Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Svifnymr]

Those private sellers cannot be investigated or charged if they do not perform background checks on their "clients". They are under no obligation to. That is the law as it is. Thus it is a loophole. Under new legislation background checks would be required for sale and transfer of all firearms, and prosecution could be pursued for private sellers that did not attain a background check clearance.

If a person is repeatedly purchasing and reselling for profit, he is violating the law already in place.


If he's some guy wandering the aisles at a gun show to sell his personal weapon, he would probably appreciate the ability to run a background check, though paying a dealer to do it and making it mandatory may deter that feeling if the buyer "looks honest".

If it's a straw purchase, it's intentional breaking the law.

If the seller doesn't care, he just won't do a background check anyway.

How will they enforce a new background check for private transactions? Will they investigate and prosecute these people that have never done anything else wrong when they currently don't prosecute FUGITIVES that attempt to buy a gun?

And no, as I said in my other post, the background check law was specifically crafted and specifically exempted private transactions for various reasons. It is not a loophole to sell a gun privately. It is illegal to buy guns for resale or to circumvent other laws of course, and it IS illegal to sell/transfer to someone you know is prohibited.

Again, you seem to think they would somehow enforce the new law when they don't enforce the current law.

There's a law that makes it illegal to leave a gun within easy access of a child, but it's also never enforced. No door-to-door checks, obviously, and when a situation transpires, they "don't want to add to the situation".

---------- Post added 2013-04-23 at 09:15 PM ----------

I don't have time to type out long paragraphs so people can understand exactly what I'm saying. Most people have no trouble understanding the points I'm making. You're really the only person I've heard complain, so like I said, if you have a question, all you have to do is ask! I'm more than happy to answer your questions!

Actually plenty of us have asked you to better define some of your stuff, mostly to avoid circular arguments that span pages.

We don't force FFL's to do them, right? And yet they do them anyway. Interesting.

FFL's are required to do them, but the penalty for not doing one is nothing unless it's shown as repetitive/ intentional behavior. As I'd mentioned at some point, ATFE wanted to have lesser penalties (fines for example) to leverage minor offenses that don't warrant License Revocation.

Losing his license/business? I thought we didn't enforce background check laws.

Technically it's a requirement of the FFL gun transfer process, it IS linked to the background check of course but the system was in place since 68.

Before the background check it was just the form's questions. It would be interesting if they ran background checks on old forms to see how many would have failed given current systems, but I doubt the task would ever be done.

[Eroginous]

Senate rejects assault weapon ban on 40-60 vote

That's not the latest piece of gun control legislation to fail. The latest was UBCs and it failed 54-46. They had the MAJORITY and still failed to meet the 60 vote minimum.

40-60 isn't a majority vote, my friend.

You're confused. I wasn't referring to anything but the background check bill. Which received a majority vote and didn't pass.

How embarrassing...

What's embarrassing is the way you aren't reading my posts carefully enough to understand what I'm saying.

I was responding to "he's harshly criticized the most recent failure of gun control legislation," which would be background checks. Please keep up with the conversation.

I'm not the one who thinks I am confused about the difference between gun control legislation and anti gun legislation. The liberal agenda has been pursuing both. This last bill was a gun control measure, while the ones before that were anti gun measures. All of it can be considered 'gun control,' but I like to be specific so there's no confusion.

I don't have time to type out long paragraphs so people can understand exactly what I'm saying. Most people have no trouble understanding the points I'm making. You're really the only person I've heard complain, so like I said, if you have a question, all you have to do is ask! I'm more than happy to answer your questions!

You don't need to type out long paragraphs to be more specific in your argument. Being intentionally vague is a form of logical fallacy, and you've employed it repeatedly in nearly every argument you've made.

We don't force FFL's to do them, right? And yet they do them anyway. Interesting.

We require them to do them by law. If they don't do them and the ATF does an audit, finding that they haven't done background checks, then they risk losing their license, business, or facing federal prison time. The part you don't seem to understand is that each licensed dealer is a control point for the public sale of guns. Those control points are required to keep records and other information regarding the sales of firearms, of which can all be traced back to said licensed dealer. We have a federal agency who is in charge of overseeing said licensed dealers in all 50 states to make sure they are following the law, penalizing them when they don't.

