Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Deadvolcanoes]

Because you keep making the claim of "background checks stop criminals from getting guns" when that's inaccurate, it is a subset of the whole. I know what you're saying, but it just leads to folks "correcting" you over and over while you repeat yourself rather than clarifying the statement.

"Background checks stop criminals from getting guns" is not inaccurate, it's an absolute fact.

It's not my fault if people read that statement as "Background checks stop all criminals from getting guns." I shouldn't have to clarify myself just because certain people (not you) are getting all hot and bothered by things that I'm not saying.



Your experience with online gun sales is interesting. And the figure about 40% of purchases occurring without a background check did indeed only have 251 answers out of the 2,500 households asked, so I'll agree it's a pretty terrible number. Not completely useless, but also not completely useful.

You didn't answer the one question I was interested in most. Do you support background checks between unlicensed private buyers and sellers?

[lockedout]

IF you walk into a knife store clearly deranged or in a rage and they sell you a knife and you go stab someone they can be sued for negligence, as they should be.

But if I walk into a gun store and tell the guy "im going to use this to shoot someone" and he still sells it to me he can't be sued for negligence.

GG NRA

Common sense would say not to sell to the deranged person in the gun store who is telling you they are going to shoot someone with the gun.
If you did however sell it to this person how would anyone prove you had prior knowledge of what he was going to do?

---------- Post added 2013-03-23 at 10:31 PM ----------

Do you support background checks between unlicensed private buyers and sellers?

If they had background checks the sales would't be so private.

[smelltheglove]

You didn't answer the one question I was interested in most. Do you support background checks between unlicensed private buyers and sellers?

way way back in the thread he detailed a plan (that will never happen) that i really liked. part of it involved basically having a "gun license" that one could show to a seller, and penalties for the seller failing to ask for said license

[lockedout]

way way back in the thread he detailed a plan (that will never happen) that i really liked. part of it involved basically having a "gun license" that one could show to a seller, and penalties for the seller failing to ask for said license

How would you enforce that law?

[smelltheglove]

How would you enforce that law?

his plan was quite long and detailed, and iirc he did address that, but it's been a while, and i dont want to misattribute something to him

[Deadvolcanoes]

If they had background checks the sales would't be so private.

Yeah they would. The sale or transfer would still be between private citizens, it would just require a background check. Could probably go to your local police department, submit to one, then complete the sale.

[Svifnymr]

"Background checks stop criminals from getting guns" is not inaccurate, it's an absolute fact.

It's not my fault if people read that statement as "Background checks stop all criminals from getting guns." I shouldn't have to clarify myself just because certain people (not you) are getting all hot and bothered by things that I'm not saying.

It becomes your fault after page 2 of the side debate. :-p

You didn't answer the one question I was interested in most. Do you support background checks between unlicensed private buyers and sellers?

I think at a bare minimum, they need to draft a system where a private individual CAN do a background check/ transfer without involving a dealer. Right now, if me and you work togethor and I mention I'm getting rid of my Beretta, and you want to buy it, we can just change money and write a receipt if we feel like it, but I can't do a background check on you. We could go pay a dealer $30 or whatever to do it, but that brings in many other things (both of us going to the dealer, waiting periods and whatever, depending on local laws).

Next tier would be what we actually have in some counties of Florida, no private sales on public access property (ala gunshows) unless the buyer has a concealed weapons license. Obviously you could just agree to meet up and no one enforces the law anyway, and it's as worthless as the waiting period. (Average time between purchase and use in crime is over 6 years...)

Either way, my idea was basically a firearm ID with a verification system, if the buyer has such, the seller records the information and verification on a receipt and all is fine. If the buyer lacks a license, then a background check system would be done through either a law enforcement system or the current dealers, though I'm still leery of requiring dealers and if it's on the law enforcement to do, some anti-gun agencies may handicap the process out of spite.

Basically a "universal background check" system is fine so long as it is designed to not inconvenience the buyer/seller to a great extent. There's no real reason that we can't get a NICS Android App, I certainly wished I could simply text the info to FDLE instead of the phone call or fax.

