Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Grizzly Willy]

Again, how would it have " stopped", these two individuals from making a bomb with a pressure cooker? How? Please xplain it to me, and quit side stepping this outrageous accusation, just made by this idiot.

One could argue that, had the culprits not had firearms, apprehending them would have been easier, or they may have been less bold in their efforts knowing that they would have more difficulty getting away.

[Vyxn]

The second amendment guarantees your right to own a gun (as long as you are not a felon, etc). It doesn't say ANYTHING about owning a gun at no cost. There is an amendment that specifically says you have the right to vote and cannot be charged for it in an way whatsoever.

no one is saying that the gun should be free what im saying is the left uses the excuse against voter ID because the cost will disenfranchise the poor from excising there right to vote but you have no problem with doing it to their right to own a gun. If anyone in this country deserves the right to own a gun is the law abiding poor they need that protection more so then anyone they cant afford to live in a secure neighborhood they cant afford a security system
Do you really want only the rich to own a gun? you know if slaves where allowed to own guns they wouldn't have been slaves

[Svifnymr]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...n-gun-control/

It came from Fox News and various other right wing mouth pieces and has since been parroted ad infinitum by anyone who leans even slightly on the pro-gun circuit. For the most part, it isn't true, since most of the laws currently are enforced, but they could be more enforced with more funding and proper management of the ATF, while the right continues to advocate cutting spending and the ATF still needs an overhaul and is being held up. Meanwhile, that the current laws aren't fully enforced in no way means that we cannot expand background checks. Basically they have zero intention of wanting to better enforce current laws while saying we can't expand background checks until we do better enforce the current ones. Starting to see the hook here?

In other words, it's partisan rhetoric that holds no water.

You continue to push the same partisan rhetoric for pages while ignoring what is actually happening.

Expand background checks so that every sale at a gun show or online must have one done. But since we're not enforcing the current law, there will be no enforcement, so we've done what?

Universal Background Checks, same thing. There's no penalty for not doing it, no reward for doing it, so... it's a non-starter.

And again you ignore the NIJ report that said requirements for private transfer background checks led to more guns reported stolen rather than less straw purchases.

You still have failed to show the NRA cutting funding to the ATFE, I assume you read Wells non-argument about the NRA campaigning to have the director of the ATFE confirmed the same as every other director and think that's somehow to blame? Or maybe the lack of registration databases? I know, it's because Federal Prosecutors that are not apart of the ATFE don't give a care in the world about taking cases?

[Åmbulance]

One could argue that, had the culprits not had firearms, apprehending them would have been easier, or they may have been less bold in their efforts knowing that they would have more difficulty getting away.

One could argue that, but that would be a very weak argument. If he would have said something about how they had illegal firearms, ok cool. I'll listen, but to say the whol e bombing would have been avoided, is pure idiocy.

[smelltheglove]

no one is saying that the gun should be free what im saying is the left uses the excuse against voter ID because the cost will disenfranchise the poor from excising there right to vote but you have no problem with doing it to their right to own a gun.

once again... read this really really slowly... there is no guarantee regarding cost in the second. there IS a guarantee of no cost for voting

[Deadvolcanoes]

no one is saying that the gun should be free what im saying is the left uses the excuse against voter ID because the cost will disenfranchise the poor from excising there right to vote but you have no problem with doing it to their right to own a gun. If anyone in this country deserves the right to own a gun is the law abiding poor they need that protection more so then anyone they cant afford to live in a secure neighborhood they cant afford a security system
Do you really want only the rich to own a gun? you know if slaves where allowed to own guns they wouldn't have been slaves

Can you stop with the strawman argument?

No one here wants only the rich to have access to firearms. We want gun owners to be held liable for their firearms. Period.

[Svifnymr]

The current background check laws, which, according to you, are not being enforced, result in 117 denial of purchases a day due to the existence of a criminal record.

Looks like we don't need to enforce laws heavily in order for them to be effective.

You have 117 people every day that are trying to purchase a gun, and 1 in 100,000 of those denials will ever be investigated. You don't know if they then procured a gun elsewhere, it doesn't matter enough to the federal gov to investigate the crime being committed. You just have a number to throw out there as somehow having solved some problem.

So we have:
A) folks that are false postivies and not a problem
B) folks that didn't know they were disqualified and would never be a problem if they had a gun or not
c) folks that wanted to buy a gun to use in a crime

If you want to shout out that 117 people were stopped, pretending that they're all C, then you should be calling for them to be arrested for the attempt to prevent further crimes from being committed.