Therefore any licensed dealer has a gigantic incentive to follow the law and conduct background checks, because they are risking everything by not doing them.

By stark contrast, a private citizen is not a control point for the sale of firearms. Any individual can sell a firearm and no one would be aware of said transaction. There would be no audit by a federal agency, no revocation of business license or loss of business. There wouldn't be any federal prison time. There wouldn't even be a red flag alerting the ATF that a gun was sold without a background check.

That's the difference. There is almost no incentive to do a background check as a private citizen. Requiring them is an exercise in futility.

Losing his license/business? I thought we didn't enforce background check laws.

We don't enforce them when it comes to people who fail a background check. You do know it's a federal offense for a felon or fugitive to even submit to a background check, right? A federal offense which carries a sentence of 10 years in prison and/or a fine. You can bet the ATF is going to prosecute a licensed dealer who knowingly sells firearms to people who can't pass a background check.

But what happens to most felons and fugitives who fail them? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. So the point is we have laws on the books that go largely unenforced, negating the purpose of having them on the books in the first place. If we pass a law that says all private sales must be subjected to a background check, how do we even begin to enforce it?

The very nature of a private sale keeps it from being public knowledge, and if the police don't have a record of a transaction to work from (because it's a private sale, not a sale through an FFL), how are they going to prosecute individuals who don't submit background checks for private sales?

The entire situation is a legal nightmare. Literally speaking, you'd be an idiot to try and pass such a law.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Actually plenty of us have asked you to better define some of your stuff, mostly to avoid circular arguments that span pages.

And whenever I've been asked, I've answered. If no ones asking for clarification, I'm going to assume you understand. That's the entire point.

[belfpala]

I'm coming back to this thread because I like gun rights people more than I like anti-gay people.

hi.

[Deadvolcanoes]

That's not the latest piece of gun control legislation to fail. The latest was UBCs and it failed 54-46. They had the MAJORITY and still failed to meet the 60 vote minimum.

Except I stated: "The only anti gun legislation proposed was rejected by both parties"

By your own admission:

AWB= anti gun
UBC= not anti gun

So no, I'm not the one that's confused here.

But what happens to most felons and fugitives who fail them? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. So the point is we have laws on the books that go largely unenforced, negating the purpose of having them on the books in the first place.

The purpose of a background check law is to stop criminals from purchasing weapons through FFL's. The law is extremely successful to that end. Extremely successful.

You're talking about the enforcement of perjury laws. If you want more resources to enforce them, I'm right there with you.

The very nature of a private sale keeps it from being public knowledge, and if the police don't have a record of a transaction to work from (because it's a private sale, not a sale through an FFL), how are they going to prosecute individuals who don't submit background checks for private sales?

The entire situation is a legal nightmare. Literally speaking, you'd be an idiot to try and pass such a law.

"The law is going to be difficult to enforce, therefore we shouldn't pass it." That sounds like a terrible excuse.

I'm not sure why your assuming that people won't follow the law. I mean sure some won't, but some certainly will. It's not like law abiding citizens just go around committing felonies.

The idea is to make it harder for criminals to obtain guns. We both want that. Mandating that private sellers implement background checks will give criminals fewer options to turn to, fewer people buy from.

---------- Post added 2013-04-23 at 10:47 PM ----------

I'm coming back to this thread because I like gun rights people more than I like anti-gay people.

hi.

Lol. There's been so many gay marriage threads lately, I would be surprised if we saw an OFFICIAL thread sooner or later....

[belfpala]

Lol. There's been so many gay marriage threads lately, I would be surprised if we saw an OFFICIAL thread sooner or later....

Posters be dropping like flies over there. I had to back off.

[Eroginous]

So no, I'm not the one that's confused here.

Then why do you keep bringing up points I'm not even addressing? Obviously you're confused.

The purpose of a background check law is to stop criminals from purchasing weapons through FFL's. The law is extremely successful to that end. Extremely successful.