I don't think it would do a whole lot of good overall, if they're not going to enforce things. It'd also be dependent on other things like tying a firearm purchase to the sale of a safe of low price. (A lo-jacked small safe for $40 or so)

I'm not terribly paranoid about ID's though, I do think gun registration has more drawbacks than advantages, and I think there really should be privacy requirements.

I'm very tired though, so most of my posts tonight may be more rambling than I intend.

---------- Post added 2013-03-23 at 07:15 PM ----------

Yeah they would. The sale or transfer would still be between private citizens, it would just require a background check. Could probably go to your local police department, submit to one, then complete the sale.

There is the issue of verifying the buyers identity, which never gets brought up in the background check stuff (a drivers license is all you need), but otherwise a background check system should be easily available for anyone that wants it. No release of private information, just a unique number that would mark approval or not, and be tied to a date.

I'm sure there's some privacy advocacy group that would fight an easily accesible background check system. You can run a background check online, but it doesn't cover everything the same as a NICS check does, so it's not comparable.

---------- Post added 2013-03-23 at 07:20 PM ----------

How would you enforce that law?

That's sort of the issue with all this stuff though.

As long as you have ATFE enforcing the federal firearm laws, you will not have adequate enforcement of them. They don't care about the "nickel and dime" stuff, they only want larger crimes that are "worth" them prosecuting.

The first AWB for instance. If you put a stock on your AR15 that collapsed, they wouldn't care unless you were a manufacturer. They're not checking markings on guns at ranges, they don't care. If you were arrested for some other crime involving that gun and the fed's were involved, they might add it on, but otherwise they don't care.

Local jurisdictions are just bad at actually planning out gun measures though, so not a lot of help there. Like NY's laws, they draft oddball stuff to hinder people in the hopes that it will eventually trickle down to criminals.

---------- Post added 2013-03-23 at 07:30 PM ----------

Common sense would say not to sell to the deranged person in the gun store who is telling you they are going to shoot someone with the gun.
If you did however sell it to this person how would anyone prove you had prior knowledge of what he was going to do?

Years ago, Kmart sold guns, and got sued. Some guy had gotten drunk, went to Kmart drunk, bought a shotgun and killed his girlfriend/wife. There was of course a lawsuit, and when asked if the clerk felt the guy was too drunk to buy a gun, she said "no, but he was too drunk to fill out the form, so I had to do it for him".

That cost them millions.

Otherwise, yeah, most of these cases aren't clear cut. Wells is just bringing up the bill passed to stop frivolous lawsuits against the industry, which were bankrolled specifically to try to bankrupt the industry. It doesn't exempt a dealer from his actions, it just protects them from being sued if something they sold "in good faith" is used wrongly.

[Eroginous]

Because every time a background check is applied, it works. If you apply them universally, they will work more often.

Are you under the impression that if universal background checks go into effect, the number of background checks taking place will remain static? You will see hundreds of thousands more background checks each year, and thousands of denials related to criminal records.

You can't apply them universally, that's the point. No matter how hard you try, there will be cases where background checks are not effective because they are not applicable. The term 'universal' is both misleading and largely useless when it comes to background checks. You keep assuming that we can just apply them everywhere and stop most criminals from getting guns.

The reality is that we are already applying background checks as much as reasonably possible without having to make drastic policy changes elsewhere, and massively stepping up enforcement of current laws.

Absolutely false. Armslist, and other private gun sale sites, DO NO REQUIRE BACKGROUND CHECKS. I know, it's fucked up, right?

All these sites do is connect buyers with sellers. There are literally no background checks, and no questions asked. It's just like eBay, or Craigslist, except both those sites no longer allow firearm transactions.

There's a federal law that restricts non-licensed dealers from engaging in a private firearm sale to individuals outside of their own state. Armslist connects individuals within the same state to facilitate these sales. However, it also allows users to browse firearms in different states so people can meet up for purchase, or even ship firearms for purchase.

