Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Svifnymr]

You can't honestly point out that most guns used in crime are illegally obtained and then also claim that background checks aren't doing anything. You're directly contradicting yourself.

A study cited in the NIJ memo I linked earlier, to demonstrate that background check implementation didn't reduce actual homicide rates, assumedly the perpetrators simply moved to another market.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....ticleid=192946

Compared states that didn't previously have background checks, and then got them via the Brady Law to states that already had background checks before hand.

Not that I'm against background checks, just pointing out that saying they stopped people from buying guns, is not the same as "they stopped criminals from getting guns".

[Eroginous]

And you're saying background checks don't make sense?

Our government isn't talking about gun control measures because they're a good idea. They are talking about them in response to recent tragedies where innocent people were gunned down in senseless acts of seemingly random violence. Hence, their goal is to address the fact that these shootings are happening, with the outcome of potentially stopping them.

So I'm saying that within the context of stopping violent crimes, wouldn't it make more sense to pass legislation that addresses the reasons people commit crimes in the first place, rather than throwing out more band aid solutions that don't really stop people from committing crimes?

arent people criminals because they disregard laws...?

Once upon a time, every criminal was once... not a criminal. Something happened, and caused each and every one of those people to commit a crime. People don't go out and rob a store or a bank because they just don't care about the law. They do so because their back is against a wall and the only solution left for them is to break the law, hoping they can get away with it.

For a lot of people in this country, they have nothing left to lose... They've lost their homes because of foreclosures on shit loans made by greedy banks. They've lost their jobs because of greedy corporations trying to maximize profits. They've lost the ability to provide reasonable health care and living conditions for their families because most jobs in this country don't pay enough to allow either of those things.

That's why people become criminals. Because the alternative is continued suffering.

The difference is that background checks don't really provide an insurmountable obstacle to legally purchasing the firearm of your choice. Bans do.

How has the ban on illegal substances done anything to stop people from obtaining, producing, or distributing them. All bans do is provide a black market to fill the need a legitimate market could otherwise fill. You're also assuming that there is no reason for responsible and educated individuals to purchase firearms legally, which makes anything else you say on this subject highly suspect and irrelevant.

I'm pretty sure the stat posted was for Virginia only, not the entire US.

It could be, and in that case, I was slightly mistaken. However, it doesn't change the fact that any number of those criminals who were denied a gun sale legally, still might have obtained a gun illegally and were not prevented from committing a crime.

California, for one, already does this. I'm not saying it would do a lot to prevent crime, but it's more than just feel-good bullshit. It makes it easier for LEOs to trace firearms used in crimes quickly, and it also makes it easier to prosecute straw purchasers by invalidating their "I sold it to someone I'd just met and don't know what they did with it after that" defense.

I'm not saying don't pass universal background check legislature. I'm pointing out how spending money to do that does not equate into spending money to address why people commit gun crimes in the first place. I'm pointing out how background checks don't inhibit criminals from committing crimes. I'm pointing out how there are much more effective measures we could take to stop gun crimes, which aren't even being considered.

So yes, background checks in this case are a just 'feel good bullshit.' It's essentially our government giving themselves a pat on the back for making it harder on law abiding citizens while doing absolutely nothing to resolve the mounting problems the general population faces with social services, jobs, and housing.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Our government isn't talking about gun control measures because they're a good idea. They are talking about them in response to recent tragedies where innocent people were gunned down in senseless acts of seemingly random violence. Hence, their goal is to address the fact that these shootings are happening, with the outcome of potentially stopping them.

So I'm saying that within the context of stopping violent crimes, wouldn't it make more sense to pass legislation that addresses the reasons people commit crimes in the first place, rather than throwing out more band aid solutions that don't really stop people from committing crimes?

I see a lot of people in the pro-gun lobby throw this mysterious "root of the problem" thing around without ever actually proposing something. People backed into a corner will do desperate shit, and I seriously doubt we're ready to start addressing everyone who's backed into a corner with the economy in the situation it's in. Heck, a lot of the pro-gun lobby are also of the belief that we need to cut entitlement spending, and yet they want to address people that are so hard up that they go out and commit gun violence? Contradiction much?