No, the purpose of the background check law is to give the ATF, the agency responsible for enforcing it, recourse in the event that said law is not being followed. No law ever written is EVER designed to stop someone from doing something illegal, because that would make the law pointless. In this case specifically, we have direct evidence that shows how few background checks actually result in a denial of sale (0.01%), indicating that most criminals are simply not being stopped by them.

You're talking about the enforcement of perjury laws. If you want more resources to enforce them, I'm right there with you.

No, I'm not talking about perjury laws. I'm talking about laws that are designed to give the government recourse when a convicted felon or a fugitive attempts to buy a gun through an FFL (you know, a felony offense) which are not only largely unenforced, but have been pointed out by the ATF themselves as being ineffective. They claim that they simply don't have the resources to actually uphold the law in this area.

Again, you're extremely confused. I am NOT talking about people who lie on a background check form. I am talking about people who have been convicted of a crime, trying to purchase a firearm. We have a law that says those people can be prosecuted and face up to 10 years in prison and be fined for attempting to purchase a firearm. WE CAN ACTUALLY GET THOSE PEOPLE OFF THE STREETS, PREVENTING THEM FROM OBTAINING A FIREARM COMPLETELY.

But we don't. Instead, we let most of them continue their efforts of getting a firearm.

"The law is going to be difficult to enforce, therefore we shouldn't pass it." That sounds like a terrible excuse.

No, it's not just going to be difficult. It's going to be impossible. There is no way of knowing when and where people are selling guns without background checks. Therefore, law enforcement officials will not have legal recourse to pursue and prosecute these individuals. Giving them the power to do so, is a waste of resources. It would literally be the same thing as passing a law requiring everyone to wear blue underwear. You would never be able to tell who's actually breaking the law, so you would have no ability to enforce it (ignoring the ridiculous nature of that kind of law for a second).

I'm not sure why your assuming that people won't follow the law. I mean sure some won't, but some certainly will. It's not like law abiding citizens just go around committing felonies.

Whether or not people follow the law isn't even what's important. The important part is that those who don't will never be caught or prosecuted for not doing so. There will be no possible recourse for the law which justifies having it in the first place. The flip side is that anyone who would do background checks if a law were passed requiring them, can already go and do them, without there being such law. Right now, without any new legislature being made, as a private seller, you can already go to an FFL and have a background check run on any prospective buyer.

IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE A LAW.

The idea is to make it harder for criminals to obtain guns. We both want that. Mandating that private sellers implement background checks will give criminals fewer options to turn to, fewer people buy from.

No, the idea is to have recourse in the event that a crime is committed. If someone kills another person, you want to be able to put that person in prison so as to prevent them from doing it again, hence the laws against murder. If someone steals from someone else, you want to be able to put that person in prison so as to prevent them from doing it again, hence the laws against theft. Preventing a criminal from getting a gun doesn't matter if you're not going to be able to know when that criminal obtains a gun.

Just look at the Boston bombings. It is illegal to manufacture, posses, and/or detonate a bomb. All three of those activities are not only federal offenses, they are considered acts of terrorism. The laws against those acts did not stop or prevent the Boston bombings from obtaining bomb making materials, manufacturing bombs, or detonating them in a crowded public place.

What those laws DID do, is give the police and the FBI recourse to pursue, arrest, and prosecute the people responsible for breaking those laws. They killed one of them in a firefight, and they've arrested the other one. Now, he gets to stand trial and possibly be sentenced to life in prison so he will never be able to do it again.

And therein lies the rub. We can't prevent bad things from happening. We can only catch the people responsible for doing bad things and make sure they never do them again. A program which educates gun owners on the benefits of doing a background check during a private sale, as well as subsidies to cover the costs of doing them, would go a lot further than passing a law requiring them.

A law which would go largely unenforced, and still result in criminals getting guns. Remember, it's already against the law to sell or give a gun to a convicted felon. We should probably enforce that law before we go making new ones, right?

[Deadvolcanoes]

Snip

Your basic argument in that post was "we pass laws to give legal recourse," so I'll address that directly.

Our legal system is incredibly complex, and as such, there are many different reasons and purposes for every law we pass. One of those purposes is to provide legal recourse for law enforcement.

