Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Mayhem]

Incorrect. I've said it repeatedly at this point: I want UBC's to be implemented. Nation wide.

Also, what question would that be?

you´re also saying it has no bearing in reality and wouldn´t change anything... why do you think i would take you serious then when you say "yep implement it"

also i´m not talking about UBC alone

the one with the question mark

[Eroginous]

make it harder for criminals,

You're not actually making it harder.

don´t change anything for law abiding citizens,

Adding more laws for people to follow is a change.

what´s bad about this?

You spend time and resources implementing laws that do not achieve the goals you expect them to. There is no noticeable change, and you fail to address the root of the problem (which isn't people having guns, in case you were wondering).

"Don't pass laws because I ignore them!"

I really can't believe people think this is intellectual in any way. It absolutely blows my mind.

"Don't read posts people make because that would give you nothing to argue about."

Same old shit different day with Rukentuts.

you´re also saying it has no bearing in reality and wouldn´t change anything... why do you think i would take you serious then when you say "yep implement it"

I understand English might not be your first language, and if there's a language barrier here, I apologize. Before, when I said this:

Nothing you say has any bearing on reality.

I did not mean that UBCs would have no effect on reality and change nothing. I meant that the things you keep saying are not representative of reality. You say having UBCs/licensing/registration would make it harder for criminals to get guns. You've repeatedly failed to demonstrate how implementing these things would increase the difficulty of obtaining a firearm by a criminal. Instead, we know that there are several possible avenues by which someone can obtain a firearm, where only one of them would even be a hindrance for a criminal. This is why your posts have no bearing on reality. You simply don't have an accurate grasp on the situation. We've clearly explained things several times and have tried to get you to understand.

At this point it's just us trying to hold your hand through basic logic.

[PhaelixWW]

make it harder for criminals, don´t change anything for law abiding citizens, what´s bad about this?

You have that backwards there, champ.

Criminals will continue to ignore a law that's basically voluntary, because there's no way to enforce it. The law will really only burden the ultra-law-abiding who will feel honor-bound to comply with it, even bearing in mind the hassle.

It's like speed limits. Just because the posted limit is 60MPH doesn't mean everyone's going to follow it. They know that the highway patrol will almost never pull you over unless you top 75MPH, so the common speed is around 70MPH.

[Eroginous]

You have that backwards there, champ.

Criminals will continue to ignore a law that's basically voluntary, because there's no way to enforce it. The law will really only burden the ultra-law-abiding who will feel honor-bound to comply with it, even bearing in mind the hassle.

It's like speed limits. Just because the posted limit is 60MPH doesn't mean everyone's going to follow it. They know that the highway patrol will almost never pull you over unless you top 75MPH, so the common speed is around 70MPH.

Just to expand on this for a minute. Traffic laws are useful because we've employed police officers and cameras to enforce them. If we did not have patrol officers and/or cameras, traffic laws would be pointless. As it stands, however, when someone breaks a traffic law, like running through a red light or speeding, the systems we have in place can catch that person and then punish him/her for breaking the law, which makes breaking the law super inconvenient both financially and physically for that person.

When we have a law like UBCs on private gun sales, we don't have a system in place that will catch people breaking the law. Unless you're going to install cameras in every gun owners house/car/job or have patrol officers randomly knocking on doors to find bad guys, you're not going to do anything to punish two people from engaging in a firearm business transaction without a background check. Because there is no risk of punishment, determined 'criminals' will not be deterred by such a law.

[Ghostpanther]

Just to expand on this for a minute. Traffic laws are useful because we've employed police officers and cameras to enforce them. If we did not have patrol officers and/or cameras, traffic laws would be pointless. As it stands, however, when someone breaks a traffic law, like running through a red light or speeding, the systems we have in place can catch that person and then punish him/her for breaking the law, which makes breaking the law super inconvenient both financially and physically for that person.

When we have a law like UBCs on private gun sales, we don't have a system in place that will catch people breaking the law. Unless you're going to install cameras in every gun owners house/car/job or have patrol officers randomly knocking on doors to find bad guys, you're not going to do anything to punish two people from engaging in a firearm business transaction without a background check. Because there is no risk of punishment, determined 'criminals' will not be deterred by such a law.

Some good points. Esp about the traffic laws and how they are enforced. Which is why we need to ban private sales or trades of guns. And make it legal to do by only those licensed to do it. Which they in turn would be required to do background checks from a national data base. Would black market gun sales still happen? of course. Same now with drugs. But imagine what we would have if anyone could purchase and sell any drugs? What a mess! And the nation has to be willing to accept the fact more law enforcement money has to be allocated to make any program work the best.

