Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Rukentuts]

If I have the right to own a gun, but you want me to pass all sorts of background checks, how is that not infringing on my rights?

If I have the right to own a gun, but you won't let me own certain types, how is that not infringing on my rights?

If I have the right to own a gun, but you want to charge me with a crime if I don't have it registered in this 'Big Data' type database (your words), how is that not infringing on my rights?

Because SCOTUS has said so. Too bad...

[NYC17]

If I have the right to own a gun, but you want me to pass all sorts of background checks, how is that not infringing on my rights?

If I have the right to own a gun, but you won't let me own certain types, how is that not infringing on my rights?

If I have the right to own a gun, but you want to charge me with a crime if I don't have it registered in this 'Big Data' type database (your words), how is that not infringing on my rights?

No right is absolute. Deal with it.

[PhaelixWW]

Yeah, except it doesn't work this way at all. I don't know what reality you live in.

Yeah, except that's the way it already works in the real world.

They calculate it as a "cost to society."

Yeah, and 92% of that cost to society are the intangible lost wages and pain and suffering. Only 8% of that is actual tangible costs.

Furthermore, I'd put the blame for that societal cost on the shoulders of the criminals who do the act, rather than the tool that is used.

[TZucchini]

If I have the right to own a gun, but you want me to pass all sorts of background checks, how is that not infringing on my rights?

No one wants you to pass "all sorts" of background checks.

One. One single fucking background check. That's it. Then you can have your fun pieces of metal.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, and 92% of that cost to society are the intangible lost wages and pain and suffering. Only 8% of that is actual tangible costs.

Those intangibles are measurable. Whether you like it or not.

Furthermore, I'd put the blame for that societal cost on the shoulders of the criminals who do the act, rather than the tool that is used.

Why not both? IMO, many crimes are much easier to commit with firearms.

The fact of the matter is gun violence costs this country billions of dollars every year.

[Rukentuts]

Yeah, except that's the way it already works in the real world.

Except it's not. Just because you say it doesn't make it so, sorry we don't live in your fantasy land.

[Eroginous]

No one wants you to pass "all sorts" of background checks.

One. One single fucking background check. That's it. Then you can have your fun pieces of metal.

Actually, it's a background check every time you even think about purchasing a firearm.

It's only one single background check if you only ever plan on buying one gun.

No right is absolute. Deal with it.

Of course they aren't. But if I have the right to own a gun, it's not really a right anymore if you put it through the wringer of all these regulations and stipulations.

[TZucchini]

Actually, it's a background check every time you even think about purchasing a firearm.

Don't be silly. No ones going to subject you to a background check just for thinking.

But yeah. One purchase, one background check. Is there a problem with that? Should we just background check them once, and then 10 years later, just assume they didn't commit any crimes?

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Of course they aren't. But if I have the right to own a gun, it's not really a right anymore if you put it through the wringer of all these regulations and stipulations.

Unfortunately for you, the Constitution disagrees as do I. Like I said before, inb4slipperyslopefallacies.

[NYC17]

Of course they aren't. But if I have the right to own a gun, it's not really a right anymore if you put it through the wringer of all these regulations and stipulations.

It doesn't cease being a right because it has restrictions. That's the idea behind no absolute right.

[Ghostpanther]

Nice, your second amendment just killed a dude in a movie theatre for sending a text. You must love your country. How does it feel to be insane?

- - - Updated - - -



The article is rather silly. And the last point especially is doubly so. Hunters in Germany buy weapons, they have licenses, they don't just find them growing on trees. So there are hunting shops, big deal. But there is no group wanking over weapons, nor is there some religious belief that weapons are good or that everyone should own one. There's a level of insanity going on in the US that doesn't compare to anything else.

The second amendment has let many people save their lives too. But those are usually overlooked and never mentioned by the anti-gun folks. What I feel in the US is.....freedom. If you think it is so bad here, then stay out. It is already overcrowded.

[PhaelixWW]

Those intangibles are measurable. Whether you like it or not.

Earlier ITT I showed you that the annual medical costs for firearms was much smaller than many other causes. My point is that if you were to add those same intangibles to the other categories, then you'd most likely also reach staggeringly inflated "societal costs".

