Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Mayhem]

So having a name in a computer all of a sudden = more manpower?

Does investigating and apprehending criminals come down to names in a data base now?

What part of 'not enough manpower to enforce current laws' escapes you?

You´re right, asking and questioning criminals will take less time, less manpower and less everything than a press of a button.

What part of 'current laws require more manhours/-power than new laws' escapes you?

- - - Updated - - -

Nice try. Once again you fail at reading comprehension. That shows firearm violence numbers, not recovered firearms, which was the original statement. From the link I posted earlier that you completely ignored, of the 33727 firearms recovered in all of Canada in 2011, 27655 were non-restricted, 4293 were restricted, and 1767 were prohibited.

Handguns in Canada can only be restricted or prohibited. So even if every single restricted and prohibited firearm recovered that year was a handgun, that's only 18% of the total number of recovered firearms. That makes:

...a true statement.

you went from "The US is the primary source of smuggled guns" to "handguns are a small portion of crime guns" ... what are crime guns?

[Rukentuts]

you went from "The US is the primary source of smuggled guns" to "handguns are a small portion of crime guns" ... what are crime guns?

It's an inflated statistic that includes any traced gun, like for even improper registration and whatnot. It's highly deceptive.

http://www.timesunion.com/local/arti...th-3572735.php

Canadian law enforcement seized nearly 110,000 firearms over the past four years and fielded at least 439,000 gun-trace requests from 2008 through 2011, said Royal Canadian Mounted Police spokeswoman Julie Gagnon. But many of the seizures and traces were not for guns used in crimes but rather for violations of gun licensing and registration laws, she added.

Meanwhile...

From 2007 through 2011, Canada submitted 6,574 guns to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for tracing — a fraction of the 99,000 guns Mexico asked ATF to trace.

Virtually all of the guns recovered in Canada were traced to U.S. sources, with just over half linked to a retail purchase in the U.S. By contrast, ATF data showed just over two-thirds of guns from Mexico were traced to U.S. sources — a U.S. manufacturer or importer — and just under one-third were linked to a U.S. retail purchase.

I think it's safe to say the USA is exporting the means to commit crime to Canada and Mexico. The evidence has grown enormously against a single, increasingly cherrypicked, and misrepresented source.

[Eroginous]

You´re right, asking and questioning criminals will take less time, less manpower and less everything than a press of a button.

What part of 'current laws require more manhours/-power than new laws' escapes you?

I'm sorry, but new laws won't change anything about the process of investigating and apprehending criminals. You still have to do the physical labor of investigating and apprehension that cannot be replaced by computers or robots (at least for the foreseeable future). That's where the shortage of manpower comes in. Setting up a data base to catalog firearms (there are already some out there, btw), will not all of a sudden increase the manpower of LEOs in the US. They will still have all the same legwork to do to prep a case, still be underfunded and shorthanded, and still not have the resources to properly do their jobs.

That's what you don't seem to get.

you forgot about straw purchases already?

And you seem to forget that it's:

1. Already illegal.

2. Already something that law enforcement is significantly undermanned to deal with.

Bringing it up now is laughable. Sure, straw purchases happen. It's already a crime punishable by 10 years in federal prison. How exactly do you think enacting new laws will impact it?

[Mayhem]

I'm sorry, but new laws won't change anything about the process of investigating and apprehending criminals. You still have to do the physical labor of investigating and apprehension that cannot be replaced by computers or robots (at least for the foreseeable future). That's where the shortage of manpower comes in. Setting up a data base to catalog firearms (there are already some out there, btw), will not all of a sudden increase the manpower of LEOs in the US. They will still have all the same legwork to do to prep a case, still be underfunded and shorthanded, and still not have the resources to properly do their jobs.

That's what you don't seem to get.

What i don´t get, is that you bring up an example and argue against it, rather than arguing against my example.

here the two scenarios, see a difference?

Licensed weapon is found at crimescene. Computer gives out history of owners at the press of a button. Police now know who was the last legal owner.

