Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Svifnymr]

also a street buy seems to be not illegal as it was street buy/illegal and even mentioned street buy or illegal source

street/ illegal source:
1)Theft (we can assume this is direct theft by criminal)
2)Drug Dealer/ Off street (we can assume this means the criminal bought it from a non-organized vendor of illegal goods. We don't know original source though.)
3)Fence/ Black Market (we can assume this means the criminal bought it from a reseller of illegal goods for whom that is his sole business rather than a one-off side thing like #2)

Those are my theories anyway, but it doesn't help us pinpoint any source of the gun, really. If Bob bought a gun legally at a dealer, traded it for crack, but his crack dealer got robbed and the thief sold it to a black market guy who gave it to his cousin, it really help much of anything to know his cousin bought it from a black market dealer.

[Tinykong]

and that has what to do with the statistics?

again if you have recent numbers that would be great, if not you´re just making the assumtion that the statistics are different now, because!

No, I'm telling you that because prison populations are different, and crime rates are different, your conclusion about 2014 based on data from 1991-1997 is erroneous.

[MasterOfNone]

and that has what to do with the statistics?

again if you have recent numbers that would be great, if not you´re just making the assumtion that the statistics are different now, because!

- - - Updated - - -



making it harder to get guns by other means than the black market will increase pricing which will be another deterrent

possibly, but that should be a price some should be willing to pay to help the situation. i just personally think people should be a little more responsible when selling guns. in my state especially no requirement is law when selling a gun privately. no u are not supposed to purchase a gun as a felon privately or even sell it, but there is really no way to prove the person is a law abiding citizen (buyer) either.

[Svifnymr]

true in which case i would agree with a piece of legislation making that a requirement.

As I said, a voluntary background check system accessible to anyone, would mean someone selling to someone they don't know would have a recourse to make sure the person was not a criminal.

SV: i agreed it might hinder but do less good than a possible proposed legislation for even used gun sales to be registered by law and conducted accordingly

That was the point of the other part of that post, a registration system won't stop most of the transactions simply because they're already illegal and the participants know it. More guns being reported stolen would be the direct result.

To reduce the instances of inadvertently selling a gun to a criminal when you don't know it, a voluntary system would give you the capability without this huge gun debate about rights and such.

[MasterOfNone]

As I said, a voluntary background check system accessible to anyone, would mean someone selling to someone they don't know would have a recourse to make sure the person was not a criminal.



That was the point of the other part of that post, a registration system won't stop most of the transactions simply because they're already illegal and the participants know it. More guns being reported stolen would be the direct result.

To reduce the instances of inadvertently selling a gun to a criminal when you don't know it, a voluntary system would give you the capability without this huge gun debate about rights and such.

a decent idea but a voluntary system doesnt seem that it would be effective. we live in a lazy age of people. unless it was enforced somehow it just seems somewhat pointless to me. the responsible gun owners who WOULD care about such a thing (as i think is a great idea) are a vast minority and it would have no impact or meaningful effect.

[Mayhem]

That was the point of the other part of that post, a registration system won't stop most of the transactions simply because they're already illegal and the participants know it. More guns being reported stolen would be the direct result.

i kind of think that would ring some bells unless it´s a one time only thing

[Svifnymr]

possibly, but that should be a price some should be willing to pay to help the situation. i just personally think people should be a little more responsible when selling guns. in my state especially no requirement is law when selling a gun privately. no u are not supposed to purchase a gun as a felon privately or even sell it, but there is really no way to prove the person is a law abiding citizen (buyer) either.

Right now, you can take your gun to a dealer and have him complete the sale for you. The Universal Background Check law basically required you to take a gun to a dealer to have him complete the sale. So if I want to sell a gun to my buddy who has a concealed weapons license, we would need to go to a dealer and have him complete the sale (which in many states would require no background check since he has a cwl, but in florida it does).

If I had access to a NICS website, which allowed me to put in the persons information and get a "proceed" (if good) or "see a dealer" (if any question about background) response, then when selling to a stranger I would have easy access to a way to make sure I'm doing the right thing.

(as it stands now, I only sell guns to someone I personally know who has a CWL or I sell to a dealer or online through a dealer)


But again, this is for someone that honestly does not know he would be selling to a criminal. In most straw purchase cases this is not true. The opposite is true. So not only would they not use a voluntary system, they would lie on a mandatory system and the extra inconvenience for law abiding folks would do nothing to hinder the sales.

