Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[mrwingtipshoes]

Which will be enforced by who? The same people who don't enforce the laws we already have that are designed to stop criminals from possessing firearms?

Perfect.

We don't need more gun control laws. We need the gov to enforce what's on the books. As of right now there is no point in more laws as they won't be enforced.

[Jaxi]

Which will be enforced by who? The same people who don't enforce the laws we already have that are designed to stop criminals from possessing firearms?

Perfect.

And there is the trap most pro-gun control Americans fall under. They think "well it bans these guns, therefore criminals won't access them! Hurray!" They fail to research the past ban and the justice department study on it, they fail to understand the methods in which criminals obtain weapons, they fail to understand current gun control laws and their effectiveness, they fail to understand the challenges faced by law enforcement, and they especially fail to understand just how many damn guns are in this nation. We have to be able to speculate the effect of said gun laws, not just see what is written on their paper. I've yet to see a good argument made for any of the proposed laws, with the one possible exceptions being increased UBCs. Even for UBCs I feel like that's only tossing a stone in a river, and funneling the law abiding citizens right in its' path.

[Wells]

Which will be enforced by who? The same people who don't enforce the laws we already have that are designed to stop criminals from possessing firearms?

Perfect.

The ATF is hamstrung by a long series of industry backed restrictions.

[xylophone]

The ATF is hamstrung by a long series of industry backed restrictions.

Why Wells? WHY!?!?!!? Thread was almost off the front page, let it die...

[Eroginous]

And there is the trap most pro-gun control Americans fall under. They think "well it bans these guns, therefore criminals won't access them! Hurray!" They fail to research the past ban and the justice department study on it, they fail to understand the methods in which criminals obtain weapons, they fail to understand current gun control laws and their effectiveness, they fail to understand the challenges faced by law enforcement, and they especially fail to understand just how many damn guns are in this nation. We have to be able to speculate the effect of said gun laws, not just see what is written on their paper. I've yet to see a good argument made for any of the proposed laws, with the one possible exceptions being increased UBCs. Even for UBCs I feel like that's only tossing a stone in a river, and funneling the law abiding citizens right in its' path.

Exactly, this is why I am against new gun legislation while we have all these current legislation problems running rampant. New laws aren't going to magically enforce themselves, it takes manpower and money. If we had adequate manpower and money, our current laws would be adequately enforced and we wouldn't need new laws. However, that's not even really the biggest problem with gun control at the moment. The anti gun crowd are so determined to eliminate guns in this country, they pile on a bunch of different things they want to do into one bill, and then set themselves up for failure based on that alone. All it takes is one measure that the majority doesn't agree with to kill the entire bill completely.

After reading the new proposed regarding gun control, I've found several problems with it. The first part of the bill focuses on making sure that information regarding prohibited persons is adequately available to the NCIS system so the current background checks system might be more effective. Well, that's all fine and dandy, of course, but it's still going to take resources (manpower and money) to make sure that information is generated and given to NCIS. It's the second part of the bill that's really going to be a problem. After they stripped out the 'assault weapon and high capacity magazine' bans, they left in a series of stipulations that will ultimately criminalize otherwise responsible gun owners:

http://www.rocketcitylawyers.com/unr...nd-check-bill/

The ATF is hamstrung by a long series of industry backed restrictions.

The ATF is hamstrung by a severe lack of funding and manpower to take on the role of enforcing federal firearms regulations. It has nothing to do with the gun industry, who can't stop the federal government from apprehending and prosecuting people when they break gun laws anyway.

[Wells]

The ATF is hamstrung by a severe lack of funding and manpower to take on the role of enforcing federal firearms regulations. It has nothing to do with the gun industry, who can't stop the federal government from apprehending and prosecuting people when they break gun laws anyway.

Really? You don't think the NRA has lobbied for a grocery list of restrictions on what the ATF can and can't do and that that makes it harder for them to do their job?

