginous]

Additional gun-control laws are redundancy's on existing laws. Some of those existing laws, such as lying on your gun-permit application, are widely acknowledged to not be enforced. (One police chief referred to it as a "paper work" law that wasn't worth the time.) And virtually all of the existing gun laws are ignored by criminals who want to get a gun. So, then, why would doubling up on the laws change that? It hasn't for any other crimes.

Look back at every mass-shooting we've had in the last, say, twenty years. Every single shooter violated multiple laws BEFORE they even pulled the trigger. In almost every case these "new" laws would NOT have stopped them. In at least one case the shooter used a "straw buyer" who lied on an application, breaking that law police don't like to enforce.

Remember what I've said.

These aren't new laws. They're redundant, reworded, and enhanced copies of existing laws. And even Biden has admitted, they won't stop another Sandy Hook. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=covBtaBoR1g)

Meanwhile the one constant in all these shootings, the one thing that could be pointed to as the cause, the failing mental health of the shooters, is being ignored.

Yeah, but 'background checks stop criminals from getting guns!'

[Svifnymr]

Nope Svif, gun dealers and makers have immunity from all forms of negligence suits except those that come from a product malfunctioning.

OH and it they break the law.


Its a bullshit level of protection that needs to go. No one else gets that level of protection.

So you agree, they are only negligent when they are actually negligent (illegal trade or defective product) rather than when they produce a legal product that functions correctly?

[Deadvolcanoes]

Yeah, but 'background checks stop criminals from getting guns!'

No you got it wrong.

Background checks stop ALL criminals. Every single one.

All you have to do is make background checks universal and every single criminal everywhere will be stopped from purchasing a gun. It's a no brainer.

They will also stop ALL mass shootings, and ALL crime from occurring.

Why can't people see that?

[Svifnymr]

And if we want to talk about "actually enforcing the laws on the books" then maybe we could do less to hamstring law enforcement.
All of that needs to change.

Harder to rebutt when you do them as quotes, but:
Gun trace/registration: Gun traces work well already, it may take a day or three, but it's part of an after crime investigation, so what's the issue? You think if a criminal leaves a gun at the scene and the trace would reveal who it was, but now he's running and... yeah no. What gun registration is more often used in those states with such, is to do random calls to try to find a lead. "A 9mm was used, you have one, so we want to investigate you even though we have no evidence."

The Director Must Be Confirmed thing you've brought up before: The law changed it so that the ATFE has directer has to be confirmed, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER DIRECTOR IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. The fact that the change was not made when they were moved was an oversight. The negotiations to actually appoint one is a political matter, definetly, but the idea that he has to be confirmed IS THE NORM for the DoJ, not some odd anomaly as you present it.

Budget Constraints may have some validity, even though the operations while they had increased budget through the years was not to focus on actual enforcement, but on things which are outside of their sphere of influence. The ATFE agents at Sandyhook for instance, wearing vests and carrying rifles, hours after the event was long since over. "Throw more money at it" doesn't mean they'll use it wisely.

You also severly misrepresent the FOPA thing. They cannot make a random inspection more than once a year (which means they do it once a year). You failed to mention that they can do an inspection at any time if they have CAUSE. You also skipped their mandate that they inspect every dealer at least every 3 years for license renewal, even if the dealer has had no issues at all, ever.

---------- Post added 2013-03-25 at 12:51 PM ----------

Frankly if the point is worth making I expect people to make it themselves.

I'd posted this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ03s...layer_embedded before, a harvard school Q&A with an NRA guy, moderated by a CNN guy. Interesting on some levels, though of course not everything is answered as fully as some might like.

[Jaxi]

They will also stop ALL mass shootings, and ALL crime from occurring.

Excuse me...?
It would not have stopped Newton, nor would it have stopped Columbine.
Furthermore, you're implying here that if they're not able to purchase their weapons themselves, they will not be able to acquire any weapons for a massacre. That's ridiculous. There is no guarantee that had a background check stopped them at the store that they would not have been able to acquire weapons from elsewhere.

