Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Mayhem]

I'm not sure if you watch a lot of cop dramas, but CSI doesn't come out for a routine break in. The cops just take a report, tell you "you can get a copy for your insurance in 3 days" and that's about it unless there's violence or actual evidence. Again, you're ignoring the low prosecution of straw purchasers and adding more steps to it and expecting more enforcement...

Are you intentionally ignoring the fines i keep talking about or just accidentally? It´s not like reporting that your bike is stolen.

Funny enough, i work for CSI, and we do analyze every snapped off lock we recieve from every police station in the state, you know to be able to connect crime scenes to tools found with suspects.

[Annoying]

Are you intentionally ignoring the fines i keep talking about or just accidentally? It´s not like reporting that your bike is stolen.

Funny enough, i work for CSI, and we do analyze every snapped off lock we recieve from every police station in the state, you know to be able to connect crime scenes to tools found with suspects.

Maybe where you live it isn't, but his rendition is accurate for anything that's ever been stolen from me. Cops come, take notes. Maybe get a fingerprint if it's somewhere obvious that they can see (did this for my car being broken into once). They write their notes and what I observed as missing, and then they tell me to drop by the station to get a copy for my insurance in a few days. That's actually what happens. I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about for fines, but this is how it's happened when my house or car were broken into.

Police write a report. Insurance reads that report and rules whether or not to reimburse me based on that report. No fines or proving whatever.

[Svifnymr]

Maybe where you live it isn't, but his rendition is accurate for anything that's ever been stolen from me. Cops come, take notes. Maybe get a fingerprint if it's somewhere obvious that they can see (did this for my car being broken into once). They write their notes and what I observed as missing, and then they tell me to drop by the station to get a copy for my insurance in a few days. That's actually what happens. I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about for fines, but this is how it's happened when my house or car were broken into.

He may be correct that they investigate every piece of evidence sent to them, but it still fits into my "they dont investigate most". He's assumedly seeing the results of stuff major enough for them to actually investigate.

Police write a report. Insurance reads that report and rules whether or not to reimburse me based on that report. No fines or proving whatever.

He wants to fine folks if their gun was not properly stored and gets stolen.

[Ghostpanther]

Maybe where you live it isn't, but his rendition is accurate for anything that's ever been stolen from me. Cops come, take notes. Maybe get a fingerprint if it's somewhere obvious that they can see (did this for my car being broken into once). They write their notes and what I observed as missing, and then they tell me to drop by the station to get a copy for my insurance in a few days. That's actually what happens. I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about for fines, but this is how it's happened when my house or car were broken into.

Police write a report. Insurance reads that report and rules whether or not to reimburse me based on that report. No fines or proving whatever.

There is the problem. Foreigners thinking if it works this way here, it should be the same in the US. Here, it also depends on the insurance company. Generally speaking however, if you leave your car or house unsecured, some insurance companies can contest your claim. It is one reason they encourage policy holders to itemized the contents of their home and esp. write down, record the serial numbers, photo shoot any high priced items. Of course they will only bulk at a claim if it is something very expensive, usually. Depends also on how long they have sucked money from you. :P

Fines? Not sure of all states, but in Ohio we have no safe storage laws for firearms. Other than the basic one of the owner is responsible if any harm is done by unsafe storage. But not having a firearm in a locked box or safe is not having them unsecured here. Children having access to a firearm easily may be enough grounds to charge a home owner of negligence however. It is a judgement call by the local authorities.

[Svifnymr]

Are you intentionally ignoring the fines i keep talking about or just accidentally? It´s not like reporting that your bike is stolen.

The fines only matter as a fact of enforcement, which I'm saying currently lacks and in the future will also lack. The courts have better things to do than take someone to court and prove that someone didn't meet a legal definition of "secure" or whatnot. Certainly if it's repetitive or linked to a major crime, but the current laws still cover such things and are ignored.

In either case, my initial response was actually about them being stolen en route or such. You would need to prove it was false.

- - - Updated - - -

There is the problem. Foreigners thinking if it works this way here, it should be the same in the US. Here, it also depends on the insurance company. Generally speaking however, if you leave your car or house unsecured, some insurance companies can contest your claim. It is one reason they encourage policy holders to itemized the contents of their home and esp. write down, record the serial numbers, photo shoot any high priced items. Of course they will only bulk at a claim if it is something very expensive, usually. Depends also on how long they have sucked money from you. :P

And how much more they can raise your rates. :-p

Fines? Not sure of all states, but in Ohio we have no safe storage laws for firearms. Other than the basic one of the owner is responsible if any harm is done by unsafe storage. But not having a firearm in a locked box or safe is not having them unsecured here. Children having access to a firearm easily may be enough grounds to charge a home owner of negligence however. It is a judgement call by the local authorities.