---------- Post added 2013-03-30 at 07:43 PM ----------

For instance, no federal database of firearm transactions, restrictions on the number of unannounced inspections, limited to one a year, reducing falsification of records by a gun dealer to a misdemeanor etc etc

All of this makes it actively harder for the ATF to do its job. Its flat stupid to complain that the government isn't doing their job when we let them get hamstrung to begin with.

[Eroginous]

Really? You don't think the NRA has lobbied for a grocery list of restrictions on what the ATF can and can't do and that that makes it harder for them to do their job?

---------- Post added 2013-03-30 at 07:43 PM ----------

For instance, no federal database of firearm transactions, restrictions on the number of unannounced inspections, limited to one a year, reducing falsification of records by a gun dealer to a misdemeanor etc etc

All of this makes it actively harder for the ATF to do its job. Its flat stupid to complain that the government isn't doing their job when we let them get hamstrung to begin with.

What does any of that have to do with investigating and arresting straw purchasers? What does that have to do with investigating and arresting thieves? What does that have to do with investigating and arresting black market dealers?

I'm sorry, but the NRA cannot stop the federal government from investigating, apprehending, or prosecuting ANYONE who's engaging in illegal activities.

[Wells]

What does any of that have to do with investigating and arresting straw purchasers? What does that have to do with investigating and arresting thieves? What does that have to do with investigating and arresting black market dealers?

You are wondering what making the ATF spend days digging through paper records and making phone calls instead of using a digital federal record of transactions has to do with making arrests and conducting investigations?

[Atrea]

And there is the trap most pro-gun control Americans fall under. They think "well it bans these guns, therefore criminals won't access them! Hurray!" They fail to research the past ban and the justice department study on it, they fail to understand the methods in which criminals obtain weapons, they fail to understand current gun control laws and their effectiveness, they fail to understand the challenges faced by law enforcement, and they especially fail to understand just how many damn guns are in this nation. We have to be able to speculate the effect of said gun laws, not just see what is written on their paper. I've yet to see a good argument made for any of the proposed laws, with the one possible exceptions being increased UBCs. Even for UBCs I feel like that's only tossing a stone in a river, and funneling the law abiding citizens right in its' path.

This is a straw-man argument.

For the trillionth time in this thread, I will object to the black and white definition of "criminals" vs. "law abiding citizens".
Real life isn't that simple. One minute you're a good, responsible gun owner -- the next, you've put a bullet in the brain of the kid who fucked your daughter.
Bad guys don't wear a badge that says "criminal", and they AREN'T the only ones who do bad things.

No one thinks that these 'devious criminals' will be deterred by gun laws. They already import illegal guns, they use them, they occasionally get caught, and so on. This isn't what gun bans are designed to prevent. What they are designed to prevent, is "angry dad" having access to a machine gun to gun down the kid who just fucked his daughter; or to prevent some high school kid from shooting up his class with a weapon capable of penetrating walls.
And if you restrict these types of weapons, then it will prevent these kinds of crimes. Because "Joe Law Abiding" won't be able to get them. Sure, some Cartel member who wants to kill a rival cocaine dealer will still be able to -- but he's not going to shoot up a grocery store.

Whether gun advocates want to admit it or not, these are the truly dangerous people in society: people who look like good folks (maybe they are, otherwise) - but they make life and death decisions in the heat of emotion, or perhaps under the influence of drugs or alcohol - or even worse, after not taking their prescribed drugs.

Unfortunately, these sort of folks -- the "good until they aren't" crowd -- are also the type who would pass most background checks. So the problem therefore falls back onto availability. If you make these weapons available at all, then they can be obtained by a person who, at some point in their life, may use them in a massacre.

And that is why I support "assault weapons" bans.

I realize that the vast majority of gun-related crimes are committed by handguns, and that "assault weapons" are responsible for only a small fraction of overall shootings. I also realize that the vast majority of "large scale shootings" are committed by people who do not fit the profile of those who commit "small scale shootings"; and so the first statistic is meaningless if you mean to prevent shooting sprees such as the one in Newtown, CT.

