Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TwoNineMarine]

You can't enforce it? Dafuq?

Someone breaks the law. You arrest them.

Enforced.

- - - Updated - - -



You liked that didn't ya

How would you know that I sold my rifle to my friend when he came over to my house? How would it be possible for the government to make him get a background check if they didn't know he bought the rifle?

Dafuq?

[Daelak]

Everything he just listed in his post can be taught in about 10 minutes. I'm 99% sure it took him less time than that to type that stuff out.

8 hours is an excessive amount of time to be teaching basic common sense. I didn't even spend 8 hours learning to operate a motor vehicle, and that's much more difficult to do safely than possessing a firearm. I also love it how you move the goal posts from 'military training' to 'veteran training.' You'll say anything to make people seem like inferior dolts that require federal guidance just to not shoot themselves accidentally while buying a gun.

Moving goalposts? Military officials, including enlisted and veterans, are great resources to use to help with educating and teaching citizens how to use a firearm. It can be all encompassing, LEOs, military, etc. are all great options. I believe all LEOs and military personnel would agree with me that 10 minutes is much too short of a time, 8 hours is more comprehensive.

[Ghostpanther]

It's a ridiculous question. You're asking me how we're supposed to enforce a law.

...by enforcing it.

It is not that simple. There are laws which are basically useless because they are not enforced. Just saying it is a matter of simply enforcing it does not work because the law makers as with any law must decide how important it is and provide the funds and means to effectively enforce it. Which sadly happens to several laws which are on the books, but are not enforced that well.

[TZucchini]

How would you know that I sold my rifle to my friend when he came over to my house? How would it be possible for the government to make him get a background check if they didn't know he bought the rifle?

Dafuq?

You're asking me different questions now. You first asked how you would enforce it. Well, you write the law, and you arrest people that break the law. That's how you enforce it.

Now you're asking me how we can catch every single individual that breaks the law. We can't. Just like every other law on the books. That's not a reason to just throw our hands in the air and say "well fuck it, might as well keep it legal."

[TwoNineMarine]

You're asking me different questions now. You first asked how you would enforce it. Well, you write the law, and you arrest people that break the law. That's how you enforce it.

Now you're asking me how we can catch every single individual that breaks the law. We can't. Just like every other law on the books. That's not a reason to just throw our hands in the air and say "well fuck it, might as well keep it legal."

What's the point of the law if you have zero ways to tell if people are actually breaking that law? If there is no way to prove that they are doing something wrong, why make the law in the first place?

[Eroginous]

You can't enforce it? Dafuq?

Someone breaks the law. You arrest them.

Enforced.

Oversimplifying the legal process doesn't help your argument at all. You need two things to arrest someone:

1. Evidence of a crime.

2. A link to the evidence.

Without those two things, you can't make an arrest. If Bob has a gun he wants to get rid of, and he sells that gun to Fred without a background check, you have no way of knowing that transaction ever took place. There's no record of it (cuz private sale lulz), there's no background check, there's no receipt, there's not even a 4473 form to reference.

So again, how do you come to know that Bob broke the law and should be arrested (you know, actually enforce the law)?

Moving goalposts? Military officials, including enlisted and veterans, are great resources to use to help with educating and teaching citizens how to use a firearm. It can be all encompassing, LEOs, military, etc. are all great options. I believe all LEOs and military personnel would agree with me that 10 minutes is much too short of a time, 8 hours is more comprehensive.

Again, none of those people are required in order to teach the basics on how to use a firearm. All of that info can be taught by the gun salesman at the counter while the person is purchasing their firearm. Forcing people to sign up and take an 8 hour course on firearm basics is the red state anti abortion clinic laws all over again.

Here, I'll make it even easier for you to understand Daelak: Every new firearm sold to someone comes with an owners manual containing all of the information one needs to safely own and operate the firearm they are about to purchase. Even if absolutely zero information is given to that person by the salesperson at the time of purchase, a competent individual with a 4th grade reading level could teach themselves how to operate their firearm just by reading the manual that comes with it.

If someone needs 4 hours to learn the basics of firearm use, they're probably a mental defection who shouldn't own a firearm in the first place.

[Ghostpanther]

Moving goalposts? Military officials, including enlisted and veterans, are great resources to use to help with educating and teaching citizens how to use a firearm. It can be all encompassing, LEOs, military, etc. are all great options. I believe all LEOs and military personnel would agree with me that 10 minutes is much too short of a time, 8 hours is more comprehensive.