Unlicensed weapon is found at crimescene.

And you seem to forget that it's:

1. Already illegal.

2. Already something that law enforcement is significantly undermanned to deal with.

Bringing it up now is laughable. Sure, straw purchases happen. It's already a crime punishable by 10 years in federal prison. How exactly do you think enacting new laws will impact it?

Was legality the question or easy to get?

[Ghostpanther]

How in the world did you came up with that question based on my quote? Maybe you should stop arguing against an argument i never made!?

- - - Updated - - -

How in the world can you make such statements and expect not to be challenged? Your point was if criminals can easily get guns, then citizens need to be armed to defend themselves. But the answer is to make it so criminals cannot easily get them. And only if you do that is the point of self defense valid. Because you did say " Or else this whole argument of defense becomes useless."

[Mayhem]

How in the world can you make such statements and expect not to be challenged? Your point was if criminals can easily get guns, then citizens need to be armed to defend themselves. But the answer is to make it so criminals cannot easily get them. And only if you do that is the point of self defense valid. Because you did say " Or else this whole argument of defense becomes useless."

correct, so how did your 300 million guns have to magically disappear statement make any sense?

[TZucchini]

Why do people keep saying that guns are easy to get?

Because they are. Exhibit A. "f you’re an FFL and you’d like to sell firearms at the expo, please understand this: No unconstitutional gun sales will be permitted. That means no background checks, no paperwork, no infringement. If you’d like to come and sell gear not requiring a background check, great! If you’d like to sell firearms without lawless legislation, awesome! But we WILL not comply with violations of the Second Amendment."

JEEZ! They sure are making it difficult to buy those gunz!

[Ghostpanther]

correct, so how did your 300 million guns have to magically disappear statement make any sense?

*face palms. If there are over 300 million guns out in circulation, you cannot see the logical of trying to say we will make it harder for criminals to get guns, therefore few will get them. But omit the fact there will still be millions they can get illegally? :P

I am all for better background checks , mental health checks and safety training, but even with all those being stronger, will not have much impact on the criminals from getting firearms illegally using the black market. At best, it will catch some nut cases and make the owners who do buy firearms safer owners. Which is a good thing. But it will not have a large impact on a homeowner having any less need to defend themselves with firearms.

[Tinykong]

Because they are. Exhibit A. "f you’re an FFL and you’d like to sell firearms at the expo, please understand this: No unconstitutional gun sales will be permitted. That means no background checks, no paperwork, no infringement. If you’d like to come and sell gear not requiring a background check, great! If you’d like to sell firearms without lawless legislation, awesome! But we WILL not comply with violations of the Second Amendment."

JEEZ! They sure are making it difficult to buy those gunz!

Because to become a FFL you just mail in a few box tops from ammo boxes and they send you the licence in the mail like a Buck Rogers decoder ring.

[Eroginous]

Because they are. Exhibit A. "f you’re an FFL and you’d like to sell firearms at the expo, please understand this: No unconstitutional gun sales will be permitted. That means no background checks, no paperwork, no infringement. If you’d like to come and sell gear not requiring a background check, great! If you’d like to sell firearms without lawless legislation, awesome! But we WILL not comply with violations of the Second Amendment."

JEEZ! They sure are making it difficult to buy those gunz!

Oh no! One expo in one tiny town on one day of the year is going to ignore federal firearm regulation! GUNS ARE TOO EASY TO GET IN THIS ONE VERY RIPE CHERRY PICKED EXAMPLE YOU HAPPENED TO COME ACROSS RANDOMLY!

Does this apply to all expos in all locations? Nope. Your argument is invalid.

What i don´t get, is that you bring up an example and argue against it, rather than arguing against my example.

here the two scenarios, see a difference?

Licensed weapon is found at crimescene. Computer gives out history of owners at the press of a button. Police now know who was the last legal owner.

Unlicensed weapon is found at crimescene.

It's not my fault you decided to vaguely argue that more laws = more man power. If you don't want me to give an example of how you're incorrect, then supply examples in your initial argument.

