Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Svifnymr]

Not really - you'll have to explain your understanding. So far all I'm seeing is that I was right, but I know that's not what you're saying. Could you elaborate?

Currently, if a gun is traced (used in a crime or found near a crime or any other justification), it's put into a computerized database along with any information required to assist with whatever the ballistics system the feds have is called. There is also a record of transfer of new sales that is not computerized, this is what folks usually mean by the "can't make database!!!" stuff. But that's not what you want either, you want every gun registered and tracked. You want a cop to be able to type in "Ghostpanther" and see that he has an AR14 and a S&W M&P 38spl from 1910.

That is a loophole - and it's completely accurate. It's not specifically listed as one in a law, but it's a loophole nonetheless. Give it another name if you'd like, or include it in another category - but you said the gun show loophole was incorrect. And it's not. What I described is accurate - and it's done all the time. Which is why gun control advocates want to end the practice.

The gunshow doesn't matter, it's just a place where a private transaction might occur. Florida has a "no private sales inside public access property" to "close the gunshow loophole". We called it the "sunshine law" since apparently they want you to walk outside to complete your sale. (Not really, but you know, we're all smartasses.)
Same way, it's not a loophole. If a law says "all guns sold through dealers need this paperwork and all guns sold privately do not need this paperwork", the lack of paperwork for private sales is not a loophole, it's the LAW. It's specifically called out as the way it works. Again, there's a problem in some areas with "private dealers" that buy and resell. ATF knows these people, ATF just doesn't care since it's such a minor fraction of any guns actually used in crime, it's not worth their time to prosecute. What the people are doing is already illegal, just not prosecuted. Drafting a new law to make it extra illegal won't matter.

And literally, there's a law that says if you buy a gun for someone else (Straw Purchase) it's illegal. They wanted to pass another law that said "if you do it twice, it's also illegal".

So then why is it CA/NJ/NY if geography is the main driving factor. I don't think we're on the same page here - could be because forum communication can be somewhat uncertain. What I want is to have the same rules and regulations we see in other civilized countries with dramatically less per capita gun violence. UK/Europe/Australia has and have succeeded. Let's do it here.

Why is what CA/NJ/NY? Crime? Because they have large urban poor areas with drug problems, mostly. You know those three have the harshest gun laws in the USA and still more gun crime? Why does NH or Vermont have less crime with less gun laws? Because nobody is there! Vermont's law (unless it was changed) allows concealed carry with no license as long as you have no malice in your heart or something...

The thing is, everything comes down to cost/benefit. You're not restricting criminals, you're restricting law abiding people in an attempt to trickle down to supply of criminals. So, if you take 99% of the guns away from law abiding people, whether they're lawyers/ doctors that have huge collections or bubba with his duck gun, and that lets you reduce gun violence by 50%, is that a win? A part of it is how you see firearms, I see them as an extension of the basic human right of self-defense. If you don't see it as a right, like voting or free speech, then your perspective will be very different.

Thanks - my gun tech knowledge is not high (at least, lol) which is ironic on a couple of different front. I'm also writing a fiction novel which includes gun stuff.

No biggie, it's always good to learn. Even if I disagree with you, I'll still inform you. And man, I'm playing Quantum Break and those folks obviously know nothing about guns, like, at all. It's horrible, sooooo horrible.

[cubby]

I'm not sure what the boar problems are in other parts of the world, but they are becoming an epidemic in the US that is spreading fast, and the AR-15 does very well with that situation.

That is interesting. And something that could be addressed while tightening the laws. Like "AR-15's/etc are ok for wild boar hunting, but nothing else".

As for other countries in comparison to the US what Svifnymr talked about a few posts back is the main difference. Ignoring suicides most of the gun violence difference comes down to geography. A lot of our violence numbers are a symptom of the gang/drug/cartel problems. The numbers drop dramatically as you get further away from the US/Mexico boarder and to a smaller extent inner city areas. If you remove the gangs and drug dealers that are mostly just killing each other near the boarder our statistics are not much different than most European countries. If we were an island to ourselves or had France(or for that matter any EU country) as a neighbor the numbers would look much different.

You're going to need to show me some date - Syifnymr's states were a bad example (CA/NJ/NY) and have nothing to do with geography. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying this is something you need to back with data. Just as an example, and this is for "violence" overall, which is admittedly a murky word, if you moved the city of Seattle to Europe, it would be the second most violent city in Europe - and it's not even in the top 20 for the United States (I'll get the data on that - hold on). And Seattle is the opposite of a Mexican boarder city/state.