Some mind set changes has to take place. One to accept the fact a gun is a deadly tool and needs to be regulated to a point. But at the same time the protection for each citizen under the Constitution to keep and bear arms needs to be assured. We do this already with requiring licenses for other potential deadly items. Those controls for the gun owners however, need to be kept reasonable in price so the average citizen can still afford to do them. Not like some places which have placed a big price on getting a CCP and having too many restrictions. They do that to discourage most from getting one. So by that stupid action, they actually encourage illegal uses of guns. :P Like for example it costs 25 bucks to get a CCP in Pa. While in Illinois it costs around 700. Dumb.

[Mayhem]

You have that backwards there, champ.

Criminals will continue to ignore a law that's basically voluntary, because there's no way to enforce it. The law will really only burden the ultra-law-abiding who will feel honor-bound to comply with it, even bearing in mind the hassle.

It's like speed limits. Just because the posted limit is 60MPH doesn't mean everyone's going to follow it. They know that the highway patrol will almost never pull you over unless you top 75MPH, so the common speed is around 70MPH.

yeah, well, i´m tired of repeating myself, so i´ll just stop, ghostpanther understands my point telling by his response

[lockedout]

"Don't pass laws because I ignore them!"

I really can't believe people think this is intellectual in any way. It absolutely blows my mind.

What blows my mind is that you advocate all guns should be registered and own unregistered guns. You call people who don't own guns "gunners" when you yourself own guns.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is why we need to ban private sales or trades of guns.

I don't agree with this at all, at least not in America.

- - - Updated - - -

But imagine what we would have if anyone could purchase and sell any drugs?

We already have that.

- - - Updated - - -

We do this already with requiring licenses for other potential deadly items.

How many of those are rights guaranteed in the constitution?

- - - Updated - - -

What happens when the government is out of control and the criminals are out of control? You rely on the citizens to take their country back. How do they do it? By arming themselves. Mexico to legalize vigilantes fighting drug cartel http://news.yahoo.com/mexico-legaliz...040406200.html

[TwoNineMarine]

What happens when the government is out of control and the criminals are out of control? You rely on the citizens to take their country back. How do they do it? By arming themselves. Mexico to legalize vigilantes fighting drug cartel http://news.yahoo.com/mexico-legaliz...040406200.html

Something something this can never happen in America. We are better then that. Blah blah blah. It's never happened in the history of the world something something.

[lockedout]

Something something this can never happen in America. We are better then that. Blah blah blah. It's never happened in the history of the world something something.

I know I love this utopia we live in.

[Eroginous]

Which is why we need to ban private sales or trades of guns.

Let's say for the sake of argument, we did ban private sales. Bob sells his guns to Fred without a background check. How do you enforce the law against that? How do you even begin to know that Bob sold Fred guns?

Please explain to me how creating those laws would be useful (other than to make you feel better).

But imagine what we would have if anyone could purchase and sell any drugs? What a mess! And the nation has to be willing to accept the fact more law enforcement money has to be allocated to make any program work the best.

The war on drugs has already been recognized as a failure by many people within our own government. We spend billions of dollars on it each year and bare put a dent in the black market. It's to the point where states are beginning to legalize Marijuana (the most used drug in America) because it's not really worth fighting against anymore. I'm not sure comparing private gun sales to drug sales is a good argument to make. A lot of people (mostly liberals) would rather legalize and regulate all drugs than continue to fight this 'drug war.'

I know I love this utopia we live in.

I love it how it's okay for someone to get a gun legally and kill someone with it, so long as we did a background check on the guy.

[Ghostpanther]

Let's say for the sake of argument, we did ban private sales. Bob sells his guns to Fred without a background check. How do you enforce the law against that? How do you even begin to know that Bob sold Fred guns?

Please explain to me how creating those laws would be useful (other than to make you feel better).


.

If Bob is disobeying the law and there is no record of the transaction, then there is only one way. Fred confesses he bought it from Bob to the police. Then the police nails Bob. Such a law would be useful in prosecuting the lawbreakers and thus discouraging future law breaking. Same as a lot of laws on the books which people do get caught violating and are prosecuted for.

- - - Updated - - -

The war on drugs has already been recognized as a failure by many people within our own government. We spend billions of dollars on it each year and bare put a dent in the black market. It's to the point where states are beginning to legalize Marijuana (the most used drug in America) because it's not really worth fighting against anymore. I'm not sure comparing private gun sales to drug sales is a good argument to make. A lot of people (mostly liberals) would rather legalize and regulate all drugs than continue to fight this 'drug war.'