[Mayhem]

But again, this is for someone that honestly does not know he would be selling to a criminal. In most straw purchase cases this is not true. The opposite is true. So not only would they not use a voluntary system, they would lie on a mandatory system and the extra inconvenience for law abiding folks would do nothing to hinder the sales.

at least it would raise the prices for guns on the black market

[Svifnymr]

i kind of think that would ring some bells unless it´s a one time only thing

Definetly, would ring all sorts of bells...

And then what?

It's anecdotal, obviously, and you can call me a cynic, but I've worked with ATF agents and I've seen how they work. When you have someone straw purchasing for resale, even without the report of a stolen gun, they KNOW who they are. ATF wants to build a big case. They want to be in the newspaper with a picture of 100 guns seized, they don't give a care about the guy that resold 10 guns on the streets of Miami unless one of those guns turns up in something high profile.

The "more guns reported stolen" also happened in a small study from California. They have mandatory laws for private transfers. So for half the purchasers during a time period, they sent them letters saying "we know you bought a gun and remember that you have to report any change in ownership". The guys that got the letter were 2-3 times more likely to report a gun stolen.

[Mayhem]

i think the ATF is run bad and grossly underfunded

[Svifnymr]

at least it would raise the prices for guns on the black market

Raise prices for everyone so that it raises prices for criminals is one of the things most gun rights folks would like to avoid. Especially when there's no direct relationship.

Another thing I thought of was changing the straw purchase penalty. Right now it's a felony, 10 years/ $10,000 IIRC. This means folks defend against it to the utmost. It might seem counter intuitive, but if it was $1000 fine and 1 year, would it make the case easier to prosecute? At the same time, the guy reselling the gun isn't making $1000 on the sale most likely, so now it's less profitable for them by far. Again, it's not about going easier on the criminal. If they were prosecuting every straw purchaser for $10,000 it would be fine, but they're not. So how can we change that?


Either way, it wouldn't affect stolen guns. For that I stick to my subsidized gun safes idea.

[Mayhem]

Raise prices for everyone so that it raises prices for criminals is one of the things most gun rights folks would like to avoid. Especially when there's no direct relationship.

not really what i was going at, less guns on the black market will raise prices for guns on the black market significantly, not that every gun sale will be more expensive, why would it? obviously universal background check and registration should be free at least

[Tinykong]

i think the ATF is run bad and grossly underfunded

If you ask me, ATF needs to be broken into AT and F, with the AT part being overseen by someone else. The days of moonshiners and mafia thugs peddling stolen cigarettes are long gone.

[Svifnymr]

i think the ATF is run bad and grossly underfunded

The ATF has a problem, it's got an identity crisis. It was a part of the department of the treasury. It was designed to collect taxes and enforce paperwork in an age when paperwork was pretty easy. The Secret Service investigates counterfeiting, but do they need strike teams to do so?

The ATF wants to be the FBI. They want high profile, they want agents dressed in flak vests and rifles. If you look at Sandyhook, you'll see pictures of those ATF guys, who showed up how many hours after everything was done?

ATF examiners are not in many cases cops. An ATF examiner once told me a story of almost getting robbed, but the dealer he was inspecting scared off the guy. The examiners are not allowed to carry guns, they are not trained in any observational skills, they're just paperwork guys.

The NFA registry (which I believe is still part of Treasury rather than Justice, but I could be wrong) gets $200 for a transfer and is backlogged for months. They have maybe a dozen examiners, even that due to recently adding more.


My point is, the ATF shouldn't have been folded into Justice. Their duties should be split between examiners that do the paperwork stuff and their field duties should go to the FBI. There's no reason for the ATF to be funded for enforcement duties that they already can't handle correctly, IMO.

[Mayhem]

If you ask me, ATF needs to be broken into AT and F, with the AT part being overseen by someone else. The days of moonshiners and mafia thugs peddling stolen cigarettes are long gone.

could not agree with you more

[Svifnymr]

not really what i was going at, less guns on the black market will raise prices for guns on the black market significantly, not that every gun sale will be more expensive, why would it? obviously universal background check and registration should be free at least

National Instant Check System (NICS) is free to users, but of course that doesn't mean free to operate. The NRA once supported expanding NICS, but pulled back when budget problems and other issues came up.