Of course, with firearms, we're talking a higher percentage of fatalities vs. injuries than most other categories, so I can see how the relative cost of lost wages and pain and suffering would be higher. Tobacco use and alcohol use, on the other hand, each have a higher societal cost than firearms.

And with firearms, the cost is almost always due to a crime, and thus a criminal. (see next point...)

Why not both? IMO, many crimes are much easier to commit with firearms.

When a crime is involved, I'd basically always blame the agent instead of the tool, that's the distinction. If an item causes harm merely by its presence, then you can blame the item. If the item only causes harm only when specifically directed to by human intent or gross negligence, then I'd blame the human.

And honestly, 99.9% of firearms are never used to harm a human being.

Except it's not. Just because you say it doesn't make it so, sorry we don't live in your fantasy land.

Except that this is precisely the way records are kept and traces are done. Feel free to prove that you've worked for an FFL before and have any idea of what you're talking about.

[Rukentuts]

Except that this is precisely the way records are kept and traces are done. Feel free to prove that you've worked for an FFL before and have any idea of what you're talking about.

You want me to prove a system that doesn't exist, indeed doesn't exist?

I don't know why you persist in this thread when you've thoroughly demonstrated you don't know what you're talking about.

[PhaelixWW]

You want me to prove a system that doesn't exist, indeed doesn't exist?

I'm talking about the system that already exists. Allow me to refresh your memory:

It's a system that currently works just fine in a mostly paper database, based on a uniformity of data collected, and the requirement of a single record being needed at a time, requested by a single authority. It's not a complex system. It's large, but relatively easy to manage.

Easy to manage. LOL!

The system has worked for decades with paper records and phone calls. It's not difficult to manage. Each manufacturer/importer/FFL has a separate database. The entry for one firearm in one leads directly to the entry in the subsequent database in the chain of custody. It's not rocket science. It doesn't need to be one big centralized database to be effective.

Yeah, except it doesn't work this way at all. I don't know what reality you live in.

Yeah, except that's the way it already works in the real world.

Except it's not. Just because you say it doesn't make it so, sorry we don't live in your fantasy land.

So... once again, I'm describing the way the system works right now. If you're talking something hypothetical, that doesn't exist, then doesn't that mean that you're the one in a fantasy land? Or are you trying to claim that FFLs aren't required to keep records? Or that gun traces don't happen?

[Rukentuts]

So... once again, I'm describing the way the system works right now. If you're talking something hypothetical, that doesn't exist, then doesn't that mean that you're the one in a fantasy land? Or are you trying to claim that FFLs aren't required to keep records? Or that gun traces don't happen?

No proof of that. Just like you can't give an example of "abuse". It's really time for you to embrace reality.

[PhaelixWW]

No proof of that.

I think your credibility just hit rock bottom.

No proof that FFLs are required to keep detailed records?

27 CFR
Title 27: Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
PART 478—COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION
Subpart H—Records
§478.125 Record of receipt and disposition.
(e) Firearms receipt and disposition by dealers. Except as provided in §478.124a with respect to alternate records for the receipt and disposition of firearms by dealers, each licensed dealer shall enter into a record each receipt and disposition of firearms. In addition, before commencing or continuing a firearms business, each licensed dealer shall inventory the firearms possessed for such business and shall record same in the record required by this paragraph. The record required by this paragraph shall be maintained in bound form under the format prescribed below. The purchase or other acquisition of a firearm shall, except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, be recorded not later than the close of the next business day following the date of such purchase or acquisition. The record shall show the date of receipt, the name and address or the name and license number of the person from whom received, the name of the manufacturer and importer (if any), the model, serial number, type, and the caliber or gauge of the firearm. The sale or other disposition of a firearm shall be recorded by the licensed dealer not later than 7 days following the date of such transaction. When such disposition is made to a nonlicensee, the firearms transaction record, Form 4473, obtained by the licensed dealer shall be retained, until the transaction is recorded, separate from the licensee's Form 4473 file and be readily available for inspection. When such disposition is made to a licensee, the commercial record of the transaction shall be retained, until the transaction is recorded, separate from other commercial documents maintained by the licensed dealer, and be readily available for inspection. The record shall show the date of the sale or other disposition of each firearm, the name and address of the person to whom the firearm is transferred, or the name and license number of the person to whom transferred if such person is a licensee, or the firearms transaction record, Form 4473, serial number if the licensed dealer transferring the firearm serially numbers the Forms 4473 and files them numerically.

