Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Mayhem]

Are you fucking kidding? 16.6 million US people were victims of identity theft in 2012, according to the DOJ.

Yes, it appears you have a very loose association with reality.

In 2012, the misuse or attempted misuse of an existing account was the most common type of identity theft — experienced by 15.3 million people. An estimated 7.7 million people reported the fraudulent use of a credit card and 7.5 million reported the fraudulent use of a bank account such as a debit, checking or savings account. Another 1.1 million persons had their information misused to open a new account, and about 833,600 persons had their information misused for other fraudulent purposes.

Not really what we´re talking about now are we? We´re talking about to counterfeit an ID and you bring up cases of people getting their credit card information stolen. You know why that´s a stupid comparison? Because there´s nothing that links your credit card to yourself. Credit cards are not an ID.

Jesus...

The human investigation of errors and inconsistencies found by the automated searches.

The searches that happen when they try to figure out if the person turning 18 can be given a "Gunownership" ID and whether everyone over 18 can keep their "Gunownership" ID's.

Everyone over 18 has to keep their ID´s, they are used for identification to provide proof that they are allowed to own and buy a gun. You obviously don´t grasp the concept of an ID. There are no more searches involved unless someone want´s to buy a gun. And for everyone below 18 it´s a onetime background check

[PhaelixWW]

Not really what we´re talking about now are we? We´re talking about to counterfeit an ID and you bring up cases of people getting their credit card information stolen. You know why that´s a stupid comparison? Because there´s nothing that links your credit card to yourself. Credit cards are not an ID.

Well for starters, you clearly didn't read what I said. I said:

4) nobody was ever able to forge an ID or steal someone's identity...

Notice how I said "or" there. So I was talking about them as separate things.

But you know, they're often not. Here's some information that might surprise you:

In a classic example of synthetic identity fraud, fraudsters create fake IDs to obtain credit cards, diligently pay their bills for years and keep getting the credit limit raised. Once they've reached a certain threshold (say $50,000), they do a "bust out," where they take out a cash advance for $49,000 and skip town.

According to the Federal Trade Commission, synthetic identity theft accounts for nearly 85% of the more than 16 million ID thefts in the U.S. each year.

Do you honestly think counterfeit ID's are rare? How incredibly naive.

On top of that, there are multiple state ID's. So someone could commit a crime in one state, where it's linked to that state ID, and then later try to buy a firearm in another state, with a completely different ID. So there will be attempts made to determine if those two ID's belong to the same person or different people.

There are no more searches involved unless someone want´s to buy a gun. And for everyone below 18 it´s a onetime background check

Well, that ignores your whole idea of "it gives them more time for the search", now doesn't it? Because now you're talking about simply doing the search when they try to buy a gun. That's no different from how it is now. Actually, it's still worse because now you're wasting time and money with background checks on all new 18-year-olds.

[Mayhem]

Well for starters, you clearly didn't read what I said. I said:

Notice how I said "or" there. So I was talking about them as separate things.

But you know, they're often not. Here's some information that might surprise you:

That link directly contradicts your other link. So which one do you want to take now to support your point, the one that says out of 16 mio identity thefts 15 mio are stolen credit card/debit card information (with a real person behind) or 88% are made up people.

Do you honestly think counterfeit ID's are rare? How incredibly naive.

On top of that, there are multiple state ID's. So someone could commit a crime in one state, where it's linked to that state ID, and then later try to buy a firearm in another state, with a completely different ID. So there will be attempts made to determine if those two ID's belong to the same person or different people.

Are you deliberatly doing this? And the great thing about this federal ID, it´s federal. You have to provide it when you commited a crime. And of course you have to provide this federal ID when you´re purchasing a gun.

Well, that ignores your whole idea of "it gives them more time for the search", now doesn't it? Because now you're talking about simply doing the search when they try to buy a gun. That's no different from how it is now. Actually, it's still worse because now you're wasting time and money with background checks on all new 18-year-olds.

I´m not NOW talking about that, that´s what i was talking about the whole time. It gives more time for the background check because that needs to be done only once, prior to the person turning 18. There´s no search when buying a gun, because the background check has already been done. All the information linking to that person is at hand, instant. You go to the store, provide your federal ID, the store owner enters your information into the system, gets a "OK" or "not OK" and done.

[Deleted]

Voted no.