Another purpose for creating laws is to stop a particular behavior from occurring. We have federal pseudoephedrine laws. The purpose of these laws is two fold. One, to provide legal recourse when drug stores don't follow the law. And two, to prevent consumers from buying a bunch of medicine and turning it into crystal meth; to prevent a behavior from occurring.

We also have cigarette and alcohol laws, regulating who can buy both substances. Again, the purpose of the law is two-fold. To provide legal recourse, but also to prevent a behavior; minors buying cigarettes.

If you think that laws only have one purpose, then you're wrong. Background check laws, like all laws, have many purposes, and preventing a certain behavior is absolutely one of their goals. And it just so happens that background checks are incredibly effective at preventing a certain type of behavior, and rather ineffective at providing legal recourse.

[Eroginous]

Your basic argument in that post was "we pass laws to give legal recourse," so I'll address that directly.

Our legal system is incredibly complex, and as such, there are many different reasons and purposes for every law we pass. One of those purposes is to provide legal recourse for law enforcement.

Another purpose for creating laws is to stop a particular behavior from occurring. We have federal pseudoephedrine laws. The purpose of these laws is two fold. One, to provide legal recourse when drug stores don't follow the law. And two, to prevent consumers from buying a bunch of medicine and turning it into crystal meth; to prevent a behavior from occurring.

We also have cigarette and alcohol laws, regulating who can buy both substances. Again, the purpose of the law is two-fold. To provide legal recourse, but also to prevent a behavior; minors buying cigarettes.

If you think that laws only have one purpose, then you're wrong. Background check laws, like all laws, have many purposes, and preventing a certain behavior is absolutely one of their goals. And it just so happens that background checks are incredibly effective at preventing a certain type of behavior, and rather ineffective at providing legal recourse.

Nope, you're flat out wrong. We don't have laws against the sale of large quantities of pseudo ephedrine to prevent people from getting it and making meth. Once again, we have those laws so that we can prosecute people for buying or selling it in bulk.

Without the ability to prosecute those people, the law becomes worthless. The ENTIRE crux of the law, depends on the ability to prosecute people for breaking it. Without that ability, the law is pointless.

[Deleted]

Nowai, it's Pig Newtons.

Arguing with kindergarteners is hilarious. +1 for LCK.

On topic, only thing that needs to be done is somehow get people to use gun safes. Illegalisation is not the answer, hasn't war on drugs and prohibition already shown this?

[vaeevictiss]

Arguing with kindergarteners is hilarious. +1 for LCK.

On topic, only thing that needs to be done is somehow get people to use gun safes. Illegalisation is not the answer, hasn't war on drugs and prohibition already shown this?

the problem with that is now you are forcing people to buy something...kinda like the healthcare thing people are up in arms about. But, as you know i am a huge gun rights/enthusiast/hate all gun legislation guy, i even think anyone with guns should buy a god damn safe.

Even if you have one handgun for self defense, you can buy those small one gun safes and bolt it down. If you have 3 or more, just get a damn full size safe. Me and my wife currently have no children, all my guns stay locked up in the safe for theft protection more than safety. The only one that stays out is a 12ga next to my bed.

I mean, you cant keep everything in a safe, gonna be pretty damn inconvenient in the middle of the night if you have to get into a safe after someone kicked the front door in. Thinking of that, i should probably clean it, the thing is covered in dust lol.

While i cant see a way of mandating people own one, just being a responsible gun owner should be enough. You can buy a decent sized and quality safe for $2000-$2500. Thats the cost of a very nice, well equipped ar15...or less than the cost of an even nicer 1911 lol. Skip the next gun and buy the safe instead.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Nope, you're flat out wrong. We don't have laws against the sale of large quantities of pseudo ephedrine to prevent people from getting it and making meth. Once again, we have those laws so that we can prosecute people for buying or selling it in bulk.

Without the ability to prosecute those people, the law becomes worthless. The ENTIRE crux of the law, depends on the ability to prosecute people for breaking it. Without that ability, the law is pointless.

You can state that I'm wrong, and you can even underline words, but it doesn't strengthen your argument in any meaningful way.