It's his idea for a new law, I believe, not discussion about a current law.

[Ghostpanther]

- - - Updated - - -


And how much more they can raise your rates. :-p



It's his idea for a new law, I believe, not discussion about a current law.

Lol. Yep. They are in the market to make money, not care for you.

Well, could be, but it may be the law where he lives. And he feels, " Well, we do it here and it works well, there is no reason it would not work there." Kind of like the Aussies saying they got rid of firearms in their country, the USA can do it just as easily.

[lockedout]

.

Funny enough, i work for CSI,

I almost spit water out my nose at this, sure you do.

[Rooflesstoofless]

Came across this via Reddit as a response to the journalist that went full puss when shooting an AR15:


This is also a big part of why the AR15 is so popular in America today. East to shoot. East to control.

[TITAN308]

That video haha

[Mayhem]

I almost spit water out my nose at this, sure you do.

The comparable institution in my state, yep. Landeskriminalamt, Abteilung Kriminalpolizeiliche Untersuchung.

- - - Updated - - -

Lol. Yep. They are in the market to make money, not care for you.

Well, could be, but it may be the law where he lives. And he feels, " Well, we do it here and it works well, there is no reason it would not work there." Kind of like the Aussies saying they got rid of firearms in their country, the USA can do it just as easily.

Not as easily, but the US could take notes and start somewhere. You have states and cities that are prime examples of why you need gun control on the federal level.

Also, you´re aware you´re the country with the highest incarceration rate? I mean, usually there needs to be investigation prior to incarceration. Compared to other countries US police forces are paid pretty well.

Police per 100k people the US have 376 and Austria have 326. You should have the resources. And i´m not even talking about money and equipment, what the US police forces have equipment wise is impressive and sometimes excessive.

So, what are the reasons it would not work?

[Healing Rain]

Guns aren't Caesar's so Caesar has no right to take them from people.

[Annoying]

Also, you´re aware you´re the country with the highest incarceration rate? I mean, usually there needs to be investigation prior to incarceration. Compared to other countries US police forces are paid pretty well.

Police per 100k people the US have 376 and Austria have 326. You should have the resources. And i´m not even talking about money and equipment, what the US police forces have equipment wise is impressive and sometimes excessive.

So, what are the reasons it would not work?

Well, most of that highest incarceration rate is the failed "drug war" combined with for-profit prisons. As for the resources, I'm personally of the opinion that it would work. I just don't think it'll happen unless the 2nd is repealed, which won't happen until the republican party completely falls out of favor.

Now, my concern would be: Who pays me for what I've invested in them? Imagine someone coming and taking your car and not reimbursing you, that shit would be infuriating.

[Mayhem]

Now, my concern would be: Who pays me for what I've invested in them? Imagine someone coming and taking your car and not reimbursing you, that shit would be infuriating.

Hu? Who pays you for what?

[Annoying]

Hu? Who pays you for what?

You replied to a quote about Australian gun control, I assumed your post was about taking guns Aus style. I was asking who would reimburse me for the thousands I've spent on guns.

[Mayhem]

You replied to a quote about Australian gun control, I assumed your post was about taking guns Aus style. I was asking who would reimburse me for the thousands I've spent on guns.

No, i was talking about the sentence in quotation marks.

[PhaelixWW]

Wow you´re really running out of arguments. So since you´re obviously unable to present anything your argument becomes meaningless.

Hah. My argument doesn't become meaningless just because you ask stupid questions with obvious answers. But that does seem to be your "win the internet debate" tactic, considering just how often it happens with you.

Private information in an online facing computerized database can be compromised. I'm sure you've heard of cases of this happening to many companies in the last decade or so, and it's only going to get worse. Also, persons with access to said database can use the information to abuse people without evidence of a crime. People have suffered bogus traffic stops in California simply because the cops can see that they have a CCW on file. And since you seem to be angling for it, sure, the potential for a targeted confiscation certainly exists with such a database, even if it would be an unlikely scenario.

And even if you consider these risks minor, they still outweigh the almost completely negligible potential benefit that a registry would provide.

Ok you´re grasping hard now. Criminals can commit crimes without guns, a gun just makes it more threatening/easier to succeed.