Here's an article you can read about online sites like Armslist.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...mlist-can-help

I never said online sites require background checks. I said they use licensed dealers to facilitate the sale and transfer of firearms, implying that a Licensed dealer would want to do a background check just to cover their own ass, regardless of whether or not it's required by law. Here's what I'm talking about:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v7...ps5cc409e6.png

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

The National Knife Association doesn't lobby and block knife legislation from going through.

Maybe because Liberals in the US haven't tried banning them, yet.

---------- Post added 2013-03-24 at 12:08 AM ----------

IF you walk into a knife store clearly deranged or in a rage and they sell you a knife and you go stab someone they can be sued for negligence, as they should be.

But if I walk into a gun store and tell the guy "im going to use this to shoot someone" and he still sells it to me he can't be sued for negligence.

GG NRA

The person that started the "blame the gun makers" wasn't talking about the situation you brought up, he stated gun makers should be liable for any and all gun deaths, all the time.

[Wells]

Nope Svif, gun dealers and makers have immunity from all forms of negligence suits except those that come from a product malfunctioning.

OH and it they break the law.


Its a bullshit level of protection that needs to go. No one else gets that level of protection.

---------- Post added 2013-03-24 at 04:26 AM ----------

The argument SHOULD NOT be a blanket ban on "assault style" weapons, or limiting magazines to X number of bullets. Regardless of any new law passed criminals will break them. So, all you are effectively doing is punishing those who abide by the law.

This "we shouldn't pass a law because criminals won't follow it" is the saddest, weakest argument.

Might as well not make murder illegal since murderers will still kill people.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Nope Svif, gun dealers and makers have immunity from all forms of negligence suits except those that come from a product malfunctioning.

OH and it they break the law.


Its a bullshit level of protection that needs to go. No one else gets that level of protection.

---------- Post added 2013-03-24 at 04:26 AM ----------


This "we shouldn't pass a law because criminals won't follow it" is the saddest, weakest argument.

Might as well not make murder illegal since murderers will still kill people.

He's been making this circular argument for awhile now. Apparently we shouldn't stop people's ability to circumvent current intended background check laws... because people circumvent current laws already in place (via methods that we intend to block).

[Eroginous]

He's been making this circular argument for awhile now. Apparently we shouldn't stop people's ability to circumvent current intended background check laws... because people circumvent current laws already in place (via methods that we intend to block).

You should stop misrepresenting reality. You CAN'T stop people from circumventing the law.

Period.

End of story.

What you CAN do is create some common sense laws that give law enforcement recourse to investigate and and apprehend people who are circumventing the laws on the books.

Which we already have.

Now we just need our government to employ the police to do their job...

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Nope Svif, gun dealers and makers have immunity from all forms of negligence suits except those that come from a product malfunctioning.

OH and it they break the law.


Its a bullshit level of protection that needs to go. No one else gets that level of protection.

---------- Post added 2013-03-24 at 04:26 AM ----------


This "we shouldn't pass a law because criminals won't follow it" is the saddest, weakest argument.

Might as well not make murder illegal since murderers will still kill people.

How do you not understand how different a gun ban, and laws against murder really are from each other?

[Cthulhu 2020]

How do you not understand how different a gun ban, and laws against murder really are from each other?

Yes, we get it, murder laws don't affect innocent people where gun bans do.

Now can you understand that making the argument that "We shouldn't make laws because criminals will break them anyway" is an EXTREMELY flawed argument and completely unrelated to the differences between gun legislation and murder legislation?

Laws are a deterrent and designed to attempt to prevent or discourage people from certain behaviors. The ultimate hope is that it will completely stop negative behaviors while not affecting those who are innocent, but nobody is really expecting any law to completely stop negative behaviors. Yet people seem to be making the argument that since something doesn't COMPLETELY stop something then we shouldn't even bother. Once people realize that this isn't even a remotely good argument, the discussion can progress.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Yes, we get it, murder laws don't affect innocent people where gun bans do.

Now can you understand that making the argument that "We shouldn't make laws because criminals will break them anyway" is an EXTREMELY flawed argument and completely unrelated to the differences between gun legislation and murder legislation?