If you believe the vast majority are A or B, then the number 117 per day is utterly meaningless and it's dishonest to use it like it matters.

---------- Post added 2013-04-23 at 05:11 PM ----------

Going back to the other analogy...

Ok, I installed a stronger door and a better lock on my house (enforcement), but I left my window open.

Actually the allegory is that you installed a strong door, someone tried to kick it in but it held. Rather than call the police now, you'll ignore him and let him look for the window.

[Vyxn]

Can you stop with the strawman argument?

No one here wants only the rich to have access to firearms. We want gun owners to be held liable for their firearms. Period.

by making it to expensive for the poor from owning a gun like requiring insurance. who would be left owning a gun? the ones who can afford insurance. the rich

[Svifnymr]

That's exactly right. Good call.

And I understand there are other Windows open (theft, straw purchases), but those are on the 2nd floor, and more difficult for the criminal to get to, while private purchases are garden level. Close that god damn window already.

You think a straw purchase is hard? You get a friend to buy it for you, then report it lost and that is... hard?

[Tinykong]

No one here wants only the rich to have access to firearms. We want gun owners to be held liable for their firearms. Period.

The insurance idea is ludicrous.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Universal Background Checks, same thing. There's no penalty for not doing it, no reward for doing it, so... it's a non-starter.

Since background check laws are currently not being enforced, what's the reward for all the FFL's that currently implement them?

I mean they're currently not being enforced, yet millions upon millions are being implemented. I guess my question is: Are you under the impression that if we make background checks universal, no one will do them?

I can agree that some private sales will skip the process, but I still believe millions will be added.

---------- Post added 2013-04-23 at 05:17 PM ----------

You think a straw purchase is hard? You get a friend to buy it for you, then report it lost and that is... hard?

The illegality of it makes it "hard." It's not incredibly easy to find a friend to commit a felony for you.

Meanwhile, selling a gun privately without a background check is not illegal, thus not "hard."

---------- Post added 2013-04-23 at 05:18 PM ----------

by making it to expensive for the poor from owning a gun like requiring insurance. who would be left owning a gun? the ones who can afford insurance. the rich

I gave you another example of how it could be done, without monthly insurance, and you failed to address that solution.

[smelltheglove]

right now i think internet sales requiring a background check would stop a lot. a lot harder to find a friend willing to take the risk (even if chances are slim) than it is to find exactly what you want in whatever quantity with a simple google search, with no checks.

[Deadvolcanoes]

The insurance idea is ludicrous.

It would be very hard to implement, and have drawbacks for the poor, I agree.

What about a fine of $5,000-$10,000 if your weapon is used in a crime? Would that not reduce straw purchases and increase proper storage?

[Svifnymr]

Feinstein does not represent the left. She's a clown that practically no one takes seriously.

The left isn't trying to ban guns. Not now. Not ever. Stop the fear mongering.

It's disingenuous to say that they are not trying to ban guns because they haven't proposed banning ALL guns, but only some of them.

The AWB13 had 40 democratic votes, they are trying to ban some guns.

Which part of my post that you quotes makes it sound like there is currently no gun control? You love trying to put words into my mouth...

...you didn't say that there is gun control, so you must mean that there isn't gun control!!!

If your curious as to how I feel about something, just ask. Stop assuming.

You didn't say that, certainly, but you do tend to fall into the trap of "loopholes" and "common sense gun laws". The 1994 background check system was created with specific intents and specific limitations. Folks agreed that it was common sense and all well and good and a hallmark of the time.

Now they are pointing to things specifically exempted from that law and saying it needs to be changed, it's a loophole that it exists and common sense says we need to expand it. (In this case, expanding it means removing the exemptions that were specifically written into the 1994 law.)

Personal transactions were specifically exempted because of the difficulty of getting the system accessible to the common man. They were specifically exempted because of the impossibility of enforcing such a requirement and because of the minimal effect it will have on guns used illegal while it will greatly inconvenience the folks operating legally.

The "private sellers" at gunshows are already breaking laws and can already be prosecuted, but they're not. Passing a new law saying that their illegal activities are now DOUBLE ILLEGAL, won't suddenly change anything.

[smelltheglove]

It would be very hard to implement, and have drawbacks for the poor, I agree.