[Svifnymr]

For instance, no federal database of firearm transactions,

Right, no registration

restrictions on the number of unannounced inspections, limited to one a year,

Wrong, they can only inspect once a year without cause. If they have cause they can go whenever they want. If you think they should be able to show up and order a complete inventory whenever they get bored, that sort of runs counter to the idea that their resources are stretched.

reducing falsification of records by a gun dealer to a misdemeanor etc etc

Has nothing to do with pulling their license.

All of this makes it actively harder for the ATF to do its job. Its flat stupid to complain that the government isn't doing their job when we let them get hamstrung to begin with.

No gun registration system certainly makes some investigations more cumbersome, but that has nothing to do with the overwhelming number of cases that ATF ignores because they don't want to bother. It also has no bearing on their wasting budget on strike teams.

ATFE is just a badly run organization, they were as part of Treasury, they are as part of Justice. Heck, they don't even manage the NICS, that's the FBI. They should have been split up years ago.

---------- Post added 2013-03-30 at 05:30 PM ----------

And there is the trap most pro-gun control Americans fall under. They think "well it bans these guns, therefore criminals won't access them! Hurray!"

Nyah, quite a lot of them will freely admit that they want to restrict law abiding gun owners in a trickle down effect to eventually reduce those that fall into mis-use.

---------- Post added 2013-03-30 at 05:37 PM ----------

I realize that the vast majority of gun-related crimes are committed by handguns, and that "assault weapons" are responsible for only a small fraction of overall shootings. I also realize that the vast majority of "large scale shootings" are committed by people who do not fit the profile of those who commit "small scale shootings"; and so the first statistic is meaningless if you mean to prevent shooting sprees such as the one in Newtown, CT.

You understand also though, that the "assault weapon" would have no impact on the school shootings since they could just as easily have been done with a handgun? And several were? (Virginia Tech and others)

I'd think your argument would be better geared towards a magazine limit rather than assault weapons. Assault weapons are large, hard to conceal rifles for the most port whose advantage over a handgun in such a situation. Heck, the odds of you wrestling a rifle out of position are higher than a handgun I'd think.

Not that I'm for a magazine ban, I looked around a bit though and couldn't find the results of Canada's magazine ban overall.

[Jaxi]

No one thinks that these 'devious criminals' will be deterred by gun laws. They already import illegal guns, they use them, they occasionally get caught, and so on. This isn't what gun bans are designed to prevent. What they are designed to prevent, is "angry dad" having access to a machine gun to gun down the kid who just fucked his daughter; or to prevent some high school kid from shooting up his class with a weapon capable of penetrating walls.
And if you restrict these types of weapons, then it will prevent these kinds of crimes. Because "Joe Law Abiding" won't be able to get them. Sure, some Cartel member who wants to kill a rival cocaine dealer will still be able to -- but he's not going to shoot up a grocery store.

Machine guns have been banned for a long time now. Use relevant information when debating.
They will NOT prevent these kinds of crimes, as it has already been pointed out a few hundred times now. The last attempt was in 1994 and according to a study commissioned by the Justice Department, the Feinstein (where have I heard of that name before) '94 Assault Weapons ban was ineffective. In fact, large capacity magazine usage actually went up during the ban, brought on by our immense stockpile. We have over 88 weapons per 100 people in our country, and with a nation of 310+ million people, that's around 275 million weapons. That's a number that is not just incomprehensible, but it's also a number that will be untouched by the current gun control bills. Furthermore, over 900 weapons in Feinstein's proposed bill are named and listed to be exempt from the bill, including weapons used in Tuscon and Virginia tech.

So yes, pro-gun control advocates in this nation are not understanding the laws being proposed, and how they are not so "common sense" as they like to claim. Banning the sale of a weapon does not equate to removing it from the equation, nor does it Joe Schmoe from getting his hands on a firearm. And back to the LCMs? The Virginia Tech maniac used 13 magazines. A ban on LCMs would have done absolutely diddly to stop him.