Flawed, because you keep comparing that statement to murder laws? Talk about circular arguments and fallacies.

The point is, a gun ban would severely infringe upon the rights of the average, good citizen, while barely stopping the problem it would be made to stop. People would still be murdered, with those guns banned or without. Likely why the first AWB was stopped, because it was unconstitutional, and not effective.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Not comparing it to murder laws, although I can see where you'd make that mistake.

No, it's pointing out the glaring fallacy of saying "We shouldn't make laws because people will break them anyway." Your argument is a straw man, a distraction from the real point of the argument being made. Nobody is disagreeing with you, but you seem to think that because gun bans and murder laws are in some ways different that somehow patches up the glaring holes in the "We shouldn't make laws because people will break them anyway," argument. It doesn't.

Also, I'm not sure there's been much talk of gun bans other than from you for the last several pages. You seem oddly stuck on it. Right now the primary discussion is about background checks.

[Buckwald]

This "we shouldn't pass a law because criminals won't follow it" is the saddest, weakest argument.

Might as well not make murder illegal since murderers will still kill people.

I love when you do that Wells. Ignore the facts given to you and apply a weak Ad Hominem argument. You failed, again, to prove your point since; 1. I never argued for the legalization of any crime. 2. No rational human thinks murder is okay.

I never said no new laws. I said we shouldn't ban "assault style" weapons. I had made the point of regardless of new laws passed, they'll be broken. I'm all for a national standard background check and a waiting period. But, I'm also for concealed carry in every state.

But, let me guess, next you'll say "Well, banning guns would be a law. You said don't ban guns, so you don't want new laws, which means you want to be able to kill and rob people!"

Next time try to respond to the facts with substance, not this child's play, 8th grade debate club thing you have going on.

---------- Post added 2013-03-24 at 07:51 AM ----------

Not comparing it to murder laws, although I can see where you'd make that mistake.

No, it's pointing out the glaring fallacy of saying "We shouldn't make laws because people will break them anyway." Your argument is a straw man, a distraction from the real point of the argument being made. Nobody is disagreeing with you, but you seem to think that because gun bans and murder laws are in some ways different that somehow patches up the glaring holes in the "We shouldn't make laws because people will break them anyway," argument. It doesn't.

Also, I'm not sure there's been much talk of gun bans other than from you for the last several pages. You seem oddly stuck on it. Right now the primary discussion is about background checks.

What both of you conveniently missed, was I said that we need to be more strict with our current laws and get to the root of what causes crime. You both left out a huge chunk of my argument to fit your rhetoric. So, go back, read my statement. I'm all for strict enforcement and punishment to those who break our gun laws. Other than banning X type of gun, any new law will be largely ineffective because the DoJ barely enforces what we do have.

[Wells]

I love when you do that Wells. Ignore the facts given to you and apply a weak Ad Hominem argument.

That's not an ad hom.

You failed, again, to prove your point since; 1. I never argued for the legalization of any crime. 2. No rational human thinks murder is okay.

You missed the point.

Next time try to respond to the facts with substance, not this child's play, 8th grade debate club thing you have going on.

Ignore the facts given to you and apply a weak Ad Hominem argument

*cough*

---------- Post added 2013-03-24 at 07:16 PM ----------

When someone says:

The argument SHOULD NOT be a blanket ban on "assault style" weapons, or limiting magazines to X number of bullets. Regardless of any new law passed criminals will break them. So, all you are effectively doing is punishing those who abide by the law.

They're specifically saying a law is a bad law because criminals won't follow it. Aside from being circular logic its just flat silly.

[Nightspear]

If you're not Pro guns, you're with the zombies! Zombies are the reason, I am all pro gun.

[Åmbulance]

Assault rifles are used in less than 5% of of all VIOLENT crimes involving a firearm. Simple concept, not sure why it's so hard for people to grasp.

Oh because some father from Conn. is telling congress they are bad, because his son died, by handgun, none the less. So then the idiotic media force feeds you made up statistics, then they plaster the news about shootings, all of which were done with a handgun, but still bash assault rifles.