The question isn't really about gun control, it's rather about gun centralization. You are going to need guns to disarm the populace. If you are for gun "control" you are basically saying is that guns owned by the public are bad, but guns owned by the government are good. Now they've just created conflicting moral standards for two different groups of people who are essentially not different by anything apart from the imaginary concept of the state. People often complain about the high amount of violent crime in the U.S., but this is not due to gun ownership. In fact, more guns would be necessary. It is more of a cultural problem. U.S. has a huge problem with police brutality as well. In fact, conviction rates for firearm violations between private gun owners and police are almost exactly the same.

Disarming the citizenry has throughout history been one of ths first things dictators do. No good will really come of this.
Now, why we need guns is that they do prevent crime. Statistics show that people who defend themselves with a gun lose less property and suffer less injuries than people who don't. In these cases, even the criminal is injured less, because the gun functions mainly as an intimidation. In the vast majority of preveted crime cases where a gun is present, it is not even fired in the first place. Why did the USSR and America not go into war? Both had nuclear weapons.

Desire for a criminal to have a gun will go up as population is disarmed. All these mass shooting in malls, schools etc. occur in those places because thay are gun-free zones. The Aurora shooter, for example, had 7 theaters to choose from. He didn't go to the nearest one, but rather to the one which had clear no-gun signs in it. In the U.S. since 1960, all shooting apart from only two exceptions have taken place in gun-free zones.

U.S. states with a right to carry laws also have a lower crime rate. If you look at Boston, it has the strictest gun control laws, and yet the ighest amount of school shootings. What few seem to know is that there was a federal ban on assault weapons from 1994 to 2004, which didn't inpact on school shooting rates. In Australia, when guns were banned crime rates increased by 50% overnight.

It is a myth that gun control laws really reduce gun violence. This has been also debunked by studies. (Center for Disease Control in 2003, National Academy of Science a year later) so just because the government passes a law, doesn't mean the problem is solved.

One possible explanation for the high crime rate in the U.S. is the war veterans from various wars. Several studies have shown that war veterans commit a disproportionally high amount of crime, especially child abuse and domestic violence. People who have then beed abused as a child commit more violent crime than people who haven't. Veterans are of course also more likely to fall into alcoholism. The high amount of single mothers in the U.S. might also have to do with this.

Just my 2 cents.

[TITAN308]

Big surprise;

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...ibited-person/

So from the reports, what we have here is Herr Houser — a certifiable, Hitler-admiring, family outcast who couldn’t legally own firearms — walking into a gun-free zone and opening fire. Because of his involuntary commitment and order of protection, he couldn’t legally own firearms.

All the laws in the US didn't stop him. So what do we need? More gun laws of course!

In other breaking news (/sarcasm) 100% of killers have mental health problems.

[TZucchini]

All the laws in the US didn't stop him. So what do we need? More gun laws of course!

Initial reports are that the shooter purchased the gun legally. If that's true, then somethings wrong. Someone that was committed, with a criminal history, whose family reported him as being a disturbed individual, was able to legally purchase firearms.

Will have to wait and see if there is more information.

[TITAN308]

Initial reports are that the shooter purchased the gun legally. If that's true, then somethings wrong. Someone that was committed, with a criminal history, whose family reported him as being a disturbed individual, was able to legally purchase firearms.

Will have to wait and see if there is more information.

Was't this also the case with the Charleston shooter? Sounds like a massive failure of the existing system.

I honestly hope people who are anti-gun will focus their disdain and rage at the proper source, getting our existing system operating correctly.

Believe me, we hate the ATF as much as you guys. Its not fun for our side when shit like this happens believe it or not.

[TZucchini]

Was't this also the case with the Charleston shooter? Sounds like a massive failure of the existing system.

The Charleston shooter was able to legally purchase his weapon because of the default proceed stipulation. It's completely legal.

But I'd agree that allowing a purchase without a completed background check is a "massive failure of the existing system".

[echoSAW]

I voted "No" mostly because I doubt that lawmakers who would be likely to go along with an "assault weapon" ban would be the least likely to actually understand what an "assault weapon" is, because it's a fairly ambiguous concept to begin with.

That being said, it seems most laws trying to "control" guns do little more than make lawmakers and the general public feel good that the law exists. The practicality of enforcing the laws, along with the highly charged emotional aspect of the whole debate, make this subject little more than a political wedge issue.

[TITAN308]

As long as we are clear that the background check failing to complete and allowing the purchase to go through after the hold is purely the fault of the government system that runs it.

