Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TZucchini]

That is exactly why it has been opposed because there is no clear process to do so.

OK. So lets work on fixing it rather than complaining about due process.

And then your posts went back to the same old "when pigs fly this will happen" rhetoric.

Whether or not it's likely to happen has no bearing on whether or not it should.

- - - Updated - - -

Supreme Court refuses to hear challenge to Connecticut’s ban on ‘assault weapons’.

[PhaelixWW]

So your answer to my question is "because it can"? Yeah, you have to provide more than that.

Not really, no. There are many ways in which the information can be abused. And without a significant justification in the form of substantial help reducing crime, which the registry won't do, it's not worth the risk.

So back to my original question that started your jumping around. How can you say a federal registry would not have any impact if a federal registry doesn´t exist?

Based on the complete lack of an impact that the various state registries have had on crime rates in those states. You know, where the vast majority of the crime guns actually came from the state in question.

Evidence as in hint, not as in proof, like you used it here. A registry can provide evidence.

A hint is not evidence. A hint is never evidence. Evidence as in something of substance that you could introduce in a court of law to help establish your claim. A hint merely can lead to evidence.

Are you kidding me? How do you prove a gun wasn´t safely stored? Well first of all see if there´s a gun safe, see if the gun safe was broken in, if it´s claimed that the gun safe was stolen see for traces. You know stuff that the police does when a crime was comitted.

And with as much time to prepare the story as they want, the criminal would have no trouble accounting for the "crime". Like I said in the earlier post, they could just claim that they had all 4 of their guns locked safely in their trunk, heading to the range, when they stopped at a gas station to use the restroom and came out to find someone had popped the lock on the door, opened the trunk, and stolen the firearms. There'd be no evidence to prove this story false, and it wouldn't violate safe storage laws. Whatever story they could cook up, they could make sure that it didn't violate the laws.

Do you know what is pretty bad for a business? Getting fined all the time.

And yet you have still not showed an ounce of support for why any non braindead criminal could avoid getting fined due to a lack of evidence to support the fine. You also have steadfastly ignored the fact that law enforcement can't even be bothered to prosecute crimes that are worse than safe-storage violations, and yet you claim that they would bleed criminals dry by investigating and prosecuting every single case of a stolen gun report.

It's preposterous.

Want to have a look at D.C. crime guns?

Wait, so your counter-argument to the fact that most states are accountable for their own crime guns is to bring up D.C., which is basically a city? And which until somewhat recently has had a complete handgun ban? And which doesn't even have a gun store to begin with?

Wow. Just... wow.

- - - Updated - - -

[QUOTE=PRE 9-11;40975195]-There are approximately 420,000 individuals on the Terrorist Watchlist.
-Approximately 98 percent of these individuals are non-U.S. persons.
Out of curiosity, assuming that the FBI doesn't have social security numbers, driver's license numbers, any other unique identifying number for them, how many of these ~410,000 people that you excluded as non-U.S. persons might have names that are similar enough to names in use in the U.S. to cause a flag to go up on an otherwise legitimate person, when very little evidence exists to prove that said person isn't the one meant by the watch list?

How about "Individual made inflammatory remarks to co-workers regarding possible terrorist ties."

How about "Individual, already under investigation, made contact with a Florida citizen who traveled to Syria and carried out a suicide bombing."

Those seem like pretty good reasons to flag a purchase for FBI review.

Aaaand the FBI had already investigated him and didn't find anything substantive. So reviewing the fact that they weren't able to find anything worth warranting further action would lead to... not having anything worth warranting any further action.

Hindsight is great, but this ain't precrime.

[TZucchini]

Aaaand the FBI had already investigated him and didn't find anything substantive. So reviewing the fact that they weren't able to find anything worth warranting further action would lead to... not having anything worth warranting any further action.

Hindsight is great, but this ain't precrime.

I'd say that firsthand accounts of terrorist ramblings by co-workers is fairly substantive, and should bar firearm ownership completely, to be honest.

