Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Svifnymr]

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.

Lets say a Glock 19 is at the scene of a crime. They call up Glock and give them serial number, glock tells them who they sold it to (a distributor) who then gets the same call, and tells them who they sold it to (dealer) who then gets the same call, but he must fax a copy of the form 4473 to ATF so they can go to the house and ask the person (unless that person is their perp, then it doesn't matter).

Anecdotal obviously, but one time we had a SW revolver that we sold to a regular customer of ours, which he then traded back into us and we sold to another regular customer who then traded it back to us and finally we sold it to some other lady. The first two sales were months apart, and ATF didn't have any "approved software" back then, so everything was hand written in books, so we didn't notice it.

So yeah, we got a call, faxed the info. Next day, got another call, faxed the new info, next day got another call, faxed the new info.

According to ATF agents, they have about a 97% success rate with traces.

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.

I'm sure there's trouble if you won't sell a gun to someone due to race or religion (and actually told them so, I guess).

But yeah, you can always refuse to sell to someone. I wouldn't want to work for a dealer that got angry about a lost sale when that sale was suspicious, and none of the dealers I worked for acted that way. Most of the ones I got that had an issue were non-resident aliens that thought their money was more important than the laws. Not criminals, just assholes. Through the many years I worked at stores, there was one lady that asked some odd questions that we refused (and called a couple other local dealers to let them know, later got a call from police saying she tried to kill herself with a knife), and a guy that wanted a gun and was sure that his son was perfectly safe around guns as long as he took his anti-psychotics... Most of the rest were either straw purchasers or the aforementioned aliens that we declined.

---------- Post added 2013-02-28 at 09:09 PM ----------

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

They didn't vote "Is FusedMass right or wrong", the poll is about an assault weapons ban, not your baiting attacks on those that don't agree with you.

[Grizzly Willy]

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

Get back to me when you stop using logical fallacies and ducking questions you don't like the answers to.

[Rocko9]

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.

At some point, all guns were "specifically tailored for combat". That's the intent.

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.)

Correct, it's the S&W Governor. The only kinda sucky side is that for .45 ACP, you have to use moon clips.

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

Yeah, and half the people here are Europeans, and alot of people lean left. This isn't a balanced pole.

It's like asking who likes trucks, when a majority of the people on the forum are rednecks.

[Svifnymr]

Correct, it's the S&W Governor. The only kinda sucky side is that for .45 ACP, you have to use moon clips.

Moonclips have their downside, but overall they're very handy. Much more so than speed loaders. I always thought about getting a 625, but just never did. I had a 940 (5-shot 9mm) that I had reamed to 38 super, used moonclips, was quite handy.

In Miculek's shooting, he hangs his moonclips on his pocket. Though I doubt either of us are going to be the next Miculek.

[FusedMass]

At some point, all guns were "specifically tailored for combat". That's the intent.



Correct, it's the S&W Governor. The only kinda sucky side is that for .45 ACP, you have to use moon clips.



Yeah, and half the people here are Europeans, and alot of people lean left. This isn't a balanced pole.

It's like asking who likes trucks, when a majority of the people on the forum are rednecks.

You're saying a majority on the people on the site are what, rednecks? that's not very nice.

[PhaelixWW]

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.

It's not.

The most vital characteristic to a military assault rifle is its select-fire capability. Without that, it's not the same thing at all. It's just a semi-automatic rifle made to look like a military assault rifle.

The ergonomics of the assault rifle have evolved based on the needs of the field, but aren't directly related to the lethality of the firearm itself. A pistol grip is a more comfortable grip to hold a rifle for hours on duty. It also allows the shooter to get into a lower-profile crouched configuration with the firearm (and arms) tucked more closely to the body.

You will, of course, notice that all of this can be done more effectively with a handgun. The only reason a rifle is necessary for the military is because of the potential for firing at extreme ranges up to 600m, where a handgun would be pointless. For criminal shootings, this is almost never the case. Criminal shootings happen almost exclusively under 10m, where a handgun would provide the same benefits.

The characteristics on the AWB aren't entirely cosmetic, but they might as well be for all the difference they make to the functionality of the rifle.

The ultimate question is... if they're so much more dangerous, so worthy of additional restrictions (even if not a ban), and if they're so incredibly popular right now, then why are they so under-represented in shooting deaths?

Answer: because they're not more dangerous.

[lockedout]

You're saying a majority on the people on the site are what, rednecks? that's not very nice.

He didn't say that at all actually. Maybe read it again a few times?

[Rocko9]

You're saying a majority on the people on the site are what, rednecks? that's not very nice.

Let me rephrase it so you can understand it.

It's like going to a forum, that is compromised by a majority of rednecks, and making a thread with a poll asking who does and doesn't like trucks. You will get a majority vote for "Likes Trucks".

Besides, not many here deserve the title redneck.