[Ghostpanther]

- - - Updated - - -
- - - Updated - - -



But a good analogy of poor constitutional rules that were changed because they were outdated. You don't like it because it works against you.




Alright, so I guess we're done here. You don't care about other countries and how they work, so . . . ignorance is your friend? Help me out here.




Lol, ok. If you don't want to learn new things and expand your horizons that's fine. But it would in your favor to do so. The stats are amazing.

It is a poor comparison because it is not the same thing. Slavery was about restricting the rights of human beings because of the skin color. If you can not see the difference I do not know what else I can say.

I have checked all those statistics and have compared them countless times. I am well aware of your point. I have been in this thread for years. lol!

They do nothing to me because I know how statistics are twisted to favor a certain political bias. The US has 320+ million people and a much longer history of gun ownership than say Australia. Comparing a country with a much smaller population, with different cultures, history and a different Constitution, is like comparing apples to oranges. :P

[cubby]

The gun show loophole is a misnomer.

It's not. It's just mislabeled at times. People can sell firearms at gun shows privately, with no regulation whatsoever. That's the loophole everyone is talking about. Call it something else if you want - but I can go and buy any gun I want from a private seller at a gun show and there will be no record of it.

We're on the same page - he's just wrong in this case, respectfully.

[Svifnymr]

Australia. While you're obviously well informed, I'm not sure you've gone through their changes since 1996 and the effects. A democracy that dramatically changed and tightened gun control laws saw a dramatic decline in gun violence.

The people who brush this off as "apple and oranges" aren't worth speaking with any more. If you have real criticisms of the program and why the decline wouldn't happen here, I'm all ears. But that, along with Europe/UK's law, all point to dramatically decreased gun crime when you tighten gun control laws.

The thing is, during the 20 years from the UK ban, the Aus ban, and the USA of the same time period, our violent crime/ gun violence dropped MORE than theirs (percentwise). Yes, ours was higher than theirs before and is higher after, but advancements in law enforcement that applied to most of the developed nations (even if just finding new creative ways to report crimes...) lowered crime by a lot during that period.

Likewise though, in Australia they banned almost all firearms, but they reduced gun violence by 35% or so. They also "haven't had a mass shooting since" which is great, but they only had a few before the ban also, so how do you factor it statistically speaking? In the years that followed, they had a bunch of mass murders via arson instead, do we count that for or against?

It's just a very complicated set of government statistics that don't provide evidence for removing rights.

[Ghostpanther]

That is interesting. And something that could be addressed while tightening the laws. Like "AR-15's/etc are ok for wild boar hunting, but nothing else".




You're going to need to show me some date - Syifnymr's states were a bad example (CA/NJ/NY) and have nothing to do with geography. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying this is something you need to back with data. Just as an example, and this is for "violence" overall, which is admittedly a murky word, if you moved the city of Seattle to Europe, it would be the second most violent city in Europe - and it's not even in the top 20 for the United States (I'll get the data on that - hold on). And Seattle is the opposite of a Mexican boarder city/state.

ROFL. Like that law would keep someone from using a AR-15 on a human.

Vermont. Which has the most lax gun laws in the country. You do not even need a license to carry a handgun there concealed. Yet they have very low gun crime rates. Esp. when you compare ( you like to do that. lol ) to say other states/cities which have stricter gun laws.

[Svifnymr]

It's not. It's just mislabeled at times. People can sell firearms at gun shows privately, with no regulation whatsoever. That's the loophole everyone is talking about. Call it something else if you want - but I can go and buy any gun I want from a private seller at a gun show and there will be no record of it.

We're on the same page - he's just wrong in this case, respectfully.

Or you could go to Armslist and find a local buyer and meet at the 7-11. Or the newspaper. Or yard sales. Yard sales are great places to find guns if someone is moving. Oh, or estate sales. Sure, gunshows put folks in the same room, but the issue isn't gunshows. Your issue is that the law specifically says private sales (no matter the location) do not have requirements for record keeping.

[cubby]

I hope you know I'm enjoying this discussion - so if anything below comes across like I'm being a dick, know that's not my intention.

Currently, if a gun is traced (used in a crime or found near a crime or any other justification), it's put into a computerized database along with any information required to assist with whatever the ballistics system the feds have is called.

No, it's not. And that's the problem.