It's "grasping hard" to point out that the whole reason for reducing criminal access to guns is in order to reduce crime?

Are you kidding me right now? What other possible reason would you have to reduce criminal access to firearms?

Right, another "because PhaelixWW says so" arguments. /golfclap

Nope, it's just the simple response to a Mayhem argument that's been answered so many times that I refuse to spend the time typing a more detailed response yet again.

Talking about something that doesn´t exist right now, remember? Saying it will never be enforced and almost never works isn´t an argument unless you can base it on something, which you can´t.

No, we're talking about something that does exist right now, throughout California. The only new thing you're adding is a law that would require way more investigation to try and prove (and most likely ultimately fail to prove) for a much lesser crime than the police usually ever bother with pursuing much in the first place.

Pretty easy to extrapolate that to a national level.

Cool then the car the criminal who stole the guns came with is on camera.

Whoops, no. The gun-stealing criminal's car was parked off camera, too. Of all the luck!

They will be glad that every gun deal (stolen from a trunk) have to be in public spaces with the possibility of cameras or casual witnesses showing up.

No, because the real transaction happened in the privacy of the first criminal's home, where there are no cameras.

The first thing every criminal wants to do is call the cops right after he committed a crime.

And why, pray tell, would the criminal not be able to wait a week or two to plan the story before contacting the police? Especially when he knows that the police aren't going to do shit to investigate?

It´s the perfect example to show that criminals have every means of getting guns from other states. DC is unique? How about chicago? Where do most of their guns come from?

You mean the Chicago that's also not a state? In talking about state laws, you've brought up a district that's basically a city... and a city.

Congratulations, Mayhem.

Ok let´s stop with cities, how about new jersey and new york? 70% of guns traced in new york are from out of state sources. 80% of guns traced in new jersey are from out of state sources. Incidentally these two neighbouring states with strict gun laws have almost none guns traced back to each other.

I guess that´s also not backing up my point?

Not really, no. You do realize that just because a gun is a "crime gun" doesn't mean it was used in a crime, right? Nearly 3/4 of the "crime guns" in New York were being traced as a matter of course, without actually being tied to a actual crime other than the fact that the gun existed. And since New York has such draconian gun laws, most guns the police ever see are considered illegal guns and are traced.

And the fact that the trace led back to another state doesn't automatically mean that said gun was illegally brought into the state, either. The gun might have been sold a few times, the owner might have moved to New York after purchasing the firearm, the gun might have been stolen after coming legally to the state, etc.

...the one claiming there was a break-in has to prove a crime happened. You can´t just claim there was a crime, you have to provide evidence that there was a crime.

No, that's totally wrong. It's absolutely crazy that you think that the law can require you to report a stolen firearm, then punish you if you can't prove that it actually happened.

Burden of proof for a crime goes the other direction, buddy. That's the whole point of the presumption of innocence.

[lockedout]

The comparable institution in my state, yep. Landeskriminalamt, Abteilung Kriminalpolizeiliche Untersuchung.

Then how do you have no idea how law enforcement even works? Sorry I don't believe you in the slightest..

[Mayhem]

Hah. My argument doesn't become meaningless just because you ask stupid questions with obvious answers. But that does seem to be your "win the internet debate" tactic, considering just how often it happens with you.

Private information in an online facing computerized database can be compromised. I'm sure you've heard of cases of this happening to many companies in the last decade or so, and it's only going to get worse. Also, persons with access to said database can use the information to abuse people without evidence of a crime. People have suffered bogus traffic stops in California simply because the cops can see that they have a CCW on file. And since you seem to be angling for it, sure, the potential for a targeted confiscation certainly exists with such a database, even if it would be an unlikely scenario.

And even if you consider these risks minor, they still outweigh the almost completely negligible potential benefit that a registry would provide.

So you don´t actually know what benefit a federal firearm registry would provide, you just assume based on these assumptions that it´s potential benefit would be negligible. If everything fails come up with ridiculous stuff.

It's "grasping hard" to point out that the whole reason for reducing criminal access to guns is in order to reduce crime?

Are you kidding me right now? What other possible reason would you have to reduce criminal access to firearms?

Make life more secure for civilians and give the armed civilians an actual upper hand?

Nope, it's just the simple response to a Mayhem argument that's been answered so many times that I refuse to spend the time typing a more detailed response yet again.

Detailed responses aren´t your thing anyway, why start now.

