Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TITAN308]

On a lighter note (no pun intended) someone got a little artsy on some dolla dolla bills yall

[Mayhem]

You still haven't shown what having a registry would accomplish, what's the point?

If you´re unable to read i can´t help you.

[lockedout]

If you´re unable to read i can´t help you.

I can read, maybe you should articulate a little better?

- - - Updated - - -

On a lighter note (no pun intended) someone got a little artsy on some dolla dolla bills yall

These are bad ass.

[Mayhem]

I can read, maybe you should articulate a little better?

But i´ve shown it in more than one post, so what don´t you get?

[lockedout]

But i´ve shown it in more than one post, so what don´t you get?

I was away from this thread for awhile, I must have missed those. A registry won't do what you want it to.

[Mayhem]

I was away from this thread for awhile, I must have missed those. A registry won't do what you want it to.

What is it a registry won´t do that i want.

[Finncakes]

What is it a registry won´t do that i want.

no gun registry or more gun laws is going to stop the proliferation of guns into the hands of anyone.

There is to much of a black market and to much corruption on the federal and state level all across the united states for any law of that type to be effective.

Infact the possibility for abuse and blackmail Via stingray tech given to local law enforcement is a real possibility that is to the average american is a more likely senario.

No law is going to fix any of the issues with mass violence because the shape and structure of our society creates monsters. it creates the isms that pollute and corrupt because faith is what is tendered as something needed and neccesary. that you need to have "faith" in something in our society to beleive in some sort of cause or function.

The words and ideas seem so shallow. Gun control is fiction like prohibition or the war on drugs mayhem. tell me how you believe that more gun control is going to stop crazy people from harming others?

[lockedout]

What is it a registry won´t do that i want.

It might hold someone accountable after the fact, not stop the incident from happening

[PhaelixWW]

At least that we agree on, that´s a start. So why do you have a problem with such a thing.

It provides for the possibility of abuse, and it doesn't have a measurable impact on reducing crime.

And how can you say it would not have any impact if such a thing doesn´t exist right now?

It exists, just not on the federal level. California has had a registry for a long time.

Seriously, a registry is helping to get a hold on the illegal ones, i can´t believe you don´t understand this.

Not really, no it doesn't. At best, it might point you at some clumsy straw purchasers. But it still doesn't provide evidence against them, just a suggestion of whom to investigate. And law enforcement almost never bothers to investigate these crimes unless they're linked to a more serious crime. And the more serious crime would have warranted investigation regardless.

In a registry the last name the gun is registered to is also the first illegal seller. (unless it got stolen, but then he should´ve reported it stolen)

So they'll either report it stolen when they sell it, or they'll come up with some other story: "I'm storing it at my cabin. What, it's missing?! I had no idea it was missing before now!" Or "I let my son use it, I think he's been borrowing it for a while. What, you say he doesn't have it either? Shit, it must have been stolen and I never knew!"

Silly stories, but they'd have to prove otherwise in court, and the police and DA's hardly ever even bother trying; they're more concerned with more serious crimes. And juries don't want to punish people for just forgetting to file a stolen firearm report. So unless they have some really compelling evidence, they'll just let the person go.

But my reading comprehension sucks, we are talking about a scenario in which there is a registry, safety storage laws and a need to report stolen guns. And you tell me "those kinds of illegal actions are almost never discovered." As if such a thing exists in the real world. With these laws they will be discovered because if you report your gun stolen you have to show how it was stored you know for insurance.

You think criminals are going to try and collect insurance on these straw purchased firearms? Bold, even for criminals. Just say they're uninsured and that they were stolen out of the trunk of your car.

No, i´m not. In each of those cases the police start with evidence.

No, they start with suspicion. They have to work to get evidence. And in most cases, they don't think it's worth it.

... can you count past 2?

Hey, you said corrupt licensed dealers. Licensed dealers are subject to frequent audits and paperwork retention requirements by federal law. It's not my fault if you meant to say corrupt straw-purchasers instead. I can only respond to the words that you say.

Right now in most states the ATF can get information about the licensed dealers and their first retail purchaser. But they can´t get any information about the person the first purchaser sold the gun to (private sale). Is this correct?

Through the trace, yes. But they will interview the original retail purchaser

Here's something for you to consider, Mayhem: Here's a list that ranks states by their unsolved murder rate. Four of the top five states (including D.C. though it's not a state) with the highest unsolved murder rate (D.C., Maryland, New York, and California) all have firearm registries of some sort in addition to some of the most restrictive firearm laws. Shouldn't those states have a much easier time solving gun crime if the registry were doing much to help? Can you find any articles that talk about how the registry has been successful in any of these states?