The gunshow doesn't matter, it's just a place where a private transaction might occur. Florida has a "no private sales inside public access property" to "close the gunshow loophole". We called it the "sunshine law" since apparently they want you to walk outside to complete your sale. (Not really, but you know, we're all smartasses.)
Same way, it's not a loophole. If a law says "all guns sold through dealers need this paperwork and all guns sold privately do not need this paperwork", the lack of paperwork for private sales is not a loophole, it's the LAW. It's specifically called out as the way it works. Again, there's a problem in some areas with "private dealers" that buy and resell. ATF knows these people, ATF just doesn't care since it's such a minor fraction of any guns actually used in crime, it's not worth their time to prosecute. What the people are doing is already illegal, just not prosecuted. Drafting a new law to make it extra illegal won't matter.

And literally, there's a law that says if you buy a gun for someone else (Straw Purchase) it's illegal. They wanted to pass another law that said "if you do it twice, it's also illegal".

Call it something else then, if you don't like loophole - legally speaking that's the correct term (like a tax loophole). Right now I can go to a gun show, buy any gun, no registration or record, and then sell it at another gun show down the road "because I'm done using it". That's the problem.

The thing is, everything comes down to cost/benefit. You're not restricting criminals, you're restricting law abiding people in an attempt to trickle down to supply of criminals. So, if you take 99% of the guns away from law abiding people, whether they're lawyers/ doctors that have huge collections or bubba with his duck gun, and that lets you reduce gun violence by 50%, is that a win? A part of it is how you see firearms, I see them as an extension of the basic human right of self-defense. If you don't see it as a right, like voting or free speech, then your perspective will be very different.

Australia. And yet in other countries restricting guns reduces gun crime. You need an answer for that besides "I don't like it". The data speak for themselves.

No biggie, it's always good to learn. Even if I disagree with you, I'll still inform you. And man, I'm playing Quantum Break and those folks obviously know nothing about guns, like, at all. It's horrible, sooooo horrible.

It's much appreciated. Lol re QB.

- - - Updated - - -

Or you could go to Armslist and find a local buyer and meet at the 7-11. Or the newspaper. Or yard sales. Yard sales are great places to find guns if someone is moving. Oh, or estate sales. Sure, gunshows put folks in the same room, but the issue isn't gunshows. Your issue is that the law specifically says private sales (no matter the location) do not have requirements for record keeping.

Exactly. This ISSUE isn't gun shows, but it includes the issue of gun shows. If that makes any sense. Big issue is what you said above, which also includes the gun show problem.

- - - Updated - - -

ROFL. Like that law would keep someone from using a AR-15 on a human.

Vermont. Which has the most lax gun laws in the country. You do not even need a license to carry a handgun there concealed. Yet they have very low gun crime rates. Esp. when you compare ( you like to do that. lol ) to say other states/cities which have stricter gun laws.

Data for that claim?

- - - Updated - - -

It is a poor comparison because it is not the same thing. Slavery was about restricting the rights of human beings because of the skin color. If you can not see the difference I do not know what else I can say.

I have checked all those statistics and have compared them countless times. I am well aware of your point. I have been in this thread for years. lol!

They do nothing to me because I know how statistics are twisted to favor a certain political bias. The US has 320+ million people and a much longer history of gun ownership than say Australia. Comparing a country with a much smaller population, with different cultures, history and a different Constitution, is like comparing apples to oranges. :P

Cool. You don't like data that's fine. I do. We can agree to disagree on that and go our separate ways. Likewise regarding outdated laws. Slavery is a perfect example of changing times - you don't like it because it's slavery and yucky. But the analogy is sound, regardless of your personal bias.

- - - Updated - - -

The thing is, during the 20 years from the UK ban, the Aus ban, and the USA of the same time period, our violent crime/ gun violence dropped MORE than theirs (percentwise). Yes, ours was higher than theirs before and is higher after, but advancements in law enforcement that applied to most of the developed nations (even if just finding new creative ways to report crimes...) lowered crime by a lot during that period.

Likewise though, in Australia they banned almost all firearms, but they reduced gun violence by 35% or so. They also "haven't had a mass shooting since" which is great, but they only had a few before the ban also, so how do you factor it statistically speaking? In the years that followed, they had a bunch of mass murders via arson instead, do we count that for or against?

It's just a very complicated set of government statistics that don't provide evidence for removing rights.

Now that is interesting. I've got to jet for now but I'll be back tomorrow. Would love to continue discussion.

[Svifnymr]

ROFL. Like that law would keep someone from using a AR-15 on a human.