The bill targets a small percentage of weapons used in crimes, has been shown not to work in the past, and does not address the existing stockpile.

Whether gun advocates want to admit it or not, these are the truly dangerous people in society: people who look like good folks (maybe they are, otherwise) - but they make life and death decisions in the heat of emotion, or perhaps under the influence of drugs or alcohol - or even worse, after not taking their prescribed drugs.

Unfortunately, these sort of folks -- the "good until they aren't" crowd -- are also the type who would pass most background checks. So the problem therefore falls back onto availability. If you make these weapons available at all, then they can be obtained by a person who, at some point in their life, may use them in a massacre.

Since you confused machine guns with assault weapons, I'm going to assume you don't really know the difference.
http://www.assaultweapon.info/

An average law-abiding person showing no mentally unstable signs prior to their incident would not be stopped by any gun control method in effect or proposed short of removing every means he has to obtain a weapon. Even so, you're talking about a fraction of the gun incidents.

I realize that the vast majority of gun-related crimes are committed by handguns, and that "assault weapons" are responsible for only a small fraction of overall shootings. I also realize that the vast majority of "large scale shootings" are committed by people who do not fit the profile of those who commit "small scale shootings"; and so the first statistic is meaningless if you mean to prevent shooting sprees such as the one in Newtown, CT.

Shooting sprees have gone up in this nation, but violence has actually been going down since the 80's. I don't believe that has anything to do with gun control, but more to do with the mentally unstable. A UC Berkeley study showed that states with strong civil commitment have about a 1/3 lower homicide rate. I think that is the appropriate place to start, not knee-jerk gun legislation shown to be ineffective.

[Eroginous]

You are wondering what making the ATF spend days digging through paper records and making phone calls instead of using a digital federal record of transactions has to do with making arrests and conducting investigations?

I'm not 'wondering' at all. I'm pointing out how your excuse about why the ATF aren't able to enforce the law has nothing to do with actually enforcing the law. I'm also pointing out how the NRA can't stop a federal investigation and indictment from taking place. Every single thing you listed was done to preserve the rights of gun dealers to conduct business in a reasonable fashion, without the NRA breathing down their neck and scrutinizing every transaction.

I don't think you understand what we're talking about here. If John Gun Dealer sells a gun to a criminal, no amount of NRA lobbying will stop the ATF from investigating, arresting, and prosecuting him to the fullest extent of the law. Just because they can't randomly pop in and inspect a gun shop, doesn't mean they can't raid it as part of an investigation.

For the trillionth time in this thread, I will object to the black and white definition of "criminals" vs. "law abiding citizens".

A 'criminal' is a person who has committed a crime, while a law abiding citizen is someone who obeys the law instead of committing crimes. Those are pretty black and white definitions. The only grey area is the fact that some people are criminals that have not been identified as criminals. So I would say that your entire post is a 'straw man.'

[Wells]

Right, no registration

If you want to make it harder for the ATF to do their job don't complain about it when it is.

Wrong, they can only inspect once a year without cause. If they have cause they can go whenever they want. If you think they should be able to show up and order a complete inventory whenever they get bored, that sort of runs counter to the idea that their resources are stretched.

I'm not wrong. They're limited to one unannounced compliance inspection per year. They can get a warrant if they want more but that doesn't change what I said. If you're trying to follow up on suspected gun violations unannounced inspections are useful.

Has nothing to do with pulling their license.

When a crime is a felony you're opened up to harsher penalties and more resources.

No gun registration system certainly makes some investigations more cumbersome,

Please explain how having a record of gun transactions make investigations more difficult? Might as well say the FBI keeps getting problems because of IAFIS.

I'm not 'wondering' at all. I'm pointing out how your excuse about why the ATF aren't able to enforce the law has nothing to do with actually enforcing the law.