Once upon a time, every criminal was once... not a criminal. Something happened, and caused each and every one of those people to commit a crime. People don't go out and rob a store or a bank because they just don't care about the law. They do so because their back is against a wall and the only solution left for them is to break the law, hoping they can get away with it.

Do people deny that laws are a deterrent to committing crimes? It seems so. In fact a lot of the pro-gun lobby was very pro-extensive background checks. Now that it's been put on the table by Democrats they all of a sudden hate it? That seems to be the MO of the new Republican party, any time a Democrat proposes something, throw it up on Fox News and shame it, regardless of how popular it was within your own party before. That seems to be the entire campaign of Reps these days, shame Democrats for ANYTHING they do (even if it was a conservative idea historically) and make your drooling masses believe it.

[Wells]

States with tighter gun control laws have higher crime, but people either change the subject or make up some bunk reason why that 'just can't be true, waaah'

Correlation isn't causation.

---------- Post added 2013-02-27 at 06:18 AM ----------

A study cited in the NIJ memo I linked earlier, to demonstrate that background check implementation didn't reduce actual homicide rates, assumedly the perpetrators simply moved to another market.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....ticleid=192946

Compared states that didn't previously have background checks, and then got them via the Brady Law to states that already had background checks before hand.

Not that I'm against background checks, just pointing out that saying they stopped people from buying guns, is not the same as "they stopped criminals from getting guns".

Given the fact that states are small isolated areas with little to no border control I don't see what in there shows that background checks don't work. The NY government has found most of the guns used in crimes in their state come from out of state.

[PhaelixWW]

Drugs flow into this country like diarrhea from Mexico, why do people think illegal guns won't just be another profit sector for cartels?

Not really sure what that has to do with what you quoted. I was saying that I'm against bans because they mostly punish the innocent by not allowing them to get certain firearms even if they're law-abiding citizens. Illegal gun-running would mostly affect criminal access to firearms.

My question with it, is how it will be managed.

Lets assume we have Buyer and Seller, neither of them a dealer.

Obviously if Buyer is an undercover cop after a law passes, he could create a situation for Seller and arrest him when he sells without the now Universal background check.

Most of this would happen after the initial sale, of course. If LEOs find a firearm in a warranted search, or trace a firearm used in a crime, then they can prosecute more easily.

Lets assume they're not cops though, how would we know the sale occured? If Buyer commits a crime, then we go to Seller. He simply says "I sold it before the Universal Law went into affect." So now we don't really know if the law was broken.

If the police trace the firearm serial to a licensed sale that occurred after the law went into effect, then it's a verifiable crime. The longer after the law goes into effect, the higher percentage of firearms whose previous sale was licensed. And honestly, most straw purchases are done right before the criminal gets the gun, so they'd tend to be fairly recent. I don't think there are a lot of 10-20 year old guns being sold to criminals for their pursuits.

Sure, this might/would change if such a law became federal, but it would help the situation with very little negative impact for legitimate law-abiding firearm purchasers.

So the best way I'd say to do it would be that "every gun sold from a dealer after enactment date, must include a form stating that if sold privately it must have a background check" and then the law would also enforce that. This would mean you'd have to know, but it would also create "grandfathered" guns that could be sold without that background check, leading to the same inflation as the assault weapon ban. Obviously over time as these guns continued in commerce they'd at some points be sold by a dealer and now they'd be "locked", as it were, and need backgrounds on private transfer.

Meh. I don't see the reason for allowing grandfathered sales. The background check doesn't really change who you are allowed to sell to, since you're not supposed to sell to prohibited people anyway. The background check just enforces that at some personal inconvenience. And the more people who voluntarily do the right thing and run their sale through a licensed dealer the less chance someone has of claiming the "I sold it before the law went into effect" defense.

Though in many cases it turns it into "It was stolen out of my car right after I bought it" defense.

