Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[PhaelixWW]

You haven't seen Obama's AW Bil.

Obama doesn't have a bill. He can't have a bill. He's not a Congressman. Only Congressmen can propose bills.

Diane Feinstein, on the other hand, is a Senator. She has proposed a bill. We have seen it. It's even been linked in this thread, many times.

My question is relevant because it invokes guns. Yours is not because it doesn't.

No, your question is out of context, and ridiculous. And considering that you've changed the parameters from "Do you support" to "Why do you support", it's also assuming things that haven't been shown or proven, and is flat out insulting.

[Grizzly Willy]

No, your question is out of context, and ridiculous. And considering that you've changed the parameters from "Do you support" to "Why do you support", it's also assuming things that haven't been shown or proven, and is flat out insulting.

Would you say that it's common sense that her questions are misleading?

[Svifnymr]

The trace would lead to you, but if you can show that you didn't know the person you sold the gun to was a prohibited person, then you're not liable.

That's sort of what I mean though. If a person sells a gun privately, with no background check, to someone they don't know and don't keep any records of it, then when something happens with that gun, I'd say liability can be traced back to their lack of due diligance in the gun sale, if that makes sense.

There is nothing in most laws that require you to do anything, but there's also no inherent protection from your consequences. If your defense from "we found your gun at a murder scene" is "yeah, I sold it and don't know who to", then liability wise there's some risk, even if criminally there's no penalty. If they can link you to the victim otherwise, then it's a different can of worms.

Like I said, "knowingly" is the key word. The point was that a lot of states have completely undocumented, legal firearm transfers. Passing a universal background check law would at least document the sale, if not the ownership

Well I meant in situations where I'm getting a buddy to straw purchase for me. If he knows me and gets me a gun, then it would be reasonable to prosecute. (Though I doubt any such cases would go to trial anyway, plea bargain wise.)

His point was, I think, that you'd be in "illegal possession" if you couldn't somehow prove ownership of the firearm, like a pink slip for a car. My point was that those are two different terms. You can be in legal possession without proof of ownership.

Yeah, I agreed with you, was just saying also that anyone that can't legally buy one (can't pass a background check) also can't own one (so is breaking the law if someone buys one for him and he simply possesses it).

[PhaelixWW]

The ergonomics can affect the accuracy and ease of use by the user though.

And yet, by Biden's own words, a double-barrel shotgun is easier to use than an AR with a pistol grip. Odd.

But more seriously, the whole accuracy and ease of use thing is not a valid reason to ban such features. Accuracy isn't even really an issue at the kinds of ranges that these shootings occur. And even if they were, why aren't optics banned? Dot sights, reflex sights, scopes... they all do far more to enhance accuracy than a pistol grip. Honestly, I'd think the main objection to a pistol grip is that it allows you to fire more easily from the hip, a la "spray and pray", but since these firearms aren't automatic, and since firing from the hip is actually far less accurate... it doesn't make sense.

The whole thing is ridiculous. People argue to ban certain features because they claim that they make the weapon too accurate and easy to conceal, and yet countless non-offensive firearms are easier to conceal or far more accurate.

---------- Post added 2013-02-28 at 05:21 PM ----------

how do you suppose increasing police funding will help with straw purchases?

Straw purchases continue to happen because people are so rarely prosecuted for it. It would be better to say that increased funding would have to go to both police and the DA's office in order to effectively enforce the law that already exists.

private citizens arent the main target of gun theft, dealers are.

Source? Because I think this is a ridiculous statement.

[Rocko9]

And yet, by Biden's own words, a double-barrel shotgun is easier to use than an AR with a pistol grip. Odd.

For those that don't know what he's referencing.

[Jaxi]

Source? Because I think this is a ridiculous statement.

Yeah, it's ridiculous. Did a search on the Bureau of Justice, ATF, and FBI websites, but the latest document I could find was from 1996. Unless theft has radically shifted in the past 15 years, the ratio was about 1 gun stolen at a dealer for every 20 guns stolen from private homes.

