Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Jaxi]

When did I say that they don't effect crime? I gave you a legitimate example of something wanting to commit a crime, but deciding not to go through the process because of the waiting period. Do you think that's the only time that's ever happened?

Yet it didn't stop him, did it? As I said, that goes back to my original argument of substitute methods to purchasing weapons. The fence is open and we're trying to put a gate up. I don't see it having a noticeable impact on crime, but it will inconvenience law-abiding buyers.

That same person might calm down if they had to wait a few days. Buying a gun shouldn't be something you just suddenly decide is a good idea, and cruise into your local gun store and pick on up on a whim. It should be a thoughtful decision.

Now, I understand what you are saying, but I'm not for backing legislation without evidence. The closest examples I can see are California and Washington D.C. both having very long waiting periods for all weapons, yet still having deplorable violence rates.
http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Cr...0D602B62193158
http://smartgunlaws.org/waiting-peri...ootnote_3_5825

[Tinykong]

You use "might" a lot here. It seems to me that your argument is purely speculative. Now, I understand what you are saying, but I'm not for backing legislation without evidence. The closest examples I can see are California and Washington D.C. both having very long waiting periods for all weapons, yet still having deplorable violence rates.
http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Cr...0D602B62193158
http://smartgunlaws.org/waiting-peri...ootnote_3_5825

I really don't think waiting periods will translate into a measurable statistic. Are people going to admit they wanted to buy a gun to kill their family on Tuesday, but by Wednesday night, they changed their mind?

I think it's a serious decision that deserves a waiting period so that the purchaser can consider the decision. You're not buying a new Xbox 360 game, you're buying something that is potentially deadly, and should only do so after a lot of thought.

[Jaxi]

I really don't think waiting periods will translate into a measurable statistic. Are people going to admit they wanted to buy a gun to kill their family on Tuesday, but by Wednesday night, they changed their mind?

I think it's a serious decision that deserves a waiting period so that the purchaser can consider the decision. You're not buying a new Xbox 360 game, you're buying something that is potentially deadly, and should only do so after a lot of thought.

Again though, a waiting period does not suddenly make a responsible gun owner. I believe all people considering buying a weapon should take a safety class, study their weapon thoroughly, and truly understand the purchase they are making. That's just being, well, responsible. However, requiring them to wait for their weapon might give an agitated buyer a cooling off period, true, but having an average buyer wait longer will not change their habits.

And what about recurring buyers, individuals with range officer training, or NRA licensed safety instructors? I still believe it is more inconvenience than it is worth.

[mrwingtipshoes]

What do you guys think about NEW gun buys having a waiting period instead of all purchases.

[smelltheglove]

What do you guys think about NEW gun buys having a waiting period instead of all purchases.

i personally believe in "cooling off" periods, especially in regards to handguns. if someone already had a handgun i would have no problem with the waiting period being waived. i'd have no problem with it being waived for gun owners making a rifle purchase. only concern for me would be rifle owner buying a handgun, but would be fine with a shortened waiting period

[Rocko9]

What do you guys think about NEW gun buys having a waiting period instead of all purchases.

Disagree. If I was sick in the head enough to want to murder someone that was in my house (or if I was at theirs) I'd get a small/medium knife, and that's that I own multiple guns.

[Tinykong]

Again though, a waiting period does not suddenly make a responsible gun owner. I believe all people considering buying a weapon should take a safety class, study their weapon thoroughly, and truly understand the purchase they are making. That's just being, well, responsible. However, requiring them to wait for their weapon might give an agitated buyer a cooling off period, true, but having an average buyer wait longer will not change their habits.

And what about recurring buyers, individuals with range officer training, or NRA licensed safety instructors? I still believe it is more inconvenience than it is worth.

We put up with all kinds of inconveniences in the name of general safety all the time, this is no different.

[Jaxi]

We put up with all kinds of inconveniences in the name of general safety all the time, this is no different.

Show how it provides safety past speculation and I'll believe you. It's not an issue I'm adamant about, so I'll gladly change my mind if I'm proven wrong, but with what has been provided so far I don't see a point to the waiting times. The one argument I'll give any legitimacy to is that it may provide a cooling off period for some, but how often does that actually occur?

[hakujinbakasama]

Show how it provides safety past speculation and I'll believe you. It's not an issue I'm adamant about, so I'll gladly change my mind if I'm proven wrong, but with what has been provided so far I don't see a point to the waiting times. The one argument I'll give any legitimacy to is that it may provide a cooling off period for some, but how often does that actually occur?

I agree. I've never really "understood" the concept personally.