If its harder to investigate violations its harder to enforce the law.

I don't think you understand what we're talking about here. If John Gun Dealer sells a gun to a criminal, no amount of NRA lobbying will stop the ATF from investigating, arresting, and prosecuting him to the fullest extent of the law.

I just provided a specific example of how its arbitrarily made more difficult for the ATF to even find out if he's breaking the law.

[Svifnymr]

If you want to make it harder for the ATF to do their job don't complain about it when it is.

Do you actually know what their job IS?

I'm not wrong. They're limited to one unannounced compliance inspection per year. They can get a warrant if they want more but that doesn't change what I said. If you're trying to follow up on suspected gun violations unannounced inspections are useful.

You are wrong, because the full inspection limitation has nothing to do with what was being discussed and has nothing to do with followups because that is for cause. There are many variations of an ATFE visit, the full inspection is limited to once a year without cause. If there is an active investigation it is an entirely different matter.

When a crime is a felony you're opened up to harsher penalties and more resources.

When a crime is a felony, the person is subject to harsher penalties than a misdemeanor, but that has NOTHING to do with pulling a license from someone that has violations, whether voluntary (ignoring the law) or mistakes. The "more resources" is basically tacit agreement with my position that they're not going after crimes that aren't easy to prosecute and large scale to make them look important. Why enforce the law when it doesn't get you as much press as showing up at a school shooting in full military gear?

Please explain how having a record of gun transactions make investigations more difficult? Might as well say the FBI keeps getting problems because of IAFIS.

"the lack of a gun registration system certainly makes some investigations more cumbersome" is what I meant, I was agreeing that in the interests of gun rights, some investigations may take longer.

If its harder to investigate violations its harder to enforce the law.

ATFE covers violations of dealers and forms for the most part. They have more than enough powers to do their job, but instead focus on inter-bureau rivalries. Could they use more money to do their job? Of course they can, but given the state of the NFA branch, they'd just piss it down a well anyway.

I just provided a specific example of how its arbitrarily made more difficult for the ATF to even find out if he's breaking the law.

Your information is fundamentally flawed due to drawing on biased sources. ATFE's ability to do a full inspection is when they do a complete inventory, matching every firearm with every entry and looking at every form with no basis for anything specific except to find errors. This can be done once a year unless there is a large case. Aside from that long tedious process, they can do cursory inspections at any time in connection with a case. They can review forms, they can review the books, they can take documents. They have a lot of investigative powers when they're ACTUALLY INVESTIGATING something.

---------- Post added 2013-03-30 at 08:05 PM ----------

Also, what ATFE has most requested in the past few years is the ability to penalize dealers on a SMALLER scale. Currently they can pull your license or give you a warning. They want to be able to fine you for offenses rather than pull your license, for dealers that just screw things up rather than being criminally negligent.

[Wells]

Do you actually know what their job IS?

Instead of indulging in cheap snark why don't you just engage in a logical discussion?

You are wrong, because the full inspection limitation has nothing to do with what was being discussed and has nothing to do with followups because that is for cause. There are many variations of an ATFE visit, the full inspection is limited to once a year without cause. If there is an active investigation it is an entirely different matter.

So you don't see how arbitrarily limiting inspections makes it harder to catch violations?

When a crime is a felony, the person is subject to harsher penalties than a misdemeanor, but that has NOTHING to do with pulling a license from someone that has violations, whether voluntary (ignoring the law) or mistakes. The "more resources" is basically tacit agreement with my position that they're not going after crimes that aren't easy to prosecute and large scale to make them look important. Why enforce the law when it doesn't get you as much press as showing up at a school shooting in full military gear?

This is what not debating in good faith looks like. More resources and harsher penalties make it easier to combat crime. That's not really a debatable point.

"the lack of a gun registration system certainly makes some investigations more cumbersome" is what I meant, I was agreeing that in the interests of gun rights, some investigations may take longer.