But let's take a look at how the flagging system could have gone:

*Oh look. This guy that was under investigation for possible terrorist connections is purchasing an AR-15, a pistol, and some ammunition. Maybe we should take another look before we approve this sale.

*Oh, look here. A recent tip to the FBI from an FFL in the same area describes a man that looks exactly like this suspect, who asked about purchasing body armor, then made an angry phone call in a foreign language. That seems a bit odd. Maybe we can get a warrant to view phone records, etc...

That really doesn't seem implausible at all. It's called detective work. No precrime necessary.

[PhaelixWW]

Such an easy fix. Provide people on the watch list with due process. A means of being removed.

Uh, that's not due process. Having your right taken away for no reason is not made okay by giving people the option to get it back if they can prove that it was for no reason. Having to go to court to prove your innocence... That's backwards to the entire philosophy of U.S. justice.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd say that firsthand accounts of terrorist ramblings by co-workers is fairly substantive, and should bar firearm ownership completely, to be honest.

After 10 months, the FBI concluded that his comments were sarcastic ones made in anger after his co-worker racially discriminated against him for being Muslin. Whether that's what happened or not, that's the result of the 10 month investigation.

*Oh look. This guy that was under investigation for possible terrorist connections is purchasing an AR-15, a pistol, and some ammunition. Maybe we should take another look before we approve this sale.

Because the first 10 month long look yielded results?

[Mayhem]

Not really, no. There are many ways in which the information can be abused. And without a significant justification in the form of substantial help reducing crime, which the registry won't do, it's not worth the risk.

Many ways, good, good, so you have examples, i´m all ears.

Based on the complete lack of an impact that the various state registries have had on crime rates in those states. You know, where the vast majority of the crime guns actually came from the state in question.

And my point never was to reduce crime, but to reduce guns in the hands of criminals.

A hint is not evidence. A hint is never evidence. Evidence as in something of substance that you could introduce in a court of law to help establish your claim. A hint merely can lead to evidence.

Having evidence like numerous unreported stolen guns, or having their guns stolen every few weeks despite having safe storage measures isn´t something of substance you could introduce in a court of law?

And with as much time to prepare the story as they want, the criminal would have no trouble accounting for the "crime". Like I said in the earlier post, they could just claim that they had all 4 of their guns locked safely in their trunk, heading to the range, when they stopped at a gas station to use the restroom and came out to find someone had popped the lock on the door, opened the trunk, and stolen the firearms. There'd be no evidence to prove this story false, and it wouldn't violate safe storage laws. Whatever story they could cook up, they could make sure that it didn't violate the laws.

Back to if it doesn´t work all the time it´s not worth introducing. Also, really, breaking in a trunk at a gas station. Great, they have cameras.

And yet you have still not showed an ounce of support for why any non braindead criminal could avoid getting fined due to a lack of evidence to support the fine. You also have steadfastly ignored the fact that law enforcement can't even be bothered to prosecute crimes that are worse than safe-storage violations, and yet you claim that they would bleed criminals dry by investigating and prosecuting every single case of a stolen gun report.

It's preposterous.

Oh if money is on the table the US police sure look like they are doing everything they can to prosecute people, civil forfeiture comes to mind.

Wait, so your counter-argument to the fact that most states are accountable for their own crime guns is to bring up D.C., which is basically a city? And which until somewhat recently has had a complete handgun ban? And which doesn't even have a gun store to begin with?

Wow. Just... wow.

It backs up that criminals simply get their guns outside city/state limits with high gun control, therefore rendering that local gun control meaningless. It also shows that time-to-crime rate is a pretty meaningless number since D.C. traced guns are to a majority also above the national average time-to-crime rate.

That´s an interesting article about facebook groups.
http://katv.com/news/local/local-paw...ecutive-action

[TZucchini]

Uh, that's not due process. Having your right taken away for no reason is not made okay by giving people the option to get it back if they can prove that it was for no reason. Having to go to court to prove your innocence... That's backwards to the entire philosophy of U.S. justice.

If you're on the FBI terrorist watchlist, that's a "reason". I'd say that some type of flagging system would be "substantially related to the important governmental interests of public safety", and thus, would be Constitutional.