Some how, the rational plays out that I get mad, I get into my car. I drive to a gun shop (in my case reliably over an hour away) purchase a gun, then drive back (again, in my case over an hour back) and in that time I've apparently not "cooled down" or "thought twice?"

Now I understand my geography isn't the same as everyone and some people have it worse, but I'm still puzzled by the concept of belief that it actually "helps" prevent anything.

I know it might be viewed as a negative, but I believe that more of the burden should fall on sellers rather than buyers. I remember there was a period of time where they would do undercover stings against gas stations for selling tobacco to minors. Perhaps they should do something similar to FFL Dealers as well? While I know it's only my opinion, if your job/lively hood is selling firearms than you'd better take the extra fucking time to make sure you're doing a reasonable job of assessing each person.

I've never had a "bad" experience with an FFL but that's my experiences only. I've never had one who didn't want to ask questions or "reasonably" try to get to know me and what I was looking for and why.

[Svifnymr]

i personally believe in "cooling off" periods, especially in regards to handguns. if someone already had a handgun i would have no problem with the waiting period being waived. i'd have no problem with it being waived for gun owners making a rifle purchase. only concern for me would be rifle owner buying a handgun, but would be fine with a shortened waiting period

You're basically describing Florida law.
3 Day waiting period for all handguns, no wait for long guns
Wait waived with concealed weapons license (which takes time to get) or with trade in of handgun.

Afterward, they gave counties some authority as part of the "close the gun show loophole!" law some years back.
Individual counties (read: democrat dominated ones, not being political, that IS the breakdown) can go up to 5 days on everything, trade offers no exemption, but CWL still does.

For myself, I think waiting periods are worthless. If you're pissed off enough to go buy a gun to kill someone, you're pissed off enough to wait a week. If you're seething and muttering, I'd hope the dealer would say "yeah, maybe you should calm down". The average time between when a gun is purchased at retail and when it is used in a crime is (well, was, may have changed) is 6 years.

Nothing I feel strongly about, though I'd say the the obvious exemptions (trade in or a firearm license) should be mandatory for such a policy. Either way, there WAS a waiting period as part of the Background system, I believe it was shot down?

[smelltheglove]

For myself, I think waiting periods are worthless. If you're pissed off enough to go buy a gun to kill someone, you're pissed off enough to wait a week. If you're seething and muttering, I'd hope the dealer would say "yeah, maybe you should calm down". The average time between when a gun is purchased at retail and when it is used in a crime is (well, was, may have changed) is 6 years.

meh. id honestly like to see a study done on this. if im wrong im fine with that tbh. it is possible though that just knowing about the waiting period stops "impulse" purchases, but im not about to tout it as fact. the concept does make sense to me though. i'll poke around a little bit, and see if i can find anything about the origin of the law, and if it helped or was just political noise

[Roxinius]

You're basically describing Florida law.
3 Day waiting period for all handguns, no wait for long guns
Wait waived with concealed weapons license (which takes time to get) or with trade in of handgun.

Afterward, they gave counties some authority as part of the "close the gun show loophole!" law some years back.
Individual counties (read: democrat dominated ones, not being political, that IS the breakdown) can go up to 5 days on everything, trade offers no exemption, but CWL still does.

For myself, I think waiting periods are worthless. If you're pissed off enough to go buy a gun to kill someone, you're pissed off enough to wait a week. If you're seething and muttering, I'd hope the dealer would say "yeah, maybe you should calm down". The average time between when a gun is purchased at retail and when it is used in a crime is (well, was, may have changed) is 6 years.

Nothing I feel strongly about, though I'd say the the obvious exemptions (trade in or a firearm license) should be mandatory for such a policy. Either way, there WAS a waiting period as part of the Background system, I believe it was shot down?

totally agree if you're already that far gone you're committed to killing someone a waiting period isnt going to stop you

[Svifnymr]

I know it might be viewed as a negative, but I believe that more of the burden should fall on sellers rather than buyers. I remember there was a period of time where they would do undercover stings against gas stations for selling tobacco to minors.

They still do that around here, local authorities.

Perhaps they should do something similar to FFL Dealers as well? While I know it's only my opinion, if your job/lively hood is selling firearms than you'd better take the extra fucking time to make sure you're doing a reasonable job of assessing each person.

ATFE would be the one to do such, and can't be bothered.

It really pisses me off when I read stories talking about how this dealer or that dealer is so evil and they think they're doing this or that... well, it's easy enough to Sting them I'd think? But no, they whine to the heavens about how they can't do anything.