[PhaelixWW]

So you're in favor of thousands of criminals getting their weapons at gun shows with background, check, virtually un traceable weapons. You support that system, even if it was proven a majority of mass murders get their weapons there

What the fu... Now you're making stuff up again.

It's been proven that a majority of mass murderers get their weapons from private party transactions? Bullshit.

I mean, for the last 600 pages, it seems like the only mass shootings you want to acknowledge are Aurora and Sandy Hook. And in neither of those cases were the firearms purchased without background checks. And that doesn't even scratch the surface.

Please, I dare you to go find some statistics to back up this new claim.

[Deadvolcanoes]

The whole this is ridiculous. People argue to ban certain features because they claim that they make the weapon too accurate and easy to conceal, and yet countless non-offensive firearms are easier to conceal or far more accurate.

I don't think that passing a very basic background check should entitle the average person to have access to weapons specifically tailored for combat.

[starlord]

Source? Because I think this is a ridiculous statement.

Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street.

...

The report goes on to state that "over-the-counter purchases are not the only means by which guns reach the illegal market from FFLs" and reveals that 23,775 guns have been reported lost, missing or stolen from FFLs since September 13, 1994, when a new law took effect requiring dealers to report gun thefts within 48 hours. This makes the theft of 6,000 guns reported in the CIR/Frontline show "Hot Guns" only 25% of all cases reported to ATF in the past two and one-half years.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ocon/guns.html

[PhaelixWW]

Your point of view is not absolute.

I'm pretty sure his point of view on this particular incident has just about absolute support in this thread, so... yeah.

[Jaxi]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ocon/guns.html

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub...shbopc0510.pdf

[PhaelixWW]

.410's not bad by any means.

Which is why it's such a bummer that the Taurus Judge is not allowed in California. It seems like a natural for home defense.

[starlord]

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub...shbopc0510.pdf

i dont see where that talks about dealers vs private citizens.

[PhaelixWW]

i think requiring guns to be registered for such a database, and requiring "pink slips" would help quite a bit imo.

And most gun owners are adamantly against such a national database.

[Eroginous]

The difference is that, for most firearms, they don't keep some centralized database of ownership. Currently, if a firearm is traced, it has to go through its entire route of existence, from manufacturer to retailer to original owner to subsequent owners. If the trace leads to you, then you simply have to tell the ATF where and when you relinquished ownership of the firearm. It's not like, once you buy a firearm, you're responsible for every single event that happens with it forever. Think of the serial number like a postal tracking number and it might be more accurate.

That being said, some firearms are registered to a specific person, based on local law.

How do they conduct a trace on a serial number if there is no data base? Furthermore, if there are states that don't require any documentation proving you're the legal owner of a gun, well than that's as good a place as any to start changing laws about gun control.

It also doesn't make sense that you are required by law to report the theft of a firearm, but not the sale or purchase.

You can't play the game of "well you can't define how much it increases efficiency!" as a way of pretending that it doesn't. It's ergonomic, it serves a function.

It either does. Or it doesn't. Period.

We're talking about the banning of pistol grips. The only logical reason to do so is if there's a clear difference between having them and not having them, in terms of increasing the lethality of a firearm. Since a pistol grip doesn't change the lethality of a firearm, it certainly does not 'increase it's efficiency' and thus any argument supporting their ban does come from a place of logical reasoning.

No one is saying pistol grips don't change the functionality of a firearm. What we ARE saying is that the way the DO alter the functionality has no bearing on lethality, and as such, the argument against them is irrelevant, especially when we are discussing the effectiveness of newly proposed legislation in regard to decreasing gun crimes. The continued argument against pistol grips after only reveals how uneducated the anti gun politicians really are, which is a scary thought indeed. If they can pass a law that has no bearing on anything, effectively wasting money and resources in the process, how much do they really care about the issue?

right, by reducing guns you reduce the lethality of crime.

Not by a long shot. The lethality of crime depends on neither firearms or their availability. A crime isn't all of a sudden lethal when a gun is present, or non lethal when one isn't.

and restrictions on guns do not becessarily violate rights.