After 10 months, the FBI concluded that his comments were sarcastic ones made in anger after his co-worker racially discriminated against him for being Muslin. Whether that's what happened or not, that's the result of the 10 month investigation.

Anyone making angry sarcastic terroristic comments toward co-workers seems like the perfect type of person to undergo a psych evaluation before purchasing firearms.

Because the first 10 month long look yielded results?

Investigators can build upon old leads, and produce new leads. Cases that have gone cold due to lack of evidence can be re-opened with new evidence. And I've just provided a perfectly linear scenario in which such a flagging system could have helped.

[Mayhem]

Here´s another article, it shows in a graph the impact a repeal of gun control had on the purchasing patterns.

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

[Svifnymr]

I'd say that firsthand accounts of terrorist ramblings by co-workers is fairly substantive, and should bar firearm ownership completely, to be honest.

But let's take a look at how the flagging system could have gone:

*Oh look. This guy that was under investigation for possible terrorist connections is purchasing an AR-15, a pistol, and some ammunition. Maybe we should take another look before we approve this sale.

*Oh, look here. A recent tip to the FBI from an FFL in the same area describes a man that looks exactly like this suspect, who asked about purchasing body armor, then made an angry phone call in a foreign language. That seems a bit odd. Maybe we can get a warrant to view phone records, etc...

That really doesn't seem implausible at all. It's called detective work. No precrime necessary.

The thing is, why not just prosecute the folks and remove them from the population if they're actually doing something wrong? Even forgetting gun purchasing from a dealer, if they've actually done anything than arrest them. Hell, by all means you can make it illegal to purchase if you've been convicted of "saying terrorist things" or "interacting with terrorists" or whatever, even if it's a misdemeanor, but there should be SOME process involved with the ability to defend yourself from accusations.

It's not even a second amendment thing, it's 1st & 5th and plenty of others.

- - - Updated - - -

Hence why i´m writing for pages now that a need to report firearms stolen in combination with safe storage laws would help with that problem. Reporting a firearm stolen isn´t as easy if you have to provide proof that you stored them the way you´re supposed to.

If you have a safe at home and report that your guns were stolen before you got home or any other variation thereof, how does that change anything?

There's also the due process thing, proving that someone did something illegal and of course there's nothing that says it's one guy repeatedly straw purchasing things as opposed to someone doing a few and then someone else buying some, et cetera.

[TITAN308]

I admit I couldn't help but chuckle when I saw this come across my newsfeed with the following picture:

"BREAKING: All Senate Gun Control Proposals FAIL"

The U.S. Senate has just failed to pass any of the gun control amendments which were proposed following the shooting in Orlando, Florida. The most recent push for gun control comes following a 13 hour filibuster on the Senate floor spearheaded by Senator Murphy (D). There are currently no additional proposals pending, and the likelihood of anything on gun control passing after this failure is minuscule. What’s interesting to note is that for a number of the amendments, which would have given the Democrats exactly what they were asking (blocking those on the “no fly” list from buying firearms) the vote was split along party lines with nearly every Republican voting in the affirmative, but the Democrats themselves blocked it from passing.

Interesting. Dems blocked their own shit?

What am I missing?

[Ghostpanther]

I admit I couldn't help but chuckle when I saw this come across my newsfeed with the following picture:

"BREAKING: All Senate Gun Control Proposals FAIL"





Interesting. Dems blocked their own shit?

What am I missing?

As usual, the bill writers tried to insert some bullshit and some of the senators spotted it. Not all democrats are opposed to the 2nd amendment.

[Mayhem]

If you have a safe at home and report that your guns were stolen before you got home or any other variation thereof, how does that change anything?

There's also the due process thing, proving that someone did something illegal and of course there's nothing that says it's one guy repeatedly straw purchasing things as opposed to someone doing a few and then someone else buying some, et cetera.

Exactly, they have to prove that someone actually broke in, you know, proving that someone did something illegal. Seriously, going by the responses sofar, in the US you can leave your door unlocked, call the cops, report that someone stole your TV and have insurance pay, without ever having to provide anything at all.