I've never had a "bad" experience with an FFL but that's my experiences only. I've never had one who didn't want to ask questions or "reasonably" try to get to know me and what I was looking for and why.

Buying a gun if you don't know what you want is a bit interactive. Rarely does someone walk in and say "hey, I need a glock 19" unless they're price shopping. In addition, most folks that are buying a $500+ item want to engage the seller to make sure they're not getting screwed over. All the hand shaking was one of the biggest irritants of selling guns...

---------- Post added 2013-03-28 at 08:44 PM ----------

meh. id honestly like to see a study done on this. if im wrong im fine with that tbh. it is possible though that just knowing about the waiting period stops "impulse" purchases, but im not about to tout it as fact. the concept does make sense to me though. i'll poke around a little bit, and see if i can find anything about the origin of the law, and if it helped or was just political noise

The 5day thing is just silly, same with the "no private sales at gunshows" part of it. The original law I can't speak to effectiveness wise. Perhaps the Federal wait may have a study floating around? No clue.

You know what is incredibly stupid about waiting periods though? Working Days.
Buy a gun on Monday, pick it up on Thursday, by a gun on Friday though? Oh, hell no, saturday and sunday are just Angry Days, they don't calm nobody down no how!

[smelltheglove]

You know what is incredibly stupid about waiting periods though? Working Days.
Buy a gun on Monday, pick it up on Thursday, by a gun on Friday though? Oh, hell no, saturday and sunday are just Angry Days, they don't calm nobody down no how!

that IS pretty stupid. at that point it has nothing to do with "cooling off", lol

the study im talking about seeing is whether or not "cooling off" periods actually have a significant affect on crimes of passion (specifically those committed with a gun). if not, i see no need for waiting beyond what is needed for background check

[Eroginous]

You're looking at the data in a completely ridiculous way.

No, I'm looking at the bigger picture. Something you completely refuse to do.

You're bring legal gun owners into the equation, for almost no reason at all.

In order to make a comparison, you have to contrast two things against each other. In this case, we have a large population of people, of which nearly half are reported to own one or more guns. So we have two variables here:

1. People who are looking to buy guns, but aren't criminals.

2. People who are looking to buy guns, but ARE criminals.

Of all the background checks done in the last 14 years, more than 99% of them were done on the first kind of people. Less than 1% were done on the second kind of people. Now, you're looking for a solution to prevent criminals from getting guns in the future, and trying to argue for increased background checks based on that 1% figure. Meanwhile, you're forcing 99% of all legitimate gun sales to be scrutinized for the sake of 1% of the people that fail background checks, knowing full well that even if they fail the background check, less than .01% of those people will be prosecuted because of it.

What you're talking about is not only stupidity, but insanity. So we pass UBC legislature. Some guy who's not yet a criminal, buys his guns legally after waiting 14 days, then goes on a shooting spree in a gun free zone. Or some guy who just got out on parole, hits up a buddy who can pass a background check, and gets a gun through a straw sale.

Nothing you're talking about even comes close to addressing any of these real life situations. You're basically looking at stopping the most retarded of the stupid criminals (1%) and only delaying them long enough for them to get a gun from somewhere else. UBC legislation is hopeless and futile AT BEST.

Again, no evidence to back up that claim. Not a shred. Criminals don't pass background checks. They fail them.

Adam Lanza
Andrew Engeldinger
Wade Michael Page
James Holmes
Ian Stawicki
One L. Goh
Jeong Soo Paek
Scott Evans Dekraai
Eduardo Sencion
Jared Loughner
Omar S. Thornton
Maurice Clemmons
Nidal Malik Hasan
Jiverly Wong
Robert Stewart
Wesley Neal Higdon
Steven Kazmierczak
Charles Lee Thornton
Robert A. Hawkins
Tyler Peterson
Seung-Hui Cho
Sulejman Talović
Charles Carl Roberts
Kyle Aaron Huff
Jennifer San Marco
Jeffrey Weise
Terry Michael Ratzmann
Nathan Gale
Douglas Williams
William D. Baker
Michael McDermott
Silvio Leyva
Byran Koji Uyesugi
Larry Gene Ashbrook
Mark O. Barton
Eric Harris
Dylan Klebold
Kipland P. Kinkel
Mitchell Scott Johnson
Andrew Douglas Golden
Matthew Beck
Arturo Reyes Torres
Arthur Wise

The above is a list of all the people who have gone on shooting sprees since 1997, killing or wounding a significant amount of people. Most of them were not criminals before they went on their rampages. Some of them were police, military, or middle class wage earners. Only a few of them were criminals before hand. They all still managed to get guns, despite background checks. Even if we had universal background checks, they would have all still gotten guns and still done what they did.