And California legislators just proposed SB-299 two weeks ago to make it a crime not to report a stolen firearm within 48 hours of the theft or reasonable discovery of the theft. The same holds true for previously "stolen" firearms that are subsequently "found".

[Eroginous]

I see a lot of people in the pro-gun lobby throw this mysterious "root of the problem" thing around without ever actually proposing something.

I'm not in government. I've not republican, nor am I a democrat. I lean liberal on a wide variety of things, conservative on guns (even though it's really a liberal position). There are a lot of things that can cause people to do things they wouldn't ordinarily do, including resorting to criminal activity. The problem is that there isn't just one cause for violent crimes, it's a plethora of different things. What the government needs to do is start studying that aspect of violence so they can come up with reasonable solutions to the problem.

These solutions might include things like:

- Universal healthcare including mental.
- Work programs that get people back on their feet immediately at a livable wage.
- Housing programs that are available at a reasonable rate for people who don't make a lot of money.

And then there are the laws which allow banks and corporations to put people in these situations. Something needs to be done about our economic system.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

I see a lot of people in the pro-gun lobby throw this mysterious "root of the problem" thing around without ever actually proposing something.

Since the "pro-gun" lobby is defending its right to own guns, its not their job to change the subject onto fixing the root problem. You as the accuser say why we should ban guns, then the pro-gun people defend their rights to own guns. Its not their job to fix that issue in relation to this thread. If you want to start a new thread about it, be my guest.

This is like me demanding all new cars only be capable of going 60 MPH. Then, people defend their freedoms regarding this, and then I turn around and demand they fix the problem of car related deaths. Thats just wrong.

[Cthulhu 2020]

When the argument is made that we should be "addressing the root of the problem" rather than extensive background checks, closing loopholes, or outright bans, and then they can't really concretely describe what "the root of the problem is" my eyes tend to glaze over. I don't fully agree with outright bans, but I do think that extensive background checks and closing the loopholes is just common sense... and so did a lot of the pro-gun lobby. At least until it was proposed by Democrats and shamed on Fox News.

[PhaelixWW]

How has the ban on illegal substances done anything to stop people from obtaining, producing, or distributing them. All bans do is provide a black market to fill the need a legitimate market could otherwise fill. You're also assuming that there is no reason for responsible and educated individuals to purchase firearms legally, which makes anything else you say on this subject highly suspect and irrelevant.

I think people are misinterpreting what I was saying. Background checks should be fine because they're only a moderate hindrance to law-abiding citizens. Bans are an intrusive restriction that doesn't realistically hinder criminal purchases but make it impossible for law-abiding citizens for very little gain.

I'm not saying don't pass universal background check legislature. I'm pointing out how spending money to do that does not equate into spending money to address why people commit gun crimes in the first place. I'm pointing out how background checks don't inhibit criminals from committing crimes. I'm pointing out how there are much more effective measures we could take to stop gun crimes, which aren't even being considered.

California, for example, makes the purchasing party pay for the background check, so the money involved is not really an issue in the long run. I'm not saying this plan will have overwhelming effect, but it's worth doing nonetheless. And none of this precludes other methods to reduce crime.

---------- Post added 2013-02-26 at 11:24 PM ----------

In fact a lot of the pro-gun lobby was very pro-extensive background checks. Now that it's been put on the table by Democrats they all of a sudden hate it?

Don't base everything off the response of the NRA. That won't really get you very far.

---------- Post added 2013-02-26 at 11:35 PM ----------

Given the fact that states are small isolated areas with little to no border control I don't see what in there shows that background checks don't work. The NY government has found most of the guns used in crimes in their state come from out of state.

To be fair, NY isn't a very good example. I'd wager that the vast, vast majority of crime in NY is in NYC, and since NYC is placed in such immediate proximity to both New Jersey and Connecticut, let alone the rest of NY being only a moderate distance to Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Vermont...