[PhaelixWW]

Many ways, good, good, so you have examples, i´m all ears.

If you have any kind of intelligence, you can figure it out for yourself. Unless you're not smart enough to do so...?

And my point never was to reduce crime, but to reduce guns in the hands of criminals.

Uh...

The whole point of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is in order to reduce crime, and in fact a criminal getting his hands on a gun is a crime in and of itself, so I don't think your statement makes any sense at all.

Everything else being equal, keeping guns out of the hands of criminals would lead to a reduction in crime.

having their guns stolen every few weeks despite having safe storage measures isn´t something of substance you could introduce in a court of law?

Nope.

Back to if it doesn´t work all the time it´s not worth introducing.

Hardly. Try "if it almost never works and is almost never enforced, then it's not worth introducing."

Also, really, breaking in a trunk at a gas station. Great, they have cameras.

Not where the criminal parked the car. He's on camera going to the restroom, but his car is off camera. Shucks. Oh well. Hey, at least the camera footage supports his story!

It backs up that criminals simply get their guns outside city/state limits with high gun control, therefore rendering that local gun control meaningless. It also shows that time-to-crime rate is a pretty meaningless number since D.C. traced guns are to a majority also above the national average time-to-crime rate.

Not really, no, it doesn't. DC is as unique a case as you can find. It's nowhere near similar to any other "state".

- - - Updated - - -

If you're on the FBI terrorist watchlist, that's a "reason".

Not a good enough one to deny a Constitutional right. Not by itself.

I'd say that some type of flagging system would be "substantially related to the important governmental interests of public safety", and thus, would be Constitutional.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You're talking about taking away a right, not just limiting it in a way that still allows that right to be exercised. Intermediate scrutiny does not support that being Constitutional, no matter how much you want it to.

You're essentially talking about treating those on the watch list like felons, which basically means that you're violating their 6th Amendment rights as well.

Anyone making angry sarcastic terroristic comments toward co-workers seems like the perfect type of person to undergo a psych evaluation before purchasing firearms.

So you think a psych evaluation is somehow more meaningful than a 10 month FBI investigation? Okay.

Investigators can build upon old leads, and produce new leads. Cases that have gone cold due to lack of evidence can be re-opened with new evidence.

"Case" implies a crime. You're talking about an investigation without a crime. You can't keep that open-ended while blocking the subject's rights indefinitely.

If you can't see that that's a gross violation of everything that the United States stands for, then you've been hopelessly blinded by your own rhetoric.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly, they have to prove that someone actually broke in, you know, proving that someone did something illegal. Seriously, going by the responses sofar, in the US you can leave your door unlocked, call the cops, report that someone stole your TV and have insurance pay, without ever having to provide anything at all.

Are you fucking serious, Mayhem?

No, no, no, nonononono NO. Who the hell is talking about insurance?

When Svifnymr is talking about due process and proving that someone did something illegal, he's talking about the police proving that the guns weren't stolen as claimed by the owner, but sold illegally instead.

In fact, criminals would likely not even attempt to get them insured, because the insurance company would be far more likely to launch a more detailed investigation than the police would.

[Mayhem]

If you have any kind of intelligence, you can figure it out for yourself. Unless you're not smart enough to do so...?

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

Uh...

The whole point of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is in order to reduce crime, and in fact a criminal getting his hands on a gun is a crime in and of itself, so I don't think your statement makes any sense at all.

Everything else being equal, keeping guns out of the hands of criminals would lead to a reduction in crime.

Ok you´re grasping hard now. Criminals can commit crimes without guns, a gun just makes it more threatening/easier to succeed. Obviously by reducing crime i didn´t meant the crime of obtaining a gun, but you knew that, unless of course you´re not intelligent enough.

Nope.

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

Hardly. Try "if it almost never works and is almost never enforced, then it's not worth introducing."

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.

Not where the criminal parked the car. He's on camera going to the restroom, but his car is off camera. Shucks. Oh well. Hey, at least the camera footage supports his story!