No amount of background checks will ever be effective enough to warrant their existence, since 99% of all people who have ever submitted to one, have passed it. Statistically speaking, it's far more likely that people capable of passing background checks will be the ones who use guns in a crime.

So just stop. Your argument is full of fail.

[Svifnymr]

that IS pretty stupid. at that point it has nothing to do with "cooling off", lol

the study im talking about seeing is whether or not "cooling off" periods actually have a significant affect on crimes of passion (specifically those committed with a gun). if not, i see no need for waiting beyond what is needed for background check

Not directly about Waiting Periods, but one of the links from the NIJ memo is;
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....ticleid=192946

In the study, they compare reduction in homicide and suicide rates following the introduction of the waiting period/ background check of the Brady law in states that didn't have something already, vs the "control group" of states that already had waiting period/ background checks.

Another interesting/ amusing link from the same memo is;
http://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/RP1429.html

In an effort to reduce straw-purchases, they sent letters to people in Cali that bought a gun, saying basically 'we know you have this gun and if something happens you're in trouble", the net effect being that reports of stolen guns doubled. (i.e. instead of just straw-selling them, they still do it, but report it stolen to cover their own ass.)

[smelltheglove]

Not directly about Waiting Periods, but one of the links from the NIJ memo is;
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....ticleid=192946

In the study, they compare reduction in homicide and suicide rates following the introduction of the waiting period/ background check of the Brady law in states that didn't have something already, vs the "control group" of states that already had waiting period/ background checks.

Another interesting/ amusing link from the same memo is;
http://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/RP1429.html

In an effort to reduce straw-purchases, they sent letters to people in Cali that bought a gun, saying basically 'we know you have this gun and if something happens you're in trouble", the net effect being that reports of stolen guns doubled. (i.e. instead of just straw-selling them, they still do it, but report it stolen to cover their own ass.)

i went searching as promised, and found nothing specific really. my hope had been to see some kind of "before and after" thing to see if there was any kind of impact, but i struck out (for proving or disproving, i just flat out found no numbers). all i found was propaganda sites on either side i did see one where they cited an incident where a suicide was prevented due to a "cooling off" period, but while admirable not really statistically relevant.

the second thing on straw purchases... all i can think here is WTF?

[Svifnymr]

the second thing on straw purchases... all i can think here is WTF?

It was based on the simple idea that straw purchasers are not-criminals (given they pass a background), so if you told them it's breaking the law, they'd not do it. Totally ignoring that a straw purchaser knows they're breaking the law from the start. Heck, you can even assume that the ones "stolen" are more likely to show up in crimes since they're covering their ass and figuring it'll show up one day at a scene...

[Deadvolcanoes]

What you're talking about is not only stupidity, but insanity. So we pass UBC legislature. Some guy who's not yet a criminal, buys his guns legally after waiting 14 days, then goes on a shooting spree in a gun free zone. Or some guy who just got out on parole, hits up a buddy who can pass a background check, and gets a gun through a straw sale.

You know what, you're right. Let's just continue to make it incredibly easy for criminals to purchase firearms through private sales. There's a gaping hole in the way that firearms are being purchased and sold privately, and you couldn't give two shits.

Armslist connects private sellers with criminals? Fuck it. If we make them submit to a background check they will just get their firearms some other way.

You're basically saying that because there are other ways of obtaining a firearm through straw purchases, we should do absolutely nothing to stop them from obtaining a firearm through private sales. It makes no sense.

It's an unbelievably ridiculous argument to make. We have the ability to make it more difficult and to flat out stop some criminals from obtaining firearms, but you could give two shits. Let's just keep pretending that 600,000 criminals is a small number.

UBC legislation is hopeless and futile AT BEST.

Without a shred of scientific evidence, I'm not sure how you can keep making that claim.

The above is a list of all the people who have gone on shooting sprees since 1997, killing or wounding a significant amount of people.

The large majority of gun violence does not occur from mass shooters. It occurs from your entry level gang members in the inner city. These are the people that I'm concerned about stopping. Not mass shooters with mental illnesses. Though it is important to note that background checks have stopped 10,000 people with mental illnesses in the past 14 years. But that's just a really small percentage so it really doesn't mean jack shit, right?

No amount of background checks will ever be effective enough to warrant their existence, since 99% of all people who have ever submitted to one, have passed it.