They do when you're proposing restrictions on who is allowed to have a gun based on the idea that a criminal might some day get his hands on it. As a law abiding citizen, who has no mental health problems, if I walk into a gun shop and they deny me a gun sale on the sole ground of a hypothetical like that, then it is indeed an infringement of my rights - especially if I passed all the necessary background checks and waiting periods.

A gun dealer is not legally able to deny a gun sale based on a hypothetical alone.

how do you suppose increasing police funding will help with straw purchases?

It's not legal to purchase a gun for someone who isn't eligible. Under those grounds alone, any law enforcement agency has the legal ability to conduct operations with the sole purpose of catching straw sales in the act and prosecuting those parties involved. There have already been studies done by law enforcement suggesting that a significant number of straw sales happen involving parties who are ineligible to purchase legally, particularly at gun shows. Why no one is enforcing the law is anyone's guess.

private citizens arent the main target of gun theft, dealers are.

Is this supported by any evidence? Or is it just a convenient 'fact' you've decided to make up because it sounds good and just happens to fall in line with your views IF it were true?

I'm not really sure what you mean when you say "cosmetic function of the ban." Calling something a "descriptive feature" doesn't take away from the fact that it increases combat operational performance.

I feel like your calling a spolier a "cosmetic function of a car," without realizing that it has real, actual uses.

He's saying that the term 'banning pistol grips' is intentionally used as a selling point on gun legislature, regardless of how effective it may or may not actually be once put into practice.

And I love your car spoiler analogy. Actual high performance cars use spoilers for stability while traveling at high speeds, a requirement for professional racing. To the average dimwitted teenager, a spoiler on some cheap Honda he drives around town IS a purely cosmetic feature, specifically used to make an ordinary car seem like a high performance car, ESPECIALLY when it's not.

Similarly, a pistol grip to most civilians is just an accessory to make a gun seem cool, while on military issue guns, it serves as an important modular function enabling compact carry and maneuverability while in and out of combat. The fact that all military issue rifles and shotguns also come with a full stock even when a pistol grip is present, illustrates the need of a stock for stability and performance where a pistol grip alone would not be as effective.

So you're in favor of thousands of criminals getting their weapons at gun shows with background, check, virtually un traceable weapons. You support that system, even if it was proven a majority of mass murders get their weapons there

Repeating the same logical fallacies over and over again only makes you look more ignorant with each post, and does absolutely nothing to further the discussion. No one is saying they want criminals to have more guns, and protecting people's second amendment rights does not imply that they do. Furthermore, there are many people (myself included) who agree that the system needs improvement, regardless of how many criminals or murderers are actually getting guns from gun shows.

[PhaelixWW]

Would you say that it's common sense that her questions are misleading?

I don't think it's even a question of common sense at this point. So many people have come out and said that her question is nothing more than leading and/or baiting, without a single person coming to her defense about the question, that it leaves no doubt in my mind about what the common opinion is.

But yes, I do think that it's common sense that anyone can see that her question is intending to be misleading.

[Svifnymr]

Which is why it's such a bummer that the Taurus Judge is not allowed in California. It seems like a natural for home defense.

I saw S&W has one out now too? Does 45lc and 45acp as well as 410 I believe. Is that allowed in Cali? (Or does Cali simply not allow handguns in 410?)

Mossberg always made this really light 410 that I kept almost getting, but never did end up with one. I've had 12ga's over the years and just never found one I liked. (Mossberg semi auto, benelli M3, Benelli Nova, Ithaca 37.)

[starlord]

And most gun owners are adamantly against such a national database.

most gun owners are adamantly against being held responsible for their guns, or so it seems.

[Eroginous]

most gun owners are adamantly against being held responsible for their guns, or so it seems.

Not really. Most responsible gun owners understand the implications of having a national gun registry and object out of concern for their private safety.

[FusedMass]

I don't think it's even a question of common sense at this point. So many people have come out and said that her question is nothing more than leading and/or baiting, without a single person coming to her defense about the question, that it leaves no doubt in my mind about what the common opinion is.

But yes, I do think that it's common sense that anyone can see that her question is intending to be misleading.

Actually the silent majority agree's with me. Look at the Poll.