Florida is a "point of contact", so background checks go through Florida then to NICS. There are also some things in FL that disqualify a person that the national system wouldn't disqualify, so this works. Cost is currently $5, which is reasonable enough and is actually lower than when first introduced as they reexamine it sometimes.

Other states vary. As I said the originally proposed UBC law was simply a "take your gun to a dealer" law, which costs time/money in travel expenses and a dealer fee. Normal fee around here is $20-30, I think CA mandates that it be $10, but that seems unfair to a dealer that he can't set his own prices. Whatever either way I guess.

Without a registration, universal background checks wouldn't really be enforceable for a while after it became law, too many guns already out there. Registration itself we've discussed before, but the costs in time and money would probably be huge, so then it becomes a matter of who pays it. Maybe you think it should be free, but most anti-gun folks would want it as expensive as possible.

[Mayhem]

Maybe you think it should be free, but most anti-gun folks would want it as expensive as possible.

i´m not one of those

[PhaelixWW]

As I said the originally proposed UBC law was simply a "take your gun to a dealer" law, which costs time/money in travel expenses and a dealer fee. Normal fee around here is $20-30, I think CA mandates that it be $10, but that seems unfair to a dealer that he can't set his own prices. Whatever either way I guess.

California has a $25 background check fee. There's also a mandatory dealer fee of $10 for a private party transfer, so the minimum for a private party transfer is $35.

Then again, many dealers employ other methods (paperwork fees, storage fees, etc.) in order to increase their take. $10 for a process that takes half an hour to an hour + 10 days of storage and the potential liability for said firearm while in possession is pretty paltry.

[Wildtree]

82 shot, 14 fatally...... quite a track record....
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-8...end-shootings/

[Eroginous]

82 shot, 14 fatally...... quite a track record....
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-8...end-shootings/

Only 14 fatalities? I thought firearms were point and click massacre weapons?

It's called controlling variables to isolate them.

By 'controlling,' you mean 'excluding relevant data that skews your desired results?'

Yes we all know controlling variables really means cooking the books.

When you've repeatedly argued for arbitrarily excluding certain data under the guise of 'controlling variables,' that's exactly what it means.

Yeah silly me for not thinking raw data means anything in an experimental sense.

I'll try one last time to explain to you why your use of the term 'raw data' is not useful. Bob wants to do a study on how often guns leave the possession of the person who legally obtained it. He sets out the following study parameters: stolen guns, lost guns, confiscated guns, legally transferred guns, and illegally transferred guns. He then calls 3000 random people asking the following questions:

1. Do you or have you ever owned a firearm?

2. Do you still own that firearm?

3. If not, was that firearm stolen, lost, confiscated?

4. If the firearm was sold, traded, or gifted, was the recipient legally able to possess a firearm?

Obviously, there are a lot of data points for this study. So Bob proceeds to call two different groups of 3000 randomly selected people, carefully recording the results of their conversations. When he's finished, he has a rather large chunk of raw data.

My question to you is this: How does this data change in a meaningful way after it's been analyzed, organized, and presented in a readable study format?

See, the problem is that the data is raw when Bob gathers it, but somehow becomes 'controlled' later on, even though the data itself has not changed. And then you want to come along and make this distinction between 'raw data' and 'controlled data' as if you're somehow achieving something that isn't possible without manipulating the data a certain way.

That's why we have such a problem with the repeated overuse of these useless terms.

also a street buy seems to be not illegal as it was street buy/illegal and even mentioned street buy or illegal source

I think the point is that no matter what, the person receiving the firearm is what determines the legality of the transaction taking place, no matter if it's a street buy, straw sale, or whatever other contrived scenario you wish to discuss. You guys repeatedly ignore the people involved and the existing laws so you can focus on firearms and types of sales, which is the entirely wrong way to address the situation. It's already illegal for a prohibited person to own a firearm, no matter how he obtained it or where it came from.

Also as a quick aside, the deadliest school massacre wasn't even committed with guns. It was done with explosives (guns weren't even present). So arguing for legislation based on the severity of an incident is probably not very wise.