99% of criminals that have submitted to background checks, have failed them. That's the only statistic that actually matters.


edit: And you know what, this actually makes me curious about one thing. Currently, there are, give or take, 3 different ways for criminals to obtain firearms: Straw purchases, theft, and private sales. How exactly do you propose stopping criminals from obtaining firearms through private sales?

[Eroginous]

You know what, you're right. Let's just continue to make it incredibly easy for criminals to purchase firearms through private sales. There's a gaping hole in the way that firearms are being purchased and sold privately, and you couldn't give two shits.

If I gave two shits, I would be wasting my time. I can't stop two guys from engaging in a private sale, especially if one of them is a criminal. Even if I implemented UBCs, people would still engage in private sales without even considering them, even though that's not a good enough reason not to pass a law requiring them. What makes it a good enough reason not to pass a law requiring them, is that when criminals buy guns through private sales and/or people just don't do background checks still, WE HAVE NO WAY OF FINDING THESE PEOPLE AND PROSECUTING THEM WITH A CRIME. BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE ALREADY LARGELY NOT PROSECUTED IN THE EVENT THAT A CRIMINAL FAILS ONE, HOW THE FUCK DO YOU EXPECT THAT TO CHANGE WITH UBCS?

Armslist connects private sellers with criminals? Fuck it. If we make them submit to a background check they will just get their firearms some other way.

You cannot make them submit to a background check. The point is that when they don't, nothing is going to happen because no one is going to enforce that law.

You're basically saying that because there are other ways of obtaining a firearm through straw purchases, we should do absolutely nothing to stop them from obtaining a firearm through private sales. It makes no sense.

No, I'm saying that because it so overwhelmingly easy to ignore background checks without any repercussions, it's pointless to pass a law requiring them. Again, if someone refuses to subject a private seller to a background check, no one is going to come along and prosecute that individual for breaking the law.

It's an unbelievably ridiculous argument to make. We have the ability to make it more difficult and to flat out stop some criminals from obtaining firearms, but you could give two shits. Let's just keep pretending that 600,000 criminals is a small number.

The ridiculous argument to make is that throwing paperwork at people who ignore it is a wise use of resources. No prosecution of individuals who avoid background checks = a waste of resources and time. [sarcasm]You're right, 600k refusals out of over 100 million checks is a huge number.[/sarcasm]

Without a shred of scientific evidence, I'm not sure how you can keep making that claim.

Yes, because a growing list of people who go on rampages with guns they obtained DESPITE background checks, is not evidence. Not only do we have that list, we know how many people have guns, how many guns are out there, how many background checks have been done since their implementation, and how many of those were failed by criminals.

So yes, we have all the scientific evidence we need to make the claim about UBCs being futile feel-good bullshit legislation which is not actually intended to accomplish anything.

The large majority of gun violence does not occur from mass shooters. It occurs from your entry level gang members in the inner city. These are the people that I'm concerned about stopping. Not mass shooters with mental illnesses. Though it is important to note that background checks have stopped 10,000 people with mental illnesses in the past 14 years. But that's just a really small percentage so it really doesn't mean jack shit, right?

The whole reason anyone is even talking about UBCs, AWBs, or any other gun legislation, is as a response to mass shootings, with Aurora and Sandy Hook being the most recent tragedies to spark the liberal gun control agenda. Without mass shootings, no one is talking about gun control. It would help gun control greatly if their arguments didn't stem from the mind boggling tragedies that spark them.

99% of criminals that have submitted to background checks, have failed them. That's the only statistic that actually matters.

To you, maybe. Out here in the real world we actually have to assess the bigger picture, where we look at all the variables, not just the ones we like. Using your reasoning, we should just go door to door and confiscate guns, because it will stop 99% of criminals from obtaining them. We don't do that because 99% of gun owners don't deserve to have their guns taken away, and a nation wide gun bad would negatively impact them in an unreasonable way.

edit: And you know what, this actually makes me curious about one thing. Currently, there are, give or take, 3 different ways for criminals to obtain firearms: Straw purchases, theft, and private sales. How exactly do you propose stopping criminals from obtaining firearms through private sales?

You CAN'T, that's the entire point. What you CAN do, is enact legislation that will provide more funds for police departments to hire the manpower to enforce the laws we currently have. Give them the money to investigate and go after straw sales and purchasers. Give them the money to go after illegal arms sales to criminals. Give them the money to go after private sellers who arm criminals.

Because it's already illegal to sell guns in those ways. If you haven't noticed, it goes largely unenforced, which wouldn't change one iota even if UBCs were implemented. You have to actually ENFORCE LAWS FOR THEM TO BE MEANINGFUL.