Cool then the car the criminal who stole the guns came with is on camera. 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. While they also need to report every of those incidents to the police because else they will be fined rendering their deal profitless. The first thing every criminal wants to do is call the cops right after he committed a crime.

Not really, no, it doesn't. DC is as unique a case as you can find. It's nowhere near similar to any other "state".

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?

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?

- - - Updated - - -

Are you fucking serious, Mayhem?

No, no, no, nonononono NO. Who the hell is talking about insurance?

When Svifnymr is talking about due process and proving that someone did something illegal, he's talking about the police proving that the guns weren't stolen as claimed by the owner, but sold illegally instead.

In fact, criminals would likely not even attempt to get them insured, because the insurance company would be far more likely to launch a more detailed investigation than the police would.

... 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. See herein lies the problem, they can´t claim there was a crime without providing something that shows it while at the same time getting out of paying fines.

The talk about insurance merely highlighted what i am talking about, which you apparently agreed on, you simply weren´t able to connect the dots.

[zenkai]

Exactly, they have to prove that someone actually broke in, you know, proving that someone did something illegal. Seriously, going by the responses sofar, in the US you can leave your door unlocked, call the cops, report that someone stole your TV and have insurance pay, without ever having to provide anything at all.

You should try this very thing and tell me how it works out for you. I would be interested in this experiment.

[Mayhem]

You should try this very thing and tell me how it works out for you. I would be interested in this experiment.

You pay the plane ticket and rent for a place i get the bill for the TV.

[Ghostpanther]

You pay the plane ticket and rent for a place i get the bill for the TV.

Having the bill for the TV purchase would be providing evidence to the insurance company you have one. And some policies will state your place or car can not be left unlocked. If they are and something is stolen, the insurance company does not owe you shit.

[Mayhem]

Having the bill for the TV purchase would be providing evidence to the insurance company you have one. And some policies will state your place or car can not be left unlocked. If they are and something is stolen, the insurance company does not owe you shit.

You tell that to the wrong person, but thanks for backing my side.

[-Nurot]

I admit I couldn't help but chuckle when I saw this come across my newsfeed with the following picture:

"BREAKING: All Senate Gun Control Proposals FAIL"

Interesting. Dems blocked their own shit?

What am I missing?

As usual, the bill writers tried to insert some bullshit and some of the senators spotted it. Not all democrats are opposed to the 2nd amendment.

Very much this ^ the democrats noticed the language in the competing bills and saw how the definition of mentally ill was modified. As usual the GOP tried to pass 2 worthless bills to distract from the 2 the democrats proposed.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/20/politi...otes-congress/

2 GOP/NRA proposals (expanded background checks and a 72 hour gun-buying ban with the order of a judge), both pats on the head to pretend they are taking action, which was seen through by everyone and voted down. 2 were sponsored by the Democrats (expanded background checks, but without the watered down definition of what mentally ill means) and (blocking people on the terror watch list).

All 4 were voted down along party lines. Dems mostly voted against the useless court ordered 72-hour ban, and the competing background check. The NRA on the other hand, was worried the mentally ill and individuals on the terror watch list might not be able to purchase guns so they voted along party lines as well.

Other than the, same old, same old, you missed nothing.

[Ghostpanther]

You tell that to the wrong person, but thanks for backing my side.

NP. Was not sure how your insurance claims work in Austria.

[Svifnymr]

Exactly, they have to prove that someone actually broke in, you know, proving that someone did something illegal. Seriously, going by the responses sofar, in the US you can leave your door unlocked, call the cops, report that someone stole your TV and have insurance pay, without ever having to provide anything at all.

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...

- - - Updated - - -

As usual, the bill writers tried to insert some bullshit and some of the senators spotted it. Not all democrats are opposed to the 2nd amendment.

The "expand background check" thing seemed like an odd mix, were they trying to return veterans rights or something? Dunno.

In any case, the No-Fly-List one seems like a bunch of what they wanted, but not in the exact way they wanted it, so they blocked it to prevent the Repubs from getting credit. What happened to the long standing "it may not solve everything, but it's a step" stuff they've always pushed?