That was the crux of my argument against background checks that we had a few pages back. I could repost it if you're like to see again.

[Eroginous]

No you got it wrong.

Background checks stop ALL criminals. Every single one.

All you have to do is make background checks universal and every single criminal everywhere will be stopped from purchasing a gun. It's a no brainer.

They will also stop ALL mass shootings, and ALL crime from occurring.

Why can't people see that?

Hmmm, your use of sparse facts dripping with blatant sarcasm makes me wonder if you were ever serious about this discussion.

[Svifnymr]

Background checks implemented by FFL's are upheld, and incredibly effective. If we implemented a new gun law, requiring background checks between private sellers, it would also be effective.

Background checks through dealers have two functions;
1) stopping someone from buying if they're prohibited
2) prosecuting someone if they try

The issue with 1 is the ability to get around the background check via:
a) theft
b) straw purchase
c) private purchase
d) black market purchase

Difference between c & d being that c is a guy selling a gun legally (without bg check) to someone he doesn't know (that may or may not be prohibited), d would be a gun that is already "illegal" in being either stolen or owned by a criminal or the person is knowingly buying guns to sell to criminals or something.

The Problem with 2 is that ATFE doesn't enforce. Their prosecution rate is less than 1%. The attempt to buy a gun through legal channels by a prohibited person is not a disincentive simply because it is rare for their to be a punishment. This means that in general someone that was going to get a gun to committ a crime, but couldn't, is still out there seeking an alternate method of getting one.


So, Universal Background Checks. On the surface, they'd block 1c. No more criminals buying guns privately from law abiding citizens.

But with lack of enforcement, it'd still just mean they go to one of the other methods of acquiring one. Even if you do enforce it, you're much more likely to ensnare folks that are not prohibited folks, but made a simple mistake of transfering a gun without following new laws. In effect you're creating new criminals without harming current ones much.


The easiest method would be to give private individuals the means to do a background check. No need to make it mandatory. Then introduce liability to the equation. If you don't have the ability to demonstrate the buyer was not prohibited (via license, bg check or having known the person forever), then you are liable for what letting that person get access to the firearm.



The obvious problem with any of this would be that straw purchasers will now simply report the gun stolen, which ties back to the storage law debates.

Also, at the show I learned that FFL's in Florida at least can now do bg checks online. The system is still FFL-Only though, afaik.


And lastly, only glocks I saw were rebuilts for $500. So not sure what New glocks are right now, since no one had any due to demand.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Hmmm, your use of sparse facts dripping with blatant sarcasm makes me wonder if you were ever serious about this discussion.

It's funny because that's what you assumed I was saying the entire time, by no fault of my own. You just made assumptions while I stated facts.

---------- Post added 2013-03-25 at 01:27 PM ----------

Background checks through dealers have two functions;
1) stopping someone from buying if they're prohibited
2) prosecuting someone if they try

Are you sure the bolded is correct? That would seem pretty ridiculous to me. Attempting to buy a gun through a licensed dealer if you have a criminal record is illegal? As you've stated many times, sometimes people are unaware of the laws, and sometimes if they even have a criminal record.

If they had a current warrant for their arrest, as many do, I would expect prosecution.

The issue with 1 is the ability to get around the background check via:
a) theft
b) straw purchase
c) private purchase
d) black market purchase

Difference between c & d being that c is a guy selling a gun legally (without bg check) to someone he doesn't know (that may or may not be prohibited), d would be a gun that is already "illegal" in being either stolen or owned by a criminal or the person is knowingly buying guns to sell to criminals or something.

Right. I'm well aware that there are plenty of ways for criminals to obtain firearms, outside of licensed dealers. I just believe that universal background checks should be applied where they can be applied.

Obviously they can't be applied to straw purchases, but they can absolutely be applied to all private purchases and transfers.