.

I do not think the war on hardcore drugs is a failure. The failure is the punishment system and the present administration's stance on reducing the prison population for what they call minor crimes with drugs. Our fight against drugs before now has been successful. And without the war on drugs it would be a lot worse than it is now. Here is a interesting article which points out some success with the war on drugs by which has reduced the consumption % per population of the use of illegal drugs by 20% since the late 1970's. http://www.suntimes.com/news/othervi...l#.U3ACkP4U-po

- - - Updated - - -

I love it how it's okay for someone to get a gun legally and kill someone with it, so long as we did a background check on the guy.

It's not. A policeman just got fired in Texas for shooting and killing a 93 year old woman..who had a weapon when he shot her. That is a extreme case and not saying it is right or wrong, but the fact is, you can legally own and even carry a weapon and do all the steps needed by law and still be found guilty of misuse of your weapon.

[Eroginous]

If Bob is disobeying the law and there is no record of the transaction, then there is only one way. Fred confesses he bought it from Bob to the police. Then the police nails Bob. Such a law would be useful in prosecuting the lawbreakers and thus discouraging future law breaking. Same as a lot of laws on the books which people do get caught violating and are prosecuted for.

Why would Fred confess to the police he bought guns from Bob? In what world do you live in where criminals regularly confess their crimes to the police?

I do not think the war on hardcore drugs is a failure. The failure is the punishment system and the present administration's stance on reducing the prison population for what they call minor crimes with drugs. Our fight against drugs before now has been successful. And without the war on drugs it would be a lot worse than it is now. Here is a interesting article which points out some success with the war on drugs by which has reduced the consumption % per population of the use of illegal drugs by 20% since the late 1970's. http://www.suntimes.com/news/othervi...l#.U3ACkP4U-po

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/bu...pagewanted=all
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/06/opinio...-war-on-drugs/
http://www.businessinsider.com/econo...n-drugs-2014-5


The problem with the black market is that it exists in the first place because of prohibition. They spend billions to bust a small percentage of dealers, never really getting to the root of the problem, and then a dozen more spring up in the place of the few who are busted. One of the main reasons people are touting Marijuana legalization as a good thing is because it takes power away from the black market.

The fact that everyday people are criminalized because they smoke a little weed or snort a little coke is certainly a problem, but it's not the main problem with the war on drugs. Just look at the cartels in Mexico. Huge organizations that can't even be touched by the Mexican government. Would you rather continue pouring tons of money into fighting that problem, or eliminate completely through legalization and regulation? In just the past few months, Colorado has brought in over 4 million dollars in tax revenue from recreational marijuana sales alone.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/89...p-seeing-green

It's not. A policeman just got fired in Texas for shooting and killing a 93 year old woman..who had a weapon when he shot her. That is a extreme case and not saying it is right or wrong, but the fact is, you can legally own and even carry a weapon and do all the steps needed by law and still be found guilty of misuse of your weapon.

I was actually referring to a specific post by Mayhem in which he clearly implies that the important part of the law is that a background check is done, not that it actually stops a crime:

your story makes no sense, fred obtained them legally, even with a UBC, it would still be legally obtained, because he hasn´t broke the law

In response to a story I made up about Fred buying guns without background checks and then using them to kill a bunch of people.

[lockedout]

Let's say for the sake of argument, we did ban private sales. Bob sells his guns to Fred without a background check. How do you enforce the law against that? How do you even begin to know that Bob sold Fred guns?

Please explain to me how creating those laws would be useful (other than to make you feel better).

They wan't every gun tracked in a national database. They want every sale tracked in the same database, no privacy and no private sales. That way the government can track every gun and every person who owns a gun, how many they own etc.

- - - Updated - - -

Why would Fred confess to the police he bought guns from Bob? In what world do you live in where criminals regularly confess their crimes to the police?

The world where criminals who are engaging in illegal gun sales go to the police afterwards and turn themselves in. It's called utopia.

[jmb83]

The problem isn't the laws with gun control, the main problem is that no one enforces the laws. No one fines or prosecutes the sellers that fail to do a background check. Also, law enforcement itself fails to put criminals into a database so that the ones that do check are not aware that they may be selling a firearm to someone that shouldn't be allowed access to it. This failure by law enforcement ranks from local to federal.
Also, bans on guns won't change anything, a prime example is Chicago. Chicago has a total ban on guns yet it ranks among the highest, if not the highest, murder rate by firearms in the country.

[Ghostpanther]

Why would Fred confess to the police he bought guns from Bob? In what world do you live in where criminals regularly confess their crimes to the police?