Vermont. Which has the most lax gun laws in the country. You do not even need a license to carry a handgun there concealed. Yet they have very low gun crime rates. Esp. when you compare ( you like to do that. lol ) to say other states/cities which have stricter gun laws.

Compare Massachusetts, a very anti-gun state, with it's neighbors. Mass murder rate, 1.9 NH, a very pro gun state, 1.1 Vermont, 1.6.
Connecticut, also very antigun, has 3.3, NY 3.1
I honestly don't know about Maine or Rhode Island gun laws to compare and of course the Vermont guy got in all kinds of trouble for saying the crime was going up because of urban folks from the crime areas.

[Altrec]

That is interesting. And something that could be addressed while tightening the laws. Like "AR-15's/etc are ok for wild boar hunting, but nothing else".

So you want people hunting in the woods using firearms they have no practice time with because they are banned from using them in any other scenario? That seems like a bad idea. Range time and regular use to become familiar with the firearm is kind of important for safety reasons.

You're going to need to show me some date - Syifnymr's states were a bad example (CA/NJ/NY) and have nothing to do with geography. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying this is something you need to back with data. Just as an example, and this is for "violence" overall, which is admittedly a murky word, if you moved the city of Seattle to Europe, it would be the second most violent city in Europe - and it's not even in the top 20 for the United States (I'll get the data on that - hold on). And Seattle is the opposite of a Mexican boarder city/state.

I will have to do some checking tonight, but a lot of our gun violence numbers are along the boarder. I did also mention inner city areas also being a problem, but they are also mostly gang related(Chicago/Detroit/Etc.). The cartels and gangs have spread their influence into a lot of cities around the country. As you get away from those areas gun ownership is still high but the gun violence numbers drop.

[Guy4123]

In California, they just banned mail order ammo which is delivered to your home. And I heard something about, you have to register ammo purchases? They do still count, being in the Union and all. lol! But I do see your point. They are two states I have no interest in ever living in.

I bought myself 2000 rounds of 7.62x39mm and 2000 .22lr's for Christmas because I can't buy them online anymore :'(

I can't wait to see how high the price for ammo skyrockets now....

The only place I can even find .303 is online, which I'm sure will quadruple in price from any website even WILLING to ship to California now. I guess the Enfield is getting relegated to wall ornament above the fire place now.


edit: You don't have to register your ammo, but you need a permit that lasts 5? years and if you buy it online you have to have it shipped to an FFL. If you sell more than 500 rounds of ammo then you also have to get a license from the California DoJ.

So what this amounts to is, fees to generate the CA Government more money. Not actually solving any sort of gun related crimes.

[Ghostpanther]

- - - Updated - - -


- - - Updated - - -


Data for that claim?

- - - Updated - - -



Cool. You don't like data that's fine. I do. We can agree to disagree on that and go our separate ways. Likewise regarding outdated laws. Slavery is a perfect example of changing times - you don't like it because it's slavery and yucky. But the analogy is sound, regardless of your personal bias.

- - - Updated - - -

Check out the map in this article. The states with the highest raking for gun crimes are the blues. With the darker blues the highest ones. Notice the color for Vermont.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/dat...cs-by-us-state

No, slavery is a separate topic. Comparing it to the Second Amendment is not realistic. Nothing, even time, has changed the fact the citizens need the right to protect themselves with a tool which is very successful in doing so. The Founding fathers did not say, the citizens have the right to defend themselves. And left it at that. They specifically mentioned with arms. Why do you think they did?

[Altrec]

It's not. It's just mislabeled at times. People can sell firearms at gun shows privately, with no regulation whatsoever. That's the loophole everyone is talking about. Call it something else if you want - but I can go and buy any gun I want from a private seller at a gun show and there will be no record of it.

We're on the same page - he's just wrong in this case, respectfully.

Again, you don't need a gun show to do that. You can go buy a gun from a private seller anywhere and there will be no record of it. That is why it is a misnomer.

[Ghostpanther]

I bought myself 2000 rounds of 7.62x39mm and 2000 .22lr's for Christmas because I can't buy them online anymore :'(

I can't wait to see how high the price for ammo skyrockets now....

The only place I can even find .303 is online, which I'm sure will quadruple in price from any website even WILLING to ship to California now. I guess the Enfield is getting relegated to wall ornament above the fire place now.

That is sad. I would not want to live there for several reasons besides their dumb gun laws.But that is not something some have any control over I guess. You did the smart thing by stocking up on what you did buy.