So, Universal Background Checks. On the surface, they'd block 1c. No more criminals buying guns privately from law abiding citizens.

Right. And with the amount of criminals that we catch failing background checks through FFL's (117 a day), the number that fail through private purchase should be expected to be just as effective.

In effect you're creating new criminals without harming current ones much.

That's really just an assumption. People not following new laws out of ignorance isn't really a good reason not to implement new laws.

---------- Post added 2013-03-25 at 01:28 PM ----------

Excuse me...?

You'll have to excuse my sarcasm, it wasn't meant for you.

There isn't a single law we could pass that would prevent tragedies like Newtown or Columbine. But that isn't a good reason not to pass laws that have a proven track record of working.

[Jaxi]

You'll have to excuse my sarcasm, it wasn't meant for you.

There isn't a single law we could pass that would prevent tragedies like Newtown or Columbine. But that isn't a good reason not to pass laws that have a proven track record of working.

Ah.

Still seems like a law that would work better when packaged with others. If there were fewer substitute methods to acquiring a weapon, effectiveness of background checks would go up (in my opinion). That said, I'm not necessarily opposed to them.

[Svifnymr]

Are you sure the bolded is correct? That would seem pretty ridiculous to me. Attempting to buy a gun through a licensed dealer if you have a criminal record is illegal? As you've stated many times, sometimes people are unaware of the laws, and sometimes if they even have a criminal record.

The form 4473 is a federal form, which you sign;
"I also understand that making any false oral or written statement, or exhibiting any false or misrepresented identification with respect to this transaction, is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law."

If you say you're not a felon, and you are, and get a non-approval, you have committed a felony that is easily prosecuted.

They just rarely do it. That's one of the things some of us harp on about with regard to the background checks. You have prohibited persons attempting to buy a firearm, violating a law by doing so, but ATFE doesn't care and there is no prosecution.

If they had a current warrant for their arrest, as many do, I would expect prosecution.

If they are a fugitive, I doubt they'd stick around while the police come by, but I agree. Things to keep in mind (via another list!):
1) Someone may be prohibited from purchasing a firearm via local law that is not on the form 4473. (i.e. in Florida if you're on probation for going too fast in a manatee zone, you cannot purchase for three years after the end of probation. That does not mean the "attempt" to do so is illegal though.)
2) A fugitive could be a guy with a warrant for some non-violent crime (child support, outstanding bench warrant for tickets) and thus, though they ARE breaking the law by being a fugitive, the odds of them being prosecuted are slim.
3) You may have someone that is a felon because decades ago it was a felony to have X amount of pot, while today it is a larger amount to qualify for a felony.

There are a lot of circumstances that may reflect why someone tried to buy a gun and "lied" on the form. A lot of the times a delayed/nonapproval is the result of a misidentification or the result of wrong information. (If you were arrested and charged for domestic violence, but it never went to court and the charges were dropped, you may still flag.

The thing is, ATFE is an enforcement division, are they the ones that should decide whether someone that broke the law is someone that should be prosecuted or not?

Right. I'm well aware that there are plenty of ways for criminals to obtain firearms, outside of licensed dealers. I just believe that universal background checks should be applied where they can be applied.

Obviously they can't be applied to straw purchases, but they can absolutely be applied to all private purchases and transfers.

Right. And with the amount of criminals that we catch failing background checks through FFL's (117 a day), the number that fail through private purchase should be expected to be just as effective.

The thing that it comes back to is whether the end effective is enough to justify the costs (in money and infringement). We really don't know how many "criminals" it would stop from getting a gun in the end.

That's really just an assumption. People not following new laws out of ignorance isn't really a good reason not to implement new laws.

Yeah, just a point of discussion in the "cost/benefit" analysis. We can't know the numbers of any of this, is the problem. Some of the ATF's biggest cases though were cases that would not have existed had the ATF not created them. Ruby Ridge was a tragedy, but was all based on ATF entrapment. Waco may have been a bunch of whackjobs, but there was no case there until ATF created one. There was a manufacturer of plastic AR lowers that ATF continually "redefined" out of business. (Cavalry Arms, eventually sold off their stuff to GWAC or something.)