This failure should in no way be put upon the shoulders of the pro-firearm crowd or even the dealer for that matter.

[Dethh]

Initial reports are that the shooter purchased the gun legally.

I am failing to see that he bought it legally unless I missed it. All I saw was "John Russell Houser, 59, bought the Hi-Point .40-caliber handgun at a pawn shop in Phenix City, Alabama, in February of 2014, Lafayette Police Chief Jim Craft said at a news conference. He was denied a concealed carry permit in Alabama because of prior arrests in connection with an arson plot and domestic violence, Russell County Sheriff Heath Taylor said Friday."

Is it possible the pawn shop sold him the gun illegally?

[TITAN308]

I voted "No" mostly because I doubt that lawmakers who would be likely to go along with an "assault weapon" ban would be the least likely to actually understand what an "assault weapon" is, because it's a fairly ambiguous concept to begin with.

That being said, it seems most laws trying to "control" guns do little more than make lawmakers and the general public feel good that the law exists. The practicality of enforcing the laws, along with the highly charged emotional aspect of the whole debate, make this subject little more than a political wedge issue.

They already did an "assault weapons ban" from 1994 to 2004 - it was not renewed because it basically did basically nothing. Zero. Nada. Politicians learned a valuable lesson on that one and it would be political suicide to re-attempt it.

Weapons like the AR-15 account for some absurdly small number of total "gun crimes" in the USA. I am talking less than 1%.

Most criminal activity with guns involves shitty "throw away" guns as we call them. Like cheap .380's and .25 caliber pistols / revolvers.

We are talking guns that cost less than $200 BRAND NEW.

[echoSAW]

I am failing to see that he bought it legally unless I missed it. All I saw was "John Russell Houser, 59, bought the Hi-Point .40-caliber handgun at a pawn shop in Phenix City, Alabama, in February of 2014, Lafayette Police Chief Jim Craft said at a news conference. He was denied a concealed carry permit in Alabama because of prior arrests in connection with an arson plot and domestic violence, Russell County Sheriff Heath Taylor said Friday."

Is it possible the pawn shop sold him the gun illegally?

While it's possible, I doubt there would be much record of the sale if it was illegal. And since they can't ask the guy himself at this point, there must have been some sort of record.

[TITAN308]

I am failing to see that he bought it legally unless I missed it. All I saw was "John Russell Houser, 59, bought the Hi-Point .40-caliber handgun at a pawn shop in Phenix City, Alabama, in February of 2014, Lafayette Police Chief Jim Craft said at a news conference. He was denied a concealed carry permit in Alabama because of prior arrests in connection with an arson plot and domestic violence, Russell County Sheriff Heath Taylor said Friday."

Is it possible the pawn shop sold him the gun illegally?

However he obtained the firearm, he broke the law in doing so.

[echoSAW]

They already did an "assault weapons ban" from 1994 to 2004 - it was not renewed because it basically did basically nothing. Zero. Nada. Politicians learned a valuable lesson on that one and it would be political suicide to re-attempt it.

Weapons like the AR-15 account for some absurdly small number of total "gun crimes" in the USA. I am talking less than 1%.

Most criminal activity with guns involves shitty "throw away" guns as we call them. Like cheap .380's and .25 caliber pistols.

We are talking guns that cost less than $200 BRAND NEW.

Yes, the whole assault weapon ban was nothing more than a sideshow involving "scary" looking guns and political grandstanding. Along with other reasons, I suspect the low percentage of gun crime with those types of weapons could be due the relatively higher cost and difficulty in concealing long guns vs hand guns.

[TITAN308]

This is a good website (references are at the bottom I believe for their data):

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control...sault-weapons/

It really is a cluster fuck of stupid shit when it comes to "assault weapons".

[Dethh]

http://i.imgur.com/9fykP.jpg
https://www.reddit.com/r/Art/comment...s_on_the_wall/

[PhaelixWW]

The Charleston shooter was able to legally purchase his weapon because of the default proceed stipulation.

The Charleston shooter was able to purchase his weapon because the ATF didn't have the phone number of the arresting police department on their call list.

It wasn't a fault of the default proceed.

[Zoranon]

Some good news for a change is in order I think: Even the very anti gun Washington post has to admit things are not going well for the hoplophobes: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...61438024947808

[Tinykong]

"More guns" isn't the answer to any question that anyone is asking.