The purpose of law in society is incredibly complex. One of the purposes is to influence certain standards of conduct, or to inhibit undesirable behavior. Some laws govern social policies, like giving benefits to the injured or poor. Other laws are designed to keep the peace, or protect our rights as individuals. If you actually believe that the only purpose of law is to provide legal recourse for law enforcement, then you should probably bow out of this discussion.

The purpose of a background check law is multifaceted. To reduce undesirable behavior, to keep the peace, the provide legal recourse, and to serve as a deterrent for criminals. The law succeeds greatly in some places, and admittedly fails in other places, just like every other law that's ever been written.

And according to your own argument, the fact that so few criminals are actually attempting to purchase weapons through an FFL, for fear of failing a background check, proves that the law has a very strong deterrent effect. Another successful purpose of the law.

---------- Post added 2013-04-24 at 10:59 AM ----------

While i cant see a way of mandating people own one, just being a responsible gun owner should be enough. You can buy a decent sized and quality safe for $2000-$2500. Thats the cost of a very nice, well equipped ar15...or less than the cost of an even nicer 1911 lol. Skip the next gun and buy the safe instead.

I've seen a lot of people advocating for these $2000 safes, and while those are undoubtedly the best on the market, you really don't have to be that thorough, imo.

I believe if everyone had, at minimum, a gun locker or a locking steel cabinet bolted to the floor, it would have a huge effect on the reduction of stolen property. And these things are cheap. Like $150 dollars cheap.

[vaeevictiss]

I've seen a lot of people advocating for these $2000 safes, and while those are undoubtedly the best on the market, you really don't have to be that thorough, imo.

I believe if everyone had, at minimum, a gun locker or a locking steel cabinet bolted to the floor, it would have a huge effect on the reduction of stolen property. And these things are cheap. Like $150 dollars cheap.

true, the average gun owner really doesnt need much and anything locked up is time for a burglar and they try to be as quick as possible. I have several guns, some fairly expensive, plus a few NFA items so i went for something a bit better.

[Eroginous]

You can state that I'm wrong, and you can even underline words, but it doesn't strengthen your argument in any meaningful way.

The purpose of law in society is incredibly complex. One of the purposes is to influence certain standards of conduct, or to inhibit undesirable behavior. Some laws govern social policies, like giving benefits to the injured or poor. Other laws are designed to keep the peace, or protect our rights as individuals. If you actually believe that the only purpose of law is to provide legal recourse for law enforcement, then you should probably bow out of this discussion.

The purpose of a background check law is multifaceted. To reduce undesirable behavior, to keep the peace, the provide legal recourse, and to serve as a deterrent for criminals. The law succeeds greatly in some places, and admittedly fails in other places, just like every other law that's ever been written.

And according to your own argument, the fact that so few criminals are actually attempting to purchase weapons through an FFL, for fear of failing a background check, proves that the law has a very strong deterrent effect. Another successful purpose of the law.

You are wrong. 100%, flat out, undeniably wrong. Not only are you confused about what a law is, you don't seem to understand how it relates to society. Laws are put in place to give the government recourse to enable systems like welfare to exist. If someone is poor or sick, and doesn't have a job, the law provides the government the ability to take care of those people by allocating money and other benefits. Legal recourse isn't just punishment for crimes, it's any action the law says our government (or law enforcement) can take in the event of a situation.

Laws are 100% designed and intended to give the government (or law enforcement) recourse. That is their only function. There isn't single law on the books within the US that says something is illegal, but then has no defined recourse in the event someone breaks said law. So this idea that laws are designed to stop criminal activity is ludicrous at best. If people don't break the law, how do we prosecute them? How do we decide who's a criminal and who deserves to go to prison or get fined, if the law never gets broken?

This is one of the major flaws to your argument. You assume that only known criminals are trying to buy guns. You assume these people are going to get tripped up by a background check system. If someone has not yet committed a crime, but plans to, he's going to pass a background check. He's not going to be stopped by the system because he hasn't broken the law yet. We can't prosecute him and put him in prison because he hasn't broken the law yet.

We have to wait until he's broken the law before we can deny him a gun sale or put him in prison. This is why laws aren't designed to stop people from doing things. They fail horribly at it.