No, we're talking about something that does exist right now, throughout California. The only new thing you're adding is a law that would require way more investigation to try and prove (and most likely ultimately fail to prove) for a much lesser crime than the police usually ever bother with pursuing much in the first place.

Pretty easy to extrapolate that to a national level.

Hahahahahaa so apart from adding a new law which you just handwave, you then go on and say between states and a country is no difference.

No need to introduce federal police because local police can´t do it, pretty easy to extrapolate that to a national level. <- that´s your argument

Whoops, no. The gun-stealing criminal's car was parked off camera, too. Of all the luck!

Yeah, just keep your made up case moving further. Have you counted how much these two criminals have to care about just to make a gun deal?

No, because the real transaction happened in the privacy of the first criminal's home, where there are no cameras.

Yeah, let´s add just another thing they have to think about, this is getting better and better. Now they deal guns at home and then have to fake break-ins.

And why, pray tell, would the criminal not be able to wait a week or two to plan the story before contacting the police? Especially when he knows that the police aren't going to do shit to investigate?

Nothing keeps criminals from planing their crimes to the detail. Those criminals usually aren´t the norm though.

You mean the Chicago that's also not a state? In talking about state laws, you've brought up a district that's basically a city... and a city.

Congratulations, Mayhem.

You said D.C. was as unique a case as one can find, so i provided you not only with a comparable case but gave you two states on top. Here´s a challenge, try to remember what you wrote.

Congratulations, PhaelixWW.

Not really, no. You do realize that just because a gun is a "crime gun" doesn't mean it was used in a crime, right? Nearly 3/4 of the "crime guns" in New York were being traced as a matter of course, without actually being tied to a actual crime other than the fact that the gun existed. And since New York has such draconian gun laws, most guns the police ever see are considered illegal guns and are traced.

And the fact that the trace led back to another state doesn't automatically mean that said gun was illegally brought into the state, either. The gun might have been sold a few times, the owner might have moved to New York after purchasing the firearm, the gun might have been stolen after coming legally to the state, etc.

And the part about missouri? Are you ignoring that by accident or deliberatly? Right now you´re arguing against the ATF. Also you´re undermining your own argument about how California is actually exporting crime guns. So how many crime guns traced in california are actually crime guns? A lot of ifs you´re suddenly coming up with when the argument isn´t in your favour anymore. Thanks expert for providing that information right away.

No, that's totally wrong. It's absolutely crazy that you think that the law can require you to report a stolen firearm, then punish you if you can't prove that it actually happened.

Burden of proof for a crime goes the other direction, buddy. That's the whole point of the presumption of innocence.

You can´t simply state that a crime happaned and now the police have to proof that the crime happened. You´re the one stating a crime happened, you have to provide proof. If you can´t, then the crime you´ve claimed never happened. Regardless if there is a suspect or not, you have to provide proof that a criminal offense happened.

That the government requires you to report a stolen firearm makes no difference at all.

[PhaelixWW]

So you don´t actually know what benefit a federal firearm registry would provide, you just assume based on these assumptions that it´s potential benefit would be negligible. If everything fails come up with ridiculous stuff.

Wait, so my belief based on actual experience with a registry is somehow more of an assumption than your belief based on your hypothetical new federal laws that don't exist?

You hypothesize a made-up world with laws that don't exist, and then when I counter with actual evidence from reality, you claim that I'm "coming up with ridiculous stuff"?

Do you even filter the shit that you type before you submit it? Because... damn.

Make life more secure for civilians...

...byyyyyyy reducing crime. Yeah, finished that thought for you. You're welcome.

Detailed responses aren´t your thing anyway, why start now.

Uhhhh, pretty much every single one of my posts is a long, detailed, point-by-point argument. This "insult" of yours probably would have sounded less ridiculous had it been directed at just about anybody else in this thread.

Hahahahahaa so apart from adding a new law which you just handwave, you then go on and say between states and a country is no difference.

No need to introduce federal police because local police can´t do it, pretty easy to extrapolate that to a national level. <- that´s your argument

The police's lack of interest in prosecuting more severe and more easily provable laws handwave it for me. And ATF agents would not investigate every stolen firearm report. They'd rely on local police to do that for them unless it involved a dealer or a much larger trafficking ring.

Yeah, just keep your made up case moving further. Have you counted how much these two criminals have to care about just to make a gun deal?

No, they don't have to worry about much. They just have to transfer the guns, file the paperwork, and move on with their lives. Not much the police could do, even if they bothered to try.