So again, you're complaining they arent' doing their job while also wanting things that make it harder for them to do their job.

ATFE covers violations of dealers and forms for the most part. They have more than enough powers to do their job, but instead focus on inter-bureau rivalries.

You're basing this on what?

Your information is fundamentally flawed due to drawing on biased sources.

Like what? The law?

[Eroginous]

I just provided a specific example of how its arbitrarily made more difficult for the ATF to even find out if he's breaking the law.

People have rights. People who sell guns have rights. The limitations are not arbitrary because they prevent the ATF from arbitrarily screwing with business owners without cause. And before you mention the NRA again, they represent the PEOPLE, not the gun industry.

If its harder to investigate violations its harder to enforce the law.

It should be reasonably difficult to pry into someone's business, even in an investigation. We DO have a right to be secure in our persons, as per the fourth amendment, after all. As for a national registry, it's a bad idea because of the chain of custody. When someone is running a business where they sell firearms, it's their job to keep all involved paperwork and private information, secure. It would be impossible to do that with a national registry.

If Joe Gun Purchaser walks into a shop, gives all his personal information to the dealer for a background check, that information deserves to be protected. A national registry would not protect that information, because it would be accessible by anyone with access to the system.

[Wells]

People have rights. People who sell guns have rights. The limitations are not arbitrary because they prevent the ATF from arbitrarily screwing with business owners without cause.

You're constructing a false dichotomy where you either get one inspection a year or you're being harassed by the ATF.

And before you mention the NRA again, they represent the PEOPLE, not the gun industry.

Oh christ someone actually believe this?

If Joe Gun Purchaser walks into a shop, gives all his personal information to the dealer for a background check, that information deserves to be protected. A national registry would not protect that information, because it would be accessible by anyone with access to the system.

Why don't you think about this one for a second. You just said a system is unprotected if anyone has access to it.

[Eroginous]

You're constructing a false dichotomy where you either get one inspection a year or you're being harassed by the ATF.

I'm doing no such thing. Instead I'm pointing out that people have rights, and setting up rules regarding how often the ATF can come by for an inspection, is a protection of those rights.

Oh christ someone actually believe this?

Explain to me, with evidence, how they don't represent the people.

Why don't you think about this one for a second. You just said a system is unprotected if anyone has access to it.

If I go and buy a gun from a gun shop, that shop has my information. They can tell what gun I purchased, my address, full name, ect, ect, ect. No one else actually has access to that information. If we take that information, and the same information from everyone else, put it in a nation wide database, accessible by any branch of law enforcement, then virtually anyone in the world will have access to it.

If I have to explain to you why that's a bad thing, then you're hopeless.

[Wells]

I'm doing no such thing. Instead I'm pointing out that people have rights, and setting up rules regarding how often the ATF can come by for an inspection, is a protection of those rights.

And setting it at one is ridiculous.

Explain to me, with evidence, how they don't represent the people.

They pushed for negligence immunity for gun makers and dealers. That protects the industry at the expense of everyone else and gave the industry a level of protection that no one else has.

If I go and buy a gun from a gun shop, that shop has my information. They can tell what gun I purchased, my address, full name, ect, ect, ect. No one else actually has access to that information. If we take that information, and the same information from everyone else, put it in a nation wide database, accessible by any branch of law enforcement, then virtually anyone in the world will have access to it.

Just like how everyone in the world has access to the social security database right?

---------- Post added 2013-03-31 at 01:36 AM ----------

Or this example of how the NRA helps criminals get guns again.

[Eroginous]

And setting it at one is ridiculous.

It's ONE for the normal routine inspection. It's any number greater than that during an investigation.

They pushed for negligence immunity for gun makers and dealers. That protects the industry at the expense of everyone else and gave the industry a level of protection that no one else has.

In sue-happy America? No Way!

Just like how everyone in the world has access to the social security database right?

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org...pub_detail.asp

Because fraudulent acquisition of social security information and benefits don't happen on a regular basis.