So will the amount of guns the universal BG checks stop from entering the black market, be worth the cost of cases of guys selling to buddies getting into trouble? The inconvenience to the average folks?

I don't know (and of course neither of US have any influence either way , just throwing in some topics for the discussion.

You'll have to excuse my sarcasm, it wasn't meant for you.

I was pretty sure it was sarcasm, so I didn't reply to that post, but it's always a bit hard to tell on the internet.

[Eroginous]

It's funny because that's what you assumed I was saying the entire time, by no fault of my own. You just made assumptions while I stated facts.

I'm not making any assumptions at all. You're deliberately making broad generalizations to make it seem like background checks are the be-all end-all of gun violence. Even though you've explicitly stated that they AREN'T the be-all end-all when pressed by someone like me, you STILL default to broad generalizations as if to try and imply a much greater area-of-effect anyway. If you could learn how to make highly specific statements, we could avoid all the back and forth waste of time and you could come across as someone who's not completely ignorant of the facts.

For the record, I'm not opposed to background checks or universal background checks. But the facts are such that the current laws are significantly being unenforced, so proposing new laws, especially ones that are inherently difficult to enforce, are not necessarily going to have any impact. We need current laws to be enforced to their fullest extent, rather than being enforced less than 1% of the time (in the case of background checks) while law makers throw out all these feel good bullshit proposals about what to do to fix the problem.

Still seems like a law that would work better when packaged with others. If there were fewer substitute methods to acquiring a weapon, effectiveness of background checks would go up (in my opinion). That said, I'm not necessarily opposed to them.

The fact is that there is no substitution for real law enforcement, and that takes time, money, and manpower. We live in an era where politicians are pushing to cut funding for law enforcement (all the more reason to be armed as a civilian), while expecting situations to get better. To someone with criminal or deadly intent, a background check just doesn't matter much.


Vice just released a documentary I think is relevant to the overall discussion.

[Jaxi]

The fact is that there is no substitution for real law enforcement, and that takes time, money, and manpower. We live in an era where politicians are pushing to cut funding for law enforcement (all the more reason to be armed as a civilian), while expecting situations to get better.

I'm not really debating whether or not those methods exist. However, I would contend that if there were laws that shrunk the substitute methods for obtaining weapons, the effectiveness of background checks would go up exponentially. As I don't know what those methods are, I'll leave that debate for another time, but in terms of background checks it has always seemed to me that its' ability to reduce crime is dependent on controlling other avenues of the gun trade.

[Deleted]

What happens in public place where everyone owns a gun and one starts to shoot another? This compared to place where only 1 has a gun and starts to shoot. Somehow I can easily imagine that "there will be (even more) blood" due to the adrenaline rush combined with unprofessional weapon handling.

edit: everyone showing weapon and thinking "who was it?" -> "You?!" -> BAM!

[Cthulhu 2020]

No you got it wrong.

Background checks stop ALL criminals. Every single one.

All you have to do is make background checks universal and every single criminal everywhere will be stopped from purchasing a gun. It's a no brainer.

They will also stop ALL mass shootings, and ALL crime from occurring.

Why can't people see that?

I'm not sure I agree with this (unless there was sarcasm in it) but it will stop a whole hell of a lot more mass shootings from occurring than our current system.

[Porcell]

What happens in public place where everyone owns a gun and one starts to shoot another? This compared to place where only 1 has a gun and starts to shoot. Somehow I can easily imagine that "there will be (even more) blood" due to the adrenaline rush combined with unprofessional weapon handling.

Hard for me to fight a hypothetical, other than to say I doubt it would ever happen that way. And how can it be even more blood? You have an active shooter who can fire at will with no resistance, verses the alternative of him being stopped by an armed citizen.