[Svifnymr]

I hope you know I'm enjoying this discussion - so if anything below comes across like I'm being a dick, know that's not my intention.

No worries, the GW2 forum is mostly dead so I need to do something... :-p

No, it's not. And that's the problem.

Again, that's not "crime guns" as in guns they've already got a read on. That's guns that are just purchased. They have a crime gun database, they do not have an OWNED gun database.
For example:
A gun is found at a crime (or near a crime or anywhere they can justify the trace).
The ATF traces it, without a computerized database, via the retail purchase path.
Once found, that information goes into a computerized database, so if that gun is ever found again, the information is in a computer.

Call it something else then, if you don't like loophole - legally speaking that's the correct term (like a tax loophole). Right now I can go to a gun show, buy any gun, no registration or record, and then sell it at another gun show down the road "because I'm done using it". That's the problem.

That's not what a loophole is, at least in my opinion. A loophole is an unintended consequence. Like, a black powder gun isn't legally a firearm for purchasing requirements because it doesn't take a modern bullet. Once you buy one, you can buy a cylinder and convert it to take a modern bullet, but it's still not a firearm. That's not how the law is written, it's a loophole of sorts.

Exactly. This ISSUE isn't gun shows, but it includes the issue of gun shows. If that makes any sense. Big issue is what you said above, which also includes the gun show problem.

Right, so don't call it a gunshow loophole, say you don't want private transfers. Gunshow loophole paints some picture of gray market trading in a back country hall, when 99% of the sales at gunshows are individuals buying from licensed dealers.

Now that is interesting. I've got to jet for now but I'll be back tomorrow. Would love to continue discussion.

Unless the thread jumps a bunch of pages, then I lose interest. Plenty of threads in the forum that just explode and I don't even bother trying.

[Ghostpanther]

So you want people hunting in the woods using firearms they have no practice time with because they are banned from using them in any other scenario? That seems like a bad idea. Range time and regular use to become familiar with the firearm is kind of important for safety reasons.



I will have to do some checking tonight, but a lot of our gun violence numbers are along the boarder. I did also mention inner city areas also being a problem, but they are also mostly gang related(Chicago/Detroit/Etc.). The cartels and gangs have spread their influence into a lot of cities around the country. As you get away from those areas gun ownership is still high but the gun violence numbers drop.

Of course it is a bad idea. But this is what happens when people are not even familiar with what the AR stands for. They automatically think, Assault Rifle. As if it is some monster weapon only designed to slaughter people. :P

It is very much concentrated in specific areas. And large cities such as New Orleans, Chicago and Baltimore to mention some.

[Svifnymr]

edit: You don't have to register your ammo, but you need a permit that lasts 5? years and if you buy it online you have to have it shipped to an FFL. If you sell more than 500 rounds of ammo then you also have to get a license from the California DoJ.

I saw on Brownells site in big letters "We'll still ship to california!!!!" with the little asterisk, which I always translate as "not really" and in this case it seemed accurate. The asterisk says "we just need to get the information for the local dealer your ammo will actually be shipped to"...

I assume any dealer willing to "transfer" ammo is going to charge and then no discount pricing matters anyway.

[Ghostpanther]

edit: You don't have to register your ammo, but you need a permit that lasts 5? years and if you buy it online you have to have it shipped to an FFL. If you sell more than 500 rounds of ammo then you also have to get a license from the California DoJ.

So what this amounts to is, fees to generate the CA Government more money. Not actually solving any sort of gun related crimes.

Gheeze. How much do those cost? And yeah, would not surprise me if it is more money to fund their social programs for illegal immigrants. :P

[Guy4123]

Gheeze. How much do those cost? And yeah, would not surprise me if it is more money to fund their social programs for illegal immigrants. :P

Hmm I haven't brushed up on the law. Looks like it changed a bit since actually being signed.

You don't need a permit to purchase ammo now, but starting in mid 2019 you have to get a background check done when you buy ammo which is even worse.

And to top off the "this solves absolutely nothing" cake, none of the bills ban buying the separate parts needed to reload your own ammunition. So you can still buy shells, primers, powder, and the bullets separately online and shipped to your door. Guess it's time to invest into a reloading station. Not getting my .303's any other way!

[Deleted]

Gheeze. How much do those cost? And yeah, would not surprise me if it is more money to fund their social programs for illegal immigrants. :P

Fundamentally this is what I see as the problem.

Nobody is against regulated sane gun control programs. But the Anti-Gun lobby is just jealous of a very lucrative industry.