[vaeevictiss]

You are wrong. 100%, flat out, undeniably wrong. Not only are you confused about what a law is, you don't seem to understand how it relates to society. Laws are put in place to give the government recourse to enable systems like welfare to exist. If someone is poor or sick, and doesn't have a job, the law provides the government the ability to take care of those people by allocating money and other benefits. Legal recourse isn't just punishment for crimes, it's any action the law says our government (or law enforcement) can take in the event of a situation.

Laws are 100% designed and intended to give the government (or law enforcement) recourse. That is their only function. There isn't single law on the books within the US that says something is illegal, but then has no defined recourse in the event someone breaks said law. So this idea that laws are designed to stop criminal activity is ludicrous at best. If people don't break the law, how do we prosecute them? How do we decide who's a criminal and who deserves to go to prison or get fined, if the law never gets broken?

This is one of the major flaws to your argument. You assume that only known criminals are trying to buy guns. You assume these people are going to get tripped up by a background check system. If someone has not yet committed a crime, but plans to, he's going to pass a background check. He's not going to be stopped by the system because he hasn't broken the law yet. We can't prosecute him and put him in prison because he hasn't broken the law yet.

We have to wait until he's broken the law before we can deny him a gun sale or put him in prison. This is why laws aren't designed to stop people from doing things. They fail horribly at it.

yea...yea...well what about Minority Report with Tom Cruise! lol

[Ebb]

I am not from US, by why wouldn't anyone support it? Like he said you don't use assault weapons to hunt deer or any other animals for that matter.

To quote a famous saying "People shouldn't be afraid of their govt's, its the Govt's that should be afraid of their people"

[Svifnymr]

I'm coming back to this thread because I like gun rights people more than I like anti-gay people.

hi.

While opinions may be hard to change in this thread, I can't see any of those threads ever making a difference. I don't even bother posting my opinion in any of them.

[belfpala]

While opinions may be hard to change in this thread, I can't see any of those threads ever making a difference. I don't even bother posting my opinion in any of them.

I don't think I'm going to change your opinion, but I still like you guys better.

[Skroe]

The usa isn't but the current administration made no secret of wanting to ban a large number of guns

It's going to happen one day and as well it should.

The Second Amendment is a law like any other and Amendments have been repealed. It's a matter of time, picking the right battles and careful work.

If it happens tomorrow or fifty-years from now, it really doesn't matter. What matters is that gun supporters have to fight to defend their archaic right so long and so hard it utterly exhausts them. That it drains them and their lives. That fending off the innumerable small battles leads them to miss the big ones which slip through.

Dodging a slow moving baseball thrown at you? Not all that tough. Dodging assaults on gun rights in full automatic fire mode? Quite a bit harder. It is an idea I'm sure they understand. They can't possibly dodge them all.

Elimination of gun ownership in this country, especially as we're expected to be predominantly living in cities by mid-century, is inevitable. And it's going to happen because more Americans are going to want to give it up and strip it from their fellow citizen, and put faith in law enforcement, than those who want to cling to them.

[Porcell]

It's going to happen one day and as well it should.

The Second Amendment is a law like any other and Amendments have been repealed. It's a matter of time, picking the right battles and careful work.

If it happens tomorrow or fifty-years from now, it really doesn't matter. What matters is that gun supporters have to fight to defend their archaic right so long and so hard it utterly exhausts them. That it drains them and their lives. That fending off the innumerable small battles leads them to miss the big ones which slip through.

Dodging a slow moving baseball thrown at you? Not all that tough. Dodging assaults on gun rights in full automatic fire mode? Quite a bit harder. It is an idea I'm sure they understand. They can't possibly dodge them all.

Elimination of gun ownership in this country, especially as we're expected to be predominantly living in cities by mid-century, is inevitable. And it's going to happen because more Americans are going to want to give it up and strip it from their fellow citizen, and put faith in law enforcement, than those who want to cling to them.

I'll say one thing, at least you have the balls to be up front about your view of the subject and your intentions were you to have the power. I'm sure there are a lot more like you, but they are just coyly going about the Baby-Steps plan all while lying to our faces about "We don't really want to take your guns."