The same "It's going to be the wild west!!!!" fears were screamed about back in the 80s and 90s too. It's never really happened.

---------- Post added 2013-03-25 at 07:33 PM ----------

I'm not sure I agree with this (unless there was sarcasm in it) but it will stop a whole hell of a lot more mass shootings from occurring than our current system. (RE: Background checks)

How can you make that claim? Mass shooters are either 1) people who were not otherwise prohibited and would have (and did) pass background checks already or 2) stole guns or obtained them through straw purchases.

So... how exactly are background checks stopping these people? You are making a claim without actually putting any thought behind it.

[Deleted]

Hard for me to fight a hypothetical, other than to say I doubt it would ever happen that way. And how can it be even more blood? You have an active shooter who can fire at will with no resistance, verses the alternative of him being stopped by an armed citizen.

The same "It's going to be the wild west!!!!" fears were screamed about back in the 80s and 90s too. It's never really happened.

There will be more drunks fighting with guns. More violence with guns and even lower threshold to pull the trigger when combined with random people on drugs or alcohol. It's ofc a good thing the "good" civlians are there to return the fire asap. But still there would be more these random and impulsive fights made with guns that could rather be made with less fatal bare fist-fights that are way more easier to interrupt.

And this is the time of internet. You shouldn't compare it to 80's or 90's.

edit: well actually, you can see what happens in gang related areas where almost everyone gets a gun. Not only beating, but death and more bystanders get's in the way. This is something that does not happen in areas where people don't own guns. The fights are between the two parties and rarely everyone are at danger. Liked it or not, this is a fact. That's why things will get interesting especially after seeing that video.

[Cthulhu 2020]

How can you make that claim? Mass shooters are either 1) people who were not otherwise prohibited and would have (and did) pass background checks already or 2) stole guns or obtained them through straw purchases.

So... how exactly are background checks stopping these people? You are making a claim without actually putting any thought behind it.

More comprehensive background check laws, closing loopholes, more tightly enforcing laws we currently have would further prevent more guns from falling into the wrong hands. Nothing will ever completely eliminate the problem, but the argument that people will "still get around it no matter what we do" is the worst argument against tighter restrictions ever. If you consider a law useless because it doesn't stop all of that particular crime, then we may as well not bother making murder, burglary, theft, assault, etc. illegal because people do that all the time anyway.

[Eroginous]

I'm not really debating whether or not those methods exist. However, I would contend that if there were laws that shrunk the substitute methods for obtaining weapons, the effectiveness of background checks would go up exponentially. As I don't know what those methods are, I'll leave that debate for another time, but in terms of background checks it has always seemed to me that its' ability to reduce crime is dependent on controlling other avenues of the gun trade.

But again, that's dependent on law enforcement. IE, employed police officers and detectives who actively seek out and arrest people who are violating the law. It's already illegal for convicted felons or fugitives to attempt to buy or possess a firearm. It's already illegal for someone to steal a firearm from another person. It's already illegal to sell black market weapons. It's already illegal to buy a firearm for an undisclosed 3rd party who cannot pass a background check.

Every single one of the previously discussed 'alternative methods' for buying weapons besides legally through a licensed dealer, already has laws in place making those methods illegal. Once again, the problem is enforcement.

What happens in public place where everyone owns a gun and one starts to shoot another? This compared to place where only 1 has a gun and starts to shoot. Somehow I can easily imagine that "there will be (even more) blood" due to the adrenaline rush combined with unprofessional weapon handling.

edit: everyone showing weapon and thinking "who was it?" -> "You?!" -> BAM!

First of all, you don't just give everyone a gun. You would only want to give guns to people who are trained to behave in a professional manner in the event of a situation such as a person open fires in a public place (like private security). You will have individuals who have taken it upon themselves to become trained to use a gun, possibly acquiring a concealed carry permit. That doesn't mean those people are going to be in a position where they are willing to start shooting in self defense just because they have a gun. It also doesn't mean that those people are going to become a liability just because they've chosen to carry a weapon.