No proof that gun traces occur?

What is a firearms trace?
A firearms trace is the systematic tracking of the movement of a firearm recovered by law enforcement officials, beginning with its importation into, or its manufacture in, the United States through the distribution chain of Federal firearms licensees to the point of its first retail sale.

What is the firearms trace process?
The firearms tracing process is focused research, using records required to be kept by federally licensed firearms dealers, to determine the origin of a firearm recovered by law enforcement. The process ends when the first retail purchaser of the firearm is identified.
...
In particular, businesses licensed to deal in firearms were required to maintain records of their firearm transactions at their place of business and to provide information from their records to ATF pursuant to a firearms trace request.

No proof that the FFL is required by law to respond to a trace request quickly?

Section 13.7 Reporting information in response to ATF trace requests.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) requires an FFL to respond immediately, and in no event later than 24 hours after the receipt of, to a request by an ATF officer at the National Tracing Center (NTC) for information contained in the FFL’s required GCA records for determining the disposition of one or more firearms in the course of a bona fide criminal investigation. (See 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(7) and 27 CFR 478.25a). The requested information must be provided orally to the ATF officer within the 24-hour period.

18 USC
Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 44 - FIREARMS
§923. Licensing
(g)(7) Each licensee shall respond immediately to, and in no event later than 24 hours after the receipt of, a request by the Attorney General for information contained in the records required to be kept by this chapter as may be required for determining the disposition of 1 or more firearms in the course of a bona fide criminal investigation. The requested information shall be provided orally or in writing, as the Attorney General may require. The Attorney General shall implement a system whereby the licensee can positively identify and establish that an individual requesting information via telephone is employed by and authorized by the agency to request such information.

Yeah, I apparently have no proof at all that this is the way the system works today.

[Rukentuts]

Yeah, I apparently have no proof at all that this is the way the system works today.

Are you even aware that Executive and Legislative Branches are separate? And you still seem to be confusing "trace", again. You really should know what you're talking about.

PS: I'm still waiting for "abuse" proof, with baited breath.

[cuafpr]

No right is absolute. Deal with it.

its funny how that logic doesn't carry over to voter ID laws.....

[Rukentuts]

its funny how that logic doesn't carry over to voter ID laws.....

Yes, that's why SCOTUS has ruled positive on gun control, but courts are throwing voter IDs out left and right...

[PhaelixWW]

Are you even aware that Executive and Legislative Branches are separate?

Nice. Introduce a complete non sequitur instead of an actual rebuttal.

And you still seem to be confusing "trace", again. You really should know what you're talking about.

I am, and always have been, talking about the current method of firearm traces. And despite my efforts to reiterate that this is what I'm talking about, I have the feeling that you're in la-la land and trying to talk about something completely different.

Your apparent obtuseness and attempted obfuscation certainly indicate thus.

PS: I'm still waiting for "abuse" proof, with baited breath.

Your breath can continue to be bated. I've said several times that I refuse to run down a tangent argument that I feel certain you'll attempt to start if I enumerate the potential abuses. Said abuses aren't likely, especially in the short run, but the threat is unable to be mitigated once the data is compiled, and the potentials tend to accumulate in the long run, so it behooves us to consider them as important to resist except as a last resort. And this is not a last resort.

Government monitoring vs. privacy is hardly a new or remotely settled debate.

[cuafpr]

I have no issues with back ground checks.... Though b4 new laws are passed I think we should try using the ones we have on the books first. I also find it amusing that people want to ban guns that are rarely used in crimes. Its like if 20 people are all killed in one on location at once via an "AR" type rifle its somehow worse than 20 people killed over the course of a month with a hand gun. (numbers totally made up).

A simple back ground check with each person is all you need, once done ok person gets a weapon yay for them. No need for a national DB on that on gun or how many X person owns, its their right.

My comment about voter ID is aimed at the crowd that crys fowl over any perceived infringement on a person's right to vote, which ID laws don't really do but that's another thread, but yet those some of those same people don't have issue with infringing on the 2nd amendment.