You do not need 8 hrs for the proper care and use and safe measures to be taken for a hand gun. Half that time would be more than enough. Even that may be overkill. And then with a license required for them, you would get a shorter refresh course each time you renewed it. But yeah, 10 mins is not enough time.

[Mayhem]

Lol. Deflecting again.

Fact is you can't enforce it. You can tell people they have to submit to background checks, even for private sales, and it won't happen. Especially if there are fees or other things like that in the way.

other countries seem to be able, wonder how they accomplish that feat, oh right, registration and stuff, there, done

make it free, of course

now if you want to sell your weapon boom you sell your registration with it, with this selling the new registration will be added to the other person, obviously by an government or state agency, and while they´re at it, they make a background check, not viable, guess what he won´t get the gun and the deal is void

also i don´t know but a criminal that isn´t allowed to purchase a weapon maybe doesn´t want to be caught trying

how do you bring people to register their weapons? give them a year, after that time they´ll be questioned if they get caught with an unregistered weapon (why would they be risking it?) and have to register them anyway, background check included

[TZucchini]

What's the point of the law if you have zero ways to tell if people are actually breaking that law? If there is no way to prove that they are doing something wrong, why make the law in the first place?

Zero ways to tell if people are actually breaking the law? Where are you getting this made up statement from?

When police arrest individuals for possessing an 1/8 of marijuana, are they ever able to track that back to the dealer? They have entire departments dedicated to this kind of detective work.

You guys are just going "It'll be too hard", without even trying. There's other laws you can pass in conjunction with a universal back ground check in order to make enforcement and investigation much easier. But you can't do those things unless you pass the UBC.

[Eroginous]

other countries seem to be able, wonder how they accomplish that feat, oh right, registration and stuff, there, done

make it free, of course

now if you want to sell your weapon boom you sell your registration with it, with this selling the new registration will be added to the other person, obviously by an government or state agency, and while they´re at it, they make a background check, not viable, guess what he won´t get the gun and the deal is void

also i don´t know but a criminal that isn´t allowed to purchase a weapon maybe doesn´t want to be caught trying

how do you bring people to register their weapons? give them a year, after that time they´ll be questioned if they get caught with an unregistered weapon (why would they be risking it?) and have to register them anyway, background check included

Show me a country that has as many people and guns as the US, while also having a much lower crime rate that can be attributed to UBCs, registrations, or licensing.

Zero ways to tell if people are actually breaking the law? Where are you getting this made up statement from?

When police arrest individuals for possessing an 1/8 of marijuana, are they ever able to track that back to the dealer? They have entire departments dedicated to this kind of detective work.

You guys are just going "It'll be too hard", without even trying. There's other laws you can pass in conjunction with a universal back ground check in order to make enforcement and investigation much easier. But you can't do those things unless you pass the UBC.

How did the police officer come to know that someone had a bag of marijuana? Also: the US drug war barely makes a dent in the trafficking of drugs throughout the US. Keep that in mind when you try to discuss enforcing impossible to enforce laws.

[Rukentuts]

Show me a country that has as many people and guns as the US, while also having a much lower crime rate that can be attributed to UBCs, registrations, or licensing.

We already have. You just deliberately ignored it for the upteenth time.

[Eroginous]

We already have. You just deliberately ignored it for the upteenth time.

No, you haven't. Most countries that have low gun related crimes either have heavy restrictions on who can have a gun, much lower populations than the US, or both. There are few countries that have as many or more people than the US (the US ranks 3rd in population size in the entire world). The two countries who have more people than the US are china (heavy gun restrictions, virtually only police/military) and India (practically the reverse, guns everywhere, high crime rate, despite being practically illegal for civilian).

You cannot find a country with as many people, as many guns, and fewer gun related deaths which can also be attributed to UBCs, registration, or licensing. Try reading my post next time instead of pasting your canned response.

[Mayhem]

Show me a country that has as many people and guns as the US, while also having a much lower crime rate that can be attributed to UBCs, registrations, or licensing.

right i forgot, we can´t make it work in the US because we are too many people

great counter, ignoring the ATF at first and then this, yeah let´s just don´t try to make it hard for criminals

[Deleted]

No, you haven't. Most countries that have low gun related crimes either have heavy restrictions on who can have a gun, much lower populations than the US, or both. There are few countries that have as many or more people than the US (the US ranks 3rd in population size in the entire world). The two countries who have more people than the US are china (heavy gun restrictions, virtually only police/military) and India (practically the reverse, guns everywhere, high crime rate, despite being practically illegal for civilian).