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/bu...pagewanted=all
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/06/opinio...-war-on-drugs/
http://www.businessinsider.com/econo...n-drugs-2014-5


The problem with the black market is that it exists in the first place because of prohibition. They spend billions to bust a small percentage of dealers, never really getting to the root of the problem, and then a dozen more spring up in the place of the few who are busted. One of the main reasons people are touting Marijuana legalization as a good thing is because it takes power away from the black market.

The fact that everyday people are criminalized because they smoke a little weed or snort a little coke is certainly a problem, but it's not the main problem with the war on drugs. Just look at the cartels in Mexico. Huge organizations that can't even be touched by the Mexican government. Would you rather continue pouring tons of money into fighting that problem, or eliminate completely through legalization and regulation? In just the past few months, Colorado has brought in over 4 million dollars in tax revenue from recreational marijuana sales alone.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/89...p-seeing-green



I was actually referring to a specific post by Mayhem in which he clearly implies that the important part of the law is that a background check is done, not that it actually stops a crime:



In response to a story I made up about Fred buying guns without background checks and then using them to kill a bunch of people.

Pfft. No way would I ever support legalizing Meth, Coke or some other hard core drugs. Marijuana is no worse than Alcohol, it has some good effects for some people. And it is much better than Tobacco in overall health concerns. I agree making anything illegal can and does lead to some black marketing. But laws also can be effective in controlling the illegal use of some things and does all the time.

It is illegal to drive without a driver's license. Some still do it and get away with it. But some get caught and pay for it too. But overall the great majority will not drive without a valid driver's license. Laws of all kinds are effective in many different ways. But will never stop completely the crooks or those who are not law abiding citizens. But they are still needed.

And yes criminals do go into detail at times what they did when they commited a crime under interrogation. Not always, but it does happen.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem isn't the laws with gun control, the main problem is that no one enforces the laws. No one fines or prosecutes the sellers that fail to do a background check. Also, law enforcement itself fails to put criminals into a database so that the ones that do check are not aware that they may be selling a firearm to someone that shouldn't be allowed access to it. This failure by law enforcement ranks from local to federal.
Also, bans on guns won't change anything, a prime example is Chicago. Chicago has a total ban on guns yet it ranks among the highest, if not the highest, murder rate by firearms in the country.

Well, I am opposed to bans on guns. And Chicago does not have a total ban on guns. They tried to have a total ban on handguns but that law was overturned by the US Supreme Court. A private citizen there can still own a handgun to use for self defense within their home. But yeah, they are very restrictive, too much in my opinion on gun ownership and it's uses. New York City is just as bad.

[lockedout]

New York City is just as bad.

NYC sent letters to all gun owners telling them of the new laws and either to hand in the guns or sell them/remove them from NYC. Registration leads to confiscation.

[PhaelixWW]

If Bob is disobeying the law and there is no record of the transaction, then there is only one way. Fred confesses he bought it from Bob to the police. Then the police nails Bob.

Instead, Bob claims that Fred stole it from him. The burden of proof is, as always, on the police to prove that Bob is lying.

Especially if Bob was any kind of smart and reported the gun stolen after selling it.

And assuming, of course, that the police even care to prosecute this in the first place, which they hardly ever do.

Such a law would be useful in prosecuting the lawbreakers and thus discouraging future law breaking.

There's only evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Fred, especially since we can normally assume that he was picked up on another charge in the first place. Taking the word of criminal Fred as evidence against law-abiding Bob... that doesn't get you far in prosecution.

And if they don't ever bother prosecuting, it'll do precisely jack to discourage anything.

[Ghostpanther]

NYC sent letters to all gun owners telling them of the new laws and either to hand in the guns or sell them/remove them from NYC. Registration leads to confiscation.

Yeah. They are extremists. Worse that Chicago actually.Yet their violent crime rates is higher than the national average. I can understand the hesitation to register a firearm there. I am not for that board of a expansion of gun registration. Apparently the laws makers there have not heard of the common sense of gran fathering. There even if you do register your hand gun, you may not get to keep it.. No way I would live there and I hope you guys do not think I am advocating that type of extreme gun control.

[lockedout]

No way I would live there and I hope you guys do not think I am advocating that type of extreme gun control.

This isn't even the end goal for Bloomberg, he literally wants ALL the guns gone. It happens in small steps it might take years but that is their agenda.

[Mayhem]

the black and white and the fear is strong in you guys

i do wonder if you have any ideas yourselfs on how to make it harder for criminals to get guns, or do you not care at all?