Having a name in a computer does not eliminate the leg work of investigating and apprehending criminals. We already have databases with names in them which are employed daily across the nation to help combat criminal behavior and gun violence.

Please explain to me how new laws are going to create more manpower.

Oh, and here's a great PRE 9-11-esque example of cherry picking a study to support an argument:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkXchv55Vao

[Rukentuts]

Oh no! One expo in one tiny town on one day of the year is going to ignore federal firearm regulation! GUNS ARE TOO EASY TO GET IN THIS ONE VERY RIPE CHERRY PICKED EXAMPLE YOU HAPPENED TO COME ACROSS RANDOMLY!

Does this apply to all expos in all locations? Nope. Your argument is invalid.

Says thee who cites nothing?

[TZucchini]

Oh no! One expo in one tiny town on one day of the year is going to ignore federal firearm regulation! GUNS ARE TOO EASY TO GET IN THIS ONE VERY RIPE CHERRY PICKED EXAMPLE YOU HAPPENED TO COME ACROSS RANDOMLY!

Does this apply to all expos in all locations? Nope. Your argument is invalid.

It's interesting that when someone provides a piece of evidence that directly contradicts your opinion, it's somehow "cherry-picked".

Maybe you'll accept this piece of evidence; A report from The Department of Justice. They find that "...according to ATF and other Department officials we interviewed, individuals prohibited by law from possessing guns can easily obtain them from private sellers and do so without any federal records of the transactions."

There you have it. Even individuals that are prohibited by law from obtaining firearms can do so easily.

Feel free to provide evidence that says otherwise.

[lockedout]

I think it's safe to say the USA is exporting the means to commit crime to Canada and Mexico. The evidence has grown enormously against a single, increasingly cherrypicked, and misrepresented source.

I guess you forgot our government smuggled many guns to Mexico through fast and furious.

- - - Updated - - -

Because to become a FFL you just mail in a few box tops from ammo boxes and they send you the licence in the mail like a Buck Rogers decoder ring.

Concealed carry persons as a group have the lowest crime rate of any group, coming in second is off duty police officers.

[Deleted]

coming in second is off duty police officers.

If the same standards apply to them as on duty officers or similar then it would be no wonder.

[lockedout]

Because they are. Exhibit A. "f you’re an FFL and you’d like to sell firearms at the expo, please understand this: No unconstitutional gun sales will be permitted. That means no background checks, no paperwork, no infringement. If you’d like to come and sell gear not requiring a background check, great! If you’d like to sell firearms without lawless legislation, awesome! But we WILL not comply with violations of the Second Amendment."

JEEZ! They sure are making it difficult to buy those gunz!

It's a private sale, the person buying the guns would be committing a criminal act if they lied to the seller, not the other way around.

- - - Updated - - -

If the same standards apply to them as on duty officers or similar then it would be no wonder.

No idea what you mean.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh no! One expo in one tiny town on one day of the year is going to ignore federal firearm regulation! GUNS ARE TOO EASY TO GET IN THIS ONE VERY RIPE CHERRY PICKED EXAMPLE YOU HAPPENED TO COME ACROSS RANDOMLY!

Does this apply to all expos in all locations? Nope. Your argument is invalid.



It's not my fault you decided to vaguely argue that more laws = more man power. If you don't want me to give an example of how you're incorrect, then supply examples in your initial argument.

Having a name in a computer does not eliminate the leg work of investigating and apprehending criminals. We already have databases with names in them which are employed daily across the nation to help combat criminal behavior and gun violence.

Please explain to me how new laws are going to create more manpower.

Oh, and here's a great PRE 9-11-esque example of cherry picking a study to support an argument:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkXchv55Vao

You mean once the law is passed the criminals won't go to the police station and turn themselves in?

[Tinykong]

Concealed carry persons as a group have the lowest crime rate of any group, coming in second is off duty police officers.

It's almost like you can't be a felon and get a gun legally.