The reality is that not everyone is comfortable with carrying around a weapon. Not everyone who owns a gun wants to carry it around. Not everyone who carries a gun wants to use it in a firefight with some random in a public place. We've had carry laws on the books, the second amendment, and guns as a part of our culture for as long as this country has been around.

We have yet to become that nation of 'everyone has a gun' and the trend isn't even going in that direction. Even if we all of a sudden found ourselves in a situation where everyone is armed, don't you think that would only make a criminal less hesitant to try and shoot up a public place? The basic premise of a mass shooting is that it's being done in a gun free zone where there is no worry about someone shooting back. Not that I'm suggesting we give everyone a gun, I'm just saying, the chances of someone engaging another person in an act of violence would probably be drastically reduced if they knew the person was armed.

I'm not sure I agree with this (unless there was sarcasm in it) but it will stop a whole hell of a lot more mass shootings from occurring than our current system.

Our current system allowed James Holmes to purchase 4 firearms legally through licensed gun dealers, after passing a background check each time. Our current system allowed Adam Lanza's mother to purchase several firearms legally through licensed gun dealers, after passing a background check each time.

Of the 62 mass shootings in the last 30 years, 143 guns were used. Over 75% of those guns were purchased legally. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

[Svifnymr]

There will be more drunks fighting with guns. More violence with guns and even lower threshold to pull the trigger when combined with random people on drugs or alcohol.

The thing is, there ARE plenty of states with concealed carry laws, open carry laws, and easy access to firearms, without these drunken duels being commonplace.

edit: well actually, you can see what happens in gang related areas where almost everyone gets a gun. Not only beating, but death and more bystanders get's in the way. This is something that does not happen in areas where people don't own guns. The fights are between the two parties and rarely everyone are at danger. Liked it or not, this is a fact. That's why things will get interesting especially after seeing that video.

The thing is, most of those folks aren't legally owning the gun to begin with, so how would it affect them?

It's simple, the reasoning behind a lot of the increased regulations isn't to stop a criminal from getting a gun directly, it's to reduce the presence of guns overall, and thusly reduce the amount of guns that can theoretically end up in criminals hands. The simple fact that murder rates and firearm possession rates in most studies never coincide means that we can't really say that.

---------- Post added 2013-03-25 at 04:13 PM ----------

More comprehensive background check laws, closing loopholes, more tightly enforcing laws we currently have would further prevent more guns from falling into the wrong hands. Nothing will ever completely eliminate the problem, but the argument that people will "still get around it no matter what we do" is the worst argument against tighter restrictions ever. If you consider a law useless because it doesn't stop all of that particular crime, then we may as well not bother making murder, burglary, theft, assault, etc. illegal because people do that all the time anyway.

That doesn't answer his point though, really.
Using hindsight, lets throw Universal Background Checks into things and look at an alternate history where it was already in effect. Your nebulous "closing loopholes" probably falls under that too.

So, examine however many mass shootings you want and demonstrate how they would not have happened had universal background checks existed then. Going strictly by memory, Virginia Tech, Sandyhook, Aurora, it would have had zero effect. Columbine, you can say that universal background checks would have altered some of the tools used, but I don't think it would have prevented them.

So the point isn't "if it doesn't stop everything, it's not worth it", the point is "if you're proposing a law based on an action, you should demonstrate how that action would have been stopped by that law".

[Jaxi]

Every single one of the previously discussed 'alternative methods' for buying weapons besides legally through a licensed dealer, already has laws in place making those methods illegal. Once again, the problem is enforcement.

I'm not arguing with you, you're probably right. I was speaking hypothetically, that if the other means to acquire weapons were to magically disappear, then the effectiveness of background checks would increase exponentially.

Realistically though, it seems that there are far too many weapons in circulation to ever make a noticeable impact on the illegal trade at least. Hell, 88 weapons per 100 citizens? That's not an easily diminished stockpile.