[Grizzly Willy]

You're saying a majority on the people on the site are what, rednecks? that's not very nice.

You need to bone up on your reading comprehension.

This is getting really annoying. These are basic rules regarding debates and discussion that you're messing up on. You're twisting words and spewing logical fallacies like crazy.

[FusedMass]

You need to bone up on your reading comprehension.

This is getting really annoying. These are basic rules regarding debates and discussion that you're messing up on. You're twisting words and spewing logical fallacies like crazy.

No one is forcing you to read it. And you're opinion is not absolute.

[Grizzly Willy]

No one is forcing you to read it. And you're opinion is not absolute.

I know I don't have to. But I do feel I should point out where you're being intellectually dishonest.

Also, neither are yours. And I'm not acting like mine are.

Stop using logical fallacies and people will take you seriously.

[PhaelixWW]

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

Well, your report said less than 24k "lost, missing, or stolen" from FFLs since 1994. No date on the article, but the website is copyright 1995, so let's assume a year.

The other report shows that in 1994, over 280k firearms were stolen from personal possession, so... you do the math.

[smelltheglove]

I know I don't have to. But I do feel I should point out where you're being intellectually dishonest.

Also, neither are yours. And I'm not acting like mine are.

Stop using logical fallacies and people will take you seriously.

i had this go-around with him/her a while back and i gave up. funny part was we were on the same side of an issue, but s/he wanted to use the type of dishonest arguments as now

[Grizzly Willy]

i had this go-around with him/her a while back and i gave up. funny part was we were on the same side of an issue, but s/he wanted to use the type of dishonest arguments as now

Yeah, I mean, I can understand being for background checks. I don't have a problem with them. I do have a problem with her awful dishonesty.

[mrwingtipshoes]

Stop using logical fallacies and people will take you seriously.

No one ever will with his acting that the president is god of gun knowledge and blatant lies about gun function. To say nothing of his tendency to completely ignoring questions and using threats of the ignore function. He still hasn't answered my question regarding the tiger mini 14 after hundreds of pages and numbers times having it posted to him.

---------- Post added 2013-03-01 at 02:30 AM ----------

i had this go-around with him/her a while back and i gave up. funny part was we were on the same side of an issue, but s/he wanted to use the type of dishonest arguments as now

You know someone is just arguing to argue when they get into it with their own side.

[smelltheglove]

Yeah, I mean, I can understand being for background checks. I don't have a problem with them. I do have a problem with her awful dishonesty.

have you had a look at what svifnymr proposed as a system for gun sales? it was quite thorough, and he is far from anti-gun.

---------- Post added 2013-02-28 at 09:32 PM ----------

You know someone is just arguing to argue when they get into it with their own side.

yeah, i just hate dishonest arguments, wherever they come from. they only prevent meaningful discussion imo

[mrwingtipshoes]

have you had a look at what svifnymr proposed as a system for gun sales? it was quite thorough, and he is far from anti-gun.

---------- Post added 2013-02-28 at 09:32 PM ----------



yeah, i just hate dishonest arguments, wherever they come from. they only prevent meaningful discussion imo

Agreed. I don't think fuse want meaningful discussion he just wants people to come in tell him he's right and make veils insults and thermos logic fallacies at those who disagree with him.

[Maneo]

I really wish they would edit this poll or something.

Should be

U.S. Citizen Yes

U.S. Citizen No

Non U.S. Citizen Yes

Non U.S. Citizen No

Or something like that. Honestly do the Europeans and what not honestly think I give a shit about what they think or feel about my right to own and purchase firearms.

In case they for some reason do.. news flash. Most the people in the U.S. don't give a damn about your opinions on our rights..

[mrwingtipshoes]

I really wish they would edit this poll or something.

Should be

U.S. Citizen Yes

U.S. Citizen No

Non U.S. Citizen Yes

Non U.S. Citizen No

Or something like that. Honestly do the Europeans and what not honestly think I give a shit about what they think or feel about my right to own and purchase firearms.

In case they for some reason do.. news flash. Most the people in the U.S. don't give a damn about your opinions on our rights..

While its interesting to see their pov it's rather pointless.

[PhaelixWW]

How do they conduct a trace on a serial number if there is no data base?

The ATF contacts the manufacturer. The manufacturer consults their records then tells the ATF which retailer it was sold to. (There might be some intermediary warehousers, but we'll skill those steps for brevity.) The ATF contacts the retailer, who consults his records and tells the ATF to whom the firearm was sold. From there, the LEOs run down leads or else, if the state mandates private party transactions, the gun may be traced through several subsequent purchasers.

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.

Well, that's the whole point of universal background checks. The documentation stays with the licensed FFL, eventually to be warehoused by the ATF after 20 years, so the person doesn't have to keep the documentation on them.

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.

Not all states require it. I would assume that most of the states that do also already have universal background checks, but I could be wrong.