Yeah, let´s add just another thing they have to think about, this is getting better and better. Now they deal guns at home and then have to fake break-ins.

No, because he'd say that it happened elsewhere. What part of this is hard for you to understand?

Nothing keeps criminals from planing their crimes to the detail. Those criminals usually aren´t the norm though.

The ones who are trafficking in guns usually are, though.

You said D.C. was as unique a case as one can find, so i provided you not only with a comparable case but gave you two states on top. Here´s a challenge, try to remember what you wrote.

Try and read what I wrote. I addressed those two states.

And the part about missouri? Are you ignoring that by accident or deliberatly?

What about Missouri? This is the first you've mentioned Missouri. Do I even really need to say "try to remember what you wrote" here?

Because... again... damn.

Right now you´re arguing against the ATF.

No, actually, I'm using ATF data.

Also you´re undermining your own argument about how California is actually exporting crime guns. So how many crime guns traced in california are actually crime guns?

And no, actually, quite the opposite. The percentage of "crime" guns in California that are actually used in another crime is actually probably lower than most other states simply because there are more ways in California than most other states that the existence of the gun itself can be a "crime".

You can´t simply state that a crime happaned and now the police have to proof that the crime happened. You´re the one stating a crime happened, you have to provide proof. If you can´t, then the crime you´ve claimed never happened. Regardless if there is a suspect or not, you have to provide proof that a criminal offense happened.

That's not even remotely how it works, sorry.

You're just reporting it stolen. You're not charging someone with the crime of stealing it. And the police don't have to prove who stole it. They don't have to do anything. They do, however, have to prove that nobody stole it in order to arrest you for filing a false report.

[Mayhem]

Wait, so my belief based on actual experience with a registry is somehow more of an assumption than your belief based on your hypothetical new federal laws that don't exist?

You hypothesize a made-up world with laws that don't exist, and then when I counter with actual evidence from reality, you claim that I'm "coming up with ridiculous stuff"?

Do you even filter the shit that you type before you submit it? Because... damn.

I base them off of our guns laws here who when comparing countries seem to work awesomely good and i´m not even implementing the stricter rules we have.

...byyyyyyy reducing crime. Yeah, finished that thought for you. You're welcome.

... so you´re telling me that an unarmed criminal is as threatening as a criminal armed with a gun? Yeah, ok, sure.

Uhhhh, pretty much every single one of my posts is a long, detailed, point-by-point argument. This "insult" of yours probably would have sounded less ridiculous had it been directed at just about anybody else in this thread.

No, you ignore stuff, quote out of context and forget what we were talking about. That´s far from long, detailed and point-by-point.

The police's lack of interest in prosecuting more severe and more easily provable laws handwave it for me. And ATF agents would not investigate every stolen firearm report. They'd rely on local police to do that for them unless it involved a dealer or a much larger trafficking ring.

It´s to help find those dealers and much larger trafficking rings.

No, they don't have to worry about much. They just have to transfer the guns, file the paperwork, and move on with their lives. Not much the police could do, even if they bothered to try.

Ok, 1+1+1 = ? Seriously. If you have safe storage laws then every stolen gun requires someone to break into something. Breaking into something leaves behind evidence. Simply filing for a stolen gun can´t happen without someone broke in and took it. So if there´s no evidence at all that there was a break-in which needs to be because of safe storage laws then the gun maybe was stolen but you´d be fined with breaking safe storage laws, rendering an illegal gun transfer profitless.

No, because he'd say that it happened elsewhere. What part of this is hard for you to understand?

See above.

The ones who are trafficking in guns usually are, though.

Then they run the risk of getting caught, because of all the shit they have to fake.

Try and read what I wrote. I addressed those two states.

You have only addressed new york. Not with data or something.

What about Missouri? This is the first you've mentioned Missouri. Do I even really need to say "try to remember what you wrote" here?

Because... again... damn.

It´s from the link about gun trafficking, in new york and new jersey.

Here i´ll link it again.

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

No, actually, I'm using ATF data.

Then be so kind and link it.

That's not even remotely how it works, sorry.

You're just reporting it stolen. You're not charging someone with the crime of stealing it. And the police don't have to prove who stole it. They don't have to do anything. They do, however, have to prove that nobody stole it in order to arrest you for filing a false report.

And i´m repeating myself for the last time because you are unable to count to three. You can´t report a stolen gun without having evidence that it was stolen, because you have to safely store the gun. You only have no evidence if it wasn´t safely stored, but then you will be fined (fined as in punished).