- - - Updated - - -

So what power does the government command that warrants a response with assault weapons if the military wasn't at their disposal?

What makes you think that some of the military wouldn't be at their disposal?

[Mayhem]

It might hold someone accountable after the fact, not stop the incident from happening

And i never said it would.

[Macaquerie]

I find it a bit distressing these days that people are always arguing that gun owners shouldn't be judged on the actions of a few, but have no trouble demonizing mentally ill people for the exact same reason. The vast majority of people with mental illnesses are peaceful, law-abiding, and, to the extent that they are able, productive members of society, and those that aren't obviously need our help rather than our condemnation.

[PhaelixWW]

I find it a bit distressing these days that people are always arguing that gun owners shouldn't be judged on the actions of a few, but have no trouble demonizing mentally ill people for the exact same reason. The vast majority of people with mental illnesses are peaceful, law-abiding, and, to the extent that they are able, productive members of society, and those that aren't obviously need our help rather than our condemnation.

That's a pretty broad brush you're painting with, there. I'm not even sure at whom this comment was supposed to be aimed, assuming it was aimed at all.

[Mayhem]

It provides for the possibility of abuse, and it doesn't have a measurable impact on reducing crime.

How does it provide possibility of abuse? And if it doesn´t exist right now, how can you argue that it doesn´t have measurable impact in reducing crime?

It exists, just not on the federal level. California has had a registry for a long time.

So it doesn´t exist? Serously, at least try to be consistent with your answers. The very last post of yours you told me such a thing doesn´t exist.

Not really, no it doesn't. At best, it might point you at some clumsy straw purchasers. But it still doesn't provide evidence against them, just a suggestion of whom to investigate. And law enforcement almost never bothers to investigate these crimes unless they're linked to a more serious crime. And the more serious crime would have warranted investigation regardless.

They have to rely solely on luck right now if such an investigation is warranted. While with a registry they´d have information at hand about them. Information helps when you try to solve a crime, link persons to a network of illegal gun deals and so on.

So they'll either report it stolen when they sell it, or they'll come up with some other story: "I'm storing it at my cabin. What, it's missing?! I had no idea it was missing before now!" Or "I let my son use it, I think he's been borrowing it for a while. What, you say he doesn't have it either? Shit, it must have been stolen and I never knew!"

Silly stories, but they'd have to prove otherwise in court, and the police and DA's hardly ever even bother trying; they're more concerned with more serious crimes. And juries don't want to punish people for just forgetting to file a stolen firearm report. So unless they have some really compelling evidence, they'll just let the person go.

God damn it, take a pencil and write this down so i don´t have to rewrite it every second post. THEY CAN BE FINED because they didn´t safely store their guns. And the police doesn´t need to provide anything more, because thanks to a registry they KNOW how many firearms that person should have. Do you understand that it becomes pretty unprofitable for straw purchasers when they get fined for every "lost" firearm?

You think criminals are going to try and collect insurance on these straw purchased firearms? Bold, even for criminals. Just say they're uninsured and that they were stolen out of the trunk of your car.

See above. Seriously.

No, they start with suspicion. They have to work to get evidence. And in most cases, they don't think it's worth it.

... whatever you think i said, i never said it. So your arguing against your own argument, keep it going, it´s just a little bit sad.

Hey, you said corrupt licensed dealers. Licensed dealers are subject to frequent audits and paperwork retention requirements by federal law. It's not my fault if you meant to say corrupt straw-purchasers instead. I can only respond to the words that you say.

Maybe you should stop quoting single sentences when there´s another sentence that follows and explains what i meant.

Through the trace, yes. But they will interview the original retail purchaser

And? They have to interview him, with the three things i´ve mentioned, they wouldn´t need to interview him, they already would know. Do you think there´s a difference between having to interview someone and already knowing what you otherwise needed to get out of him?

As it is right now, one guy could employ 10 to 20 people without previous convictions that purchase guns whenever needed and sell them to him. And the ATF could only trace to those but not to the one guy that runs the show. The ATF now has to hope that one of those 10 to 20 open ones big mouth, the end. They walk away because the ATF has nothing but suspicion.

With the three things i mentioned all of them would have to continuously report their firearms stolen which would warrant an investigation and they could be fined for ignoring safely storage laws. So their business becomes less profitable, eventually leading to them stop doing it.

If they ignore the "need to report stolen firearm law", then they will get fined for failing to report. Depending on how many incidents of failing to report they even get charged. So their business becomes less profitable, eventually leading to them going to jail.