[Tasttey]

It's a private sale, the person buying the guns would be committing a criminal act if they lied to the seller, not the other way around.

Actually it's an invitation to become a criminal, this "arms expo" is to take place "on private property near Yakima, WA," which if you remember passed I-594 back in November 2014, which means that under state law any transaction involving a firearm would require a background check, even private sales.

Beyond that if one is an FFL one is required by federal law to run a NICS background check on all firearm sales conducted (unless it is a privately held firearm you've owned for over 1 year) or be in violation of federal law which could result in the loss of your FFL as well as prison time/fines.


Shit like this is makes pro-gunners look bad like Feinstein makes ani-gunners look bad.

[Mayhem]

*face palms. If there are over 300 million guns out in circulation, you cannot see the logical of trying to say we will make it harder for criminals to get guns, therefore few will get them. But omit the fact there will still be millions they can get illegally? :P

I am all for better background checks , mental health checks and safety training, but even with all those being stronger, will not have much impact on the criminals from getting firearms illegally using the black market. At best, it will catch some nut cases and make the owners who do buy firearms safer owners. Which is a good thing. But it will not have a large impact on a homeowner having any less need to defend themselves with firearms.

So you´re either saying that 300 mio guns are then up for sale on the black market or generally up for sale - ridiculous argument
Or you´re saying that 300 mio guns are in circulation all the time - ridiculous argument

Making it harder for criminals to obtaine weapons through straw purchases has zero impact on the already legally owned guns. I´d say that the majority of the 300 mio are legally owned guns.

[Eroginous]

It's interesting that when someone provides a piece of evidence that directly contradicts your opinion, it's somehow "cherry-picked".

The problem with the statement 'guns are easy to get' is that it makes several assumptions that cannot be verified to hold true in every case of potential gun ownership. 'All you have to do is travel to Yakima to their expo on this one specific date and you can get a gun even if you're a criminal.' Do you not know where Yakima is? How out of the way it is for the vast majority of people in the US? How unnecessarily expensive it would be for the average American citizen to travel to Yakima to buy a gun, especially if they were a criminal? So this one instance of 'easy to get a gun' is not even a blip on the radar of most people in the US, let alone felons who couldn't purchase a firearm otherwise.

That, and you have to assume that the FFLs who have booths are really going to risk their licenses by selling without background checks. I know I wouldn't.

But yeah, 'guns are easy to get!'

Right...

Maybe you'll accept this piece of evidence; A report from The Department of Justice. They find that "...according to ATF and other Department officials we interviewed, individuals prohibited by law from possessing guns can easily obtain them from private sellers and do so without any federal records of the transactions."

There you have it. Even individuals that are prohibited by law from obtaining firearms can do so easily.

Feel free to provide evidence that says otherwise.

I'm sorry, but adding adverbs to statements is an overused and often frowned upon tool of creative writing. Any idiot can say something is 'easily' done without offering a single shred of evidence to prove his claim. How difficult something can be is a matter of opinion and circumstance, not a statement of fact. This is why we take issue with your studies and your 'evidence.' Neither one are absolute or even relative to the average human being living in the US.

For instance, if I wanted to buy a gun, my best avenue of acquiring one would be to drive down the block to a licensed shop and buy one brand new after passing a background check. I could ask a family member or a friend if they want to sell me one of their firearms, but they would have to have one for sale. I could also risk my own personal safety trying to find a criminal to buy a gun from, but that will likely only get me into trouble.

Please explain to me how these factors make getting a gun 'easy.' Sure, it's easy if you don't care what make/model gun you get, the condition it's in, or whether it was used in a crime. For those of us responsible gun owners, we don't need a law to prevent us from buying these firearms. We just need common sense. What we don't need is a law that turns us into criminals for buying or selling a firearm to someone without being forced to go find an FFL to 'authorize' the sale first. We can do that already, without a law.

[Mayhem]

It's not my fault you decided to vaguely argue that more laws = more man power.

Oh please quote me on that one. Really if you think, more information makes the job harder i don´t know what to tell you.