You cannot find a country with as many people, as many guns, and fewer gun related deaths which can also be attributed to UBCs, registration, or licensing. Try reading my post next time instead of pasting your canned response.

This is so stupid.... Do you honestly believe the gabbage you've posted? You've limited the amount of answers to 0 with your restrictions. If you're gonna compare USA to anything try comparing it to European Union, and not 3rd world countries.

[PhaelixWW]

Let's take a page out of the gunners playbook:

Each year, police interact with civilians hundreds of millions of times.

In 2013, there were 309 incidents of police killing civilians.

Let's assume that every single incident was unjustified.

Therefore 309/500,000,000 = .0000006 % of interactions lead to an innocent civilian being killed.

Wowzers! It's no big deal then! Police are trustworthy!

Hurray for false logic. That's what you get for attempting to yield a conclusion with an absolute. "Police are mostly trustworthy" would be a better logical conclusion.

You might as well say:

1) .0000006% of police interactions lead to an innocent civilian being killed by a police officer.
2) Therefore, police are sometimes untrustworthy.
3) You can't tell which ones are untrustworthy ahead of time. (No Minority Report here!)
3) Therefore, heavily restrict or ban firearm usage for police officers.

A ridiculous logical assertion, yet one that's being perpetrated against firearm owners all the time. I mean, it sometimes seems almost impossible to get any gun control proponent to admit that "Civilian firearm owners are mostly trustworthy", let alone give a shit about their rights. It's hard to have an intellectually honest debate without admitting certain basic truths.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

It must be baffling to Daelak how some people can live their entire lives completely independent of the government while enjoying all the freedoms our constitution guarantees us, without incident or tragedy.

And it's Lockedout's comments and the one I quoted is why I have a hard time thinking you are sincere in your arguments. You bait them.

[Nakura Chambers]

You're asking me different questions now. You first asked how you would enforce it. Well, you write the law, and you arrest people that break the law. That's how you enforce it.

Now you're asking me how we can catch every single individual that breaks the law. We can't. Just like every other law on the books. That's not a reason to just throw our hands in the air and say "well fuck it, might as well keep it legal."

How do you intend on finding out if someone breaks the law? The only way to do that is to have 24/7 surveillance of every single American, and even then, there are still ways to get around it with ease.

[Madness20]

It's ridiculous that the US itself makes profit out of giving a way for the citizens to kill themselves and eachothers. If you want to start gun control from somewhere, you better stop it's production, and that would make a hell lot of a difference because gradually weapons and bullets would become much much rare, specially for criminals that would use them much.

[PhaelixWW]

they are ineffective because they aren´t mandatory for every purchase

California would beg to differ with that statement.

Despite a much lower gun ownership percentage than the national average, and despite a universal background check law that's been in place for decades, our homicide rate and our firearm homicide rate are both above the national average.

- - - Updated - - -

The states have a right to form a militia. The federal government has a right to regulate it with ATF, military officials. That is in the 2nd amendment.

What the... no it's not. Seriously, how could you possibly have this interpretation?

The entire point of the 2nd Amendment (and the whole Bill of Rights, for that matter) was to limit the federal government's powers over the States and the citizens.

The Bill of Rights was added specifically to codify what the federal government couldn't do.

Sure, the SCOTUS has decided that, in the interest of national public safety, some regulation of the access to armaments is allowable (and thus we have the ATF), but that's the exception, not the rule. And certainly many people debate the extent to which such regulation is acceptable (ie, banning ICBMs is fine, but banning handguns is not).

But nowhere in the 2nd does it even come close to saying that the federal government can regulate the States' militias. That's... ridiculous. And a complete opposite to the purpose of the 2nd.

[Daelak]

California would beg to differ with that statement.

Despite a much lower gun ownership percentage than the national average, and despite a universal background check law that's been in place for decades, our homicide rate and our firearm homicide rate are both above the national average.

- - - Updated - - -


What the... no it's not. Seriously, how could you possibly have this interpretation?

The entire point of the 2nd Amendment (and the whole Bill of Rights, for that matter) was to limit the federal government's powers over the States and the citizens.

The Bill of Rights was added specifically to codify what the federal government couldn't do.

Sure, the SCOTUS has decided that, in the interest of national public safety, some regulation of the access to armaments is allowable (and thus we have the ATF), but that's the exception, not the rule. And certainly many people debate the extent to which such regulation is acceptable (ie, banning ICBMs is fine, but banning handguns is not).

But nowhere in the 2nd does it even come close to saying that the federal government can regulate the States' militias. That's... ridiculous. And a complete opposite to the purpose of the 2nd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792