Do you get the guy that runs the show? Very likely since the 10 to 20 all have to face fines or even charges and one of them will probably try to make a deal.

Will this prevent all gun trafficking? Of course not, but it gives the police tools to make it easier.

Here's something for you to consider, Mayhem: Here's a list that ranks states by their unsolved murder rate. Four of the top five states (including D.C. though it's not a state) with the highest unsolved murder rate (D.C., Maryland, New York, and California) all have firearm registries of some sort in addition to some of the most restrictive firearm laws. Shouldn't those states have a much easier time solving gun crime if the registry were doing much to help? Can you find any articles that talk about how the registry has been successful in any of these states?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...-gun-laws.html

Since a good amount of guns already exists, the time-to-crime rate is greater than 10 years in all but a few states and criminals can simply buy guns in other states thanks to private sales, a gun registry in only a few states is almost pointless.

You do understand that criminals can travel and cross state lines, right? And you also know that there are no border controls between states?

- - - Updated - - -

no gun registry or more gun laws is going to stop the proliferation of guns into the hands of anyone.

There is to much of a black market and to much corruption on the federal and state level all across the united states for any law of that type to be effective.

Infact the possibility for abuse and blackmail Via stingray tech given to local law enforcement is a real possibility that is to the average american is a more likely senario.

No law is going to fix any of the issues with mass violence because the shape and structure of our society creates monsters. it creates the isms that pollute and corrupt because faith is what is tendered as something needed and neccesary. that you need to have "faith" in something in our society to beleive in some sort of cause or function.

The words and ideas seem so shallow. Gun control is fiction like prohibition or the war on drugs mayhem. tell me how you believe that more gun control is going to stop crazy people from harming others?

Nothing apart from a psychiatrist is stopping crazy people from harming others. That´s kind of why we call them crazy.

[Stormdash]

@Eroginous

Do you have reading comprehension problems?

What I said I intend to do with my father's guns is what I will do if he still has them when he dies.

As in I inherit them.

As in they become my property.

Because he died.

And at that point I can do with them as I wish. And what I wish is turning them over to the cops once they're mine.

There's nothing illegal about that.

There's something kind of pathetic about it, but no, not illegal.

[Ghostpanther]

There's something kind of pathetic about it, but no, not illegal.

Wonder if his dad knows he is planning on doing that?

[Roxinius]

- - - Updated - - -



Well according to MM AR-15 bullets spin and explode now.

if anyone deserves a big ol glass of flint mich water its that lard ass

[Berengil]

Wonder if his dad knows he is planning on doing that?

Yes he does. I've told him several times, w/e he brings up the subject of guns. Which admittedly he doesn't much anymore. Because I've made it clear he can pretty much take everything he believes in ( not just about guns) and shove it.


@Stormdash : If you believe that it makes me pathetic to absolutely refuse to arm myself, or even to own a single firearm, I proudly plead guilty as charged.

[TITAN308]

Yes he does. I've told him several times, w/e he brings up the subject of guns. Which admittedly he doesn't much anymore. Because I've made it clear he can pretty much take everything he believes in ( not just about guns) and shove it.


@Stormdash : If you believe that it makes me pathetic to absolutely refuse to arm myself, or even to own a single firearm, I proudly plead guilty as charged.

Hit me up before you turn them in to to by melted, maybe you can make a buck or two.

No reason to give something away for free.

On a serious note, don't be stupid, before you turn them in research their value. Wouldn't be the first time someone has turned in something worth $30,000 to be melted down like a idjit.

If they aren't worth much consider donating them to the local Boy Scouts troop.

[lockedout]

Hit me up before you turn them in to to by melted, maybe you can make a buck or two.

No reason to give something away for free.

On a serious note, don't be stupid, before you turn them in research their value. Wouldn't be the first time someone has turned in something worth $30,000 to be melted down like a idjit.

If they aren't worth much consider donating them to the local Boy Scouts troop.

Cops routinely take valuable turn ins for themselves.

[Stormdash]

Yes he does. I've told him several times, w/e he brings up the subject of guns. Which admittedly he doesn't much anymore. Because I've made it clear he can pretty much take everything he believes in ( not just about guns) and shove it.


@Stormdash : If you believe that it makes me pathetic to absolutely refuse to arm myself, or even to own a single firearm, I proudly plead guilty as charged.

Pathetic is the virtue-signalling stupidity of ridding yourself of completely legal items without at least some pretense of respecting either their sentimental value as heirlooms or their intrinsic/collector's value. It's irrationality trumped up as some grand virtue. I don't care if you are armed or not; I ask only the same of you in return.