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

When the argument is made that we should be "addressing the root of the problem" rather than extensive background checks, closing loopholes, or outright bans, and then they can't really concretely describe what "the root of the problem is" my eyes tend to glaze over. I don't fully agree with outright bans, but I do think that extensive background checks and closing the loopholes is just common sense... and so did a lot of the pro-gun lobby. At least until it was proposed by Democrats and shamed on Fox News.

People here have literally done exactly what you are whining about, even though it isn't their job. Again, pro-gun people only need to defend against the claim that we should should have another AWB, and giving ways to stop bad people from doing bad things isn't part of that.

[Deleted]

This is like me demanding all new cars only be capable of going 60 MPH. Then, people defend their freedoms regarding this, and then I turn around and demand they fix the problem of car related deaths. Thats just wrong.

Poor comparison. If you would want to make one do it in regard to mandatory ABS/ESP systems on new cars, systems that save lifes. Also comparing cars to guns is utter idiocracy, im sure any rational person knows it.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Poor comparison. If you would want to make one do it in regard to mandatory ABS/ESP systems on new cars, systems that save lifes. Also comparing cars to guns is utter idiocracy, im sure any rational person knows it.

The comparison was not cars to guns, clearly.

Not to mention that isn't an equal comparison at all. The AWB would ban many models of guns, many features for guns, and limit magazine sizes. Saying mandatory ABS on a car is equal to banning pistol grips is idiocy.

[Deleted]

The comparison was not cars to guns, clearly.

Not to mention that isn't an equal comparison at all. The AWB would ban many models of guns, many features for guns, and limit magazine sizes. Saying mandatory ABS on a car is equal to banning pistol grips is idiocy.

Advocating to keep set model of guns and nonlimited magazine size is idiocracy. Keep it up!

The point was to reduce the firepower you can "arm" yourself with, since you are a civilian not a trained and in function law officer or army soldier.

[Deleted]

The comparison was not cars to guns, clearly.

Not to mention that isn't an equal comparison at all. The AWB would ban many models of guns, many features for guns, and limit magazine sizes. Saying mandatory ABS on a car is equal to banning pistol grips is idiocy.

Comparing any part of car ownership to gun ownership is idiotic full stop.

How many states do you have to have a license (with training and tests to get etc.) to legally own a gun, and how many states is it required by law to have a license (with training and tests to get etc.) to legally own / run a car?

Saying attempting to ban certain classes of weapons and not doing the same to cars by limiting engine size, top speed etc is the kind of argument people put out in desperation. Comparing apples to oranges will never work.

[mrwingtipshoes]

citation required.

No it's not if you need citation for that you're being willfully ignorant.

[lockedout]

Comparing any part of car ownership to gun ownership is idiotic full stop.

How many states do you have to have a license (with training and tests to get etc.) to legally own a gun, and how many states is it required by law to have a license (with training and tests to get etc.) to legally own / run a car?

Saying attempting to ban certain classes of weapons and not doing the same to cars by limiting engine size, top speed etc is the kind of argument people put out in desperation. Comparing apples to oranges will never work.

Stop comparing guns to cars.

Bearing arms is a constitutional right.
Driving is a privilege.

[Himora]

Stop comparing guns to cars.

Bearing arms is a constitutional right.
Driving is a privilege.

If its a right to bear arms, its a right to use them. so dont moan when cinema's & schools get shot up on a daily basis.

[lockedout]

If its a right to bear arms, its a right to use them. so dont moan when cinema's & schools get shot up on a daily basis.

I am all for people owning guns. When some loaner kid is on prozac and decides he wants to play CoD IRL that should not affect law abiding citizens.
People who compare a right to a privilege need to reevaluate.

[Deadvolcanoes]

If its a right to bear arms, its a right to use them. so dont moan when cinema's & schools get shot up on a daily basis.

Possibly the worst argument in the entire thread.

[Himora]

I am all for people owning guns. When some loaner kid is on prozac and decides he wants to play CoD IRL that should not affect law abiding citizens.
People who compare a right to a privilege need to reevaluate.

You want them to have the right to own these easymode killing devices, what you think they exist for? opening beer bottles?