What about a fine of $5,000-$10,000 if your weapon is used in a crime? Would that not reduce straw purchases and increase proper storage?

a penalty for loss of possession is quite easy to implement, once a specific gun is tied to a specific person. THAT is the part that is hard - im not really aware of a way to do that without a registry, which will simply not happen

[Tinykong]

It would be very hard to implement, and have drawbacks for the poor, I agree.

What about a fine of $5,000-$10,000 if your weapon is used in a crime? Would that not reduce straw purchases and increase proper storage?

Someone could have a gun, not know it's stolen, and then get stuck with a fine for the actions of another person? No thanks.

I prefer to place the blame where it belongs: on the perpetrator.

I've got a few of my grand father's shotguns in a box in my basement, the last time I even looked at them was probably 5 years ago. Someone could have carefully broken into my house and stolen them, and I wouldn't know. And before people start in with the "ER MAH GERD ERTS NERT ERN A SERF" stuff, I don't live with children.

[Vyxn]

It would be very hard to implement, and have drawbacks for the poor, I agree.

What about a fine of $5,000-$10,000 if your weapon is used in a crime? Would that not reduce straw purchases and increase proper storage?

not if the gun is reported stolen or lost and yes guns do get lost just this last duck hunting season had a friend drop his shotgun in a lake so no it wont stop or even slow down straw purchses

[Svifnymr]

Since background check laws are currently not being enforced, what's the reward for all the FFL's that currently implement them?

I mean they're currently not being enforced, yet millions upon millions are being implemented.

People go to a dealer when they think they won't get turned down, not because they know they have a felony and need a gun for a crimewave.

So, you've created a system to police the law abiding.

Given there is no penalty enforced when a criminal tries and fails, there's also no harm in them trying.

I guess my question is: Are you under the impression that if we make background checks universal, no one will do them?

Some would do them, whether the system was mandatory of voluntary. Don't you agree that instituting a voluntary background check system (via phone or internet) separate from the NICS and accessible by individuals would allow law abiding citizens that want to do the right thing to run a background check when a stranger is the buyer, while not creating some system where I need to run a background check on my long time buddy?

Especially if the extent of that system is "go see a dealer and pay them money for it".

I can agree that some private sales will skip the process, but I still believe millions will be added.

As you've brought up the internet guys asking for extra because they think it's illegal before, wouldn't you agree that those are the ones most likely to NOT do the background check?

The illegality of it makes it "hard." It's not incredibly easy to find a friend to commit a felony for you.

The hardest part for most of them would be finding a cousin with a clean record.

Though of course, we're ignoring the simple "fake ID" method that ATFE doesn't seem to think about.

Meanwhile, selling a gun privately without a background check is not illegal, thus not "hard."

If you maintain that folks jack up prices because they think the person can't buy elsewhere, then they're straw-purchasers of a sort anyway.

I gave you another example of how it could be done, without monthly insurance, and you failed to address that solution.

I'd like to see fines, though smaller scale than $5k and not for "used in a crime", but mainly because if you're banging a guy for $500 or $1000, you may actually get the charge through.

Imagine a scenario of "we can convict you for a felony punishable for 5 years and $5,000, or you can take this plea bargain for $1000" for a straw purchase. Most would take the plea, reducing court costs, increasing liklihood of prosecution and lowering the burden on the system.

Also, we get $1000 out of it.

[Felya]

Someone could have a gun, not know it's stolen, and then get stuck with a fine for the actions of another person? No thanks.

If there was a gun registry, you would know it's stolen

I prefer to place the blame where it belongs: on the perpetrator.

I've got a few of my grand father's shotguns in a box in my basement, the last time I even looked at them was probably 5 years ago. Someone could have carefully broken into my house and stolen them, and I wouldn't know. And before people start in with the "ER MAH GERD ERTS NERT ERN A SERF" stuff, I don't live with children.

It's your responsibility to keep those guns out hands of criminals. If you do not keep your guns in a safe and a crime is committed using them, you should face consequences of not keeping your guns safe.

[Svifnymr]

right now i think internet sales requiring a background check would stop a lot. a lot harder to find a friend willing to take the risk (even if chances are slim) than it is to find exactly what you want in whatever quantity with a simple google search, with no checks.

internet sales interstate require a background check. Local internet sales are probably comparatively rare, in the grand scheme of "gun sales" overall.

Aside from that, it ignores the paranoia that anti-gunners mock pro-gunners for so much. If someone asks for "can we meet at the mall" or something, people figure it's an ATFE sting.

(Not an absolute of course, just saying.)