Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[hakujinbakasama]

The argument over the lack of ability by the ATF is fucking disgusting. Anyone bitching that they don't have enough in the abilities column is either ignorant on the subject or just trying to hard to avoid reading about it.

[Wells]

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

That's the point. Its one a year for an unannounced inspection. That makes it really damn hard to catch people and lead to an investigation.

In sue-happy America? No Way!

Why should the gun lobby get immunities to negligence that no one else gets?

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

Do they happen by breaking into the SSI database? Your paranoia is hilarious and unfounded.

---------- Post added 2013-03-31 at 04:16 PM ----------

I see no way in which this could end badly.

[mrwingtipshoes]

Why should the gun lobby get immunities to negligence that no one else gets?

The only reason a company or person who produces a product should be liable for their product is due to malfunction or misinformation. NOT for misuse. A knife company should not be liable because I stab someone in the face, a blender company should not be liable for me losing a finger by sticking it in a running blender. If you have a revolver with an improperly seated forcing cone and it causes a catastrophic failure (IE gun blows up) that's fine but the gun company should not be liable for me buying a gun and shooting someone, accidentally or otherwise.

[Wells]

The only reason a company or person who produces a product should be liable for their product is due to malfunction or misinformation. NOT for misuse

Negligence covers more than that. For instance if a gun dealer doesn't take reasonable precautions to secure their stock and a robbery leads to a murder they can, and should be, liable in a negligence suit. They can't be sued for that now though.

Groups like the NRA use the ignorance of the civil justice system that people carry to get themselves all kinds of nice legal protections.

[mrwingtipshoes]

Negligence covers more than that. For instance if a gun dealer doesn't take reasonable precautions to secure their stock and a robbery leads to a murder they can, and should be, liable in a negligence suit. They can't be sued for that now though.

Groups like the NRA use the ignorance of the civil justice system that people carry to get themselves all kinds of nice legal protections.

Most gun stores do take reasonable precautions. The ones near me have internal gates (like most retailers), locked doors and metal bars over the fronts of their windows and doors including another metal gate outside, thats 3 locks between someone getting inside, they are all also under video monitoring(Where I live it has to be disclosed upon entering) and have alarms. So triple locked entrances, alarm systems that call the cops and CCTV aren't enough?

[Wells]

Most gun stores do take reasonable precautions.

Law suits are to deal with the ones who don't.

[Grizzly Willy]

Most gun stores do take reasonable precautions. The ones near me have internal gates (like most retailers), locked doors and metal bars over the fronts of their windows and doors including another metal gate outside, thats 3 locks between someone getting inside, they are all also under video monitoring(Where I live it has to be disclosed upon entering) and have alarms. So triple locked entrances, alarm systems that call the cops and CCTV aren't enough?

Most doesn't equate to all, though. If a store were to forgo any of those precautions and their weapons are stolen and subsequently used to kill somebody, then I would expect some form of recompense on their part.

[mrwingtipshoes]

Law suits are to deal with the ones who don't.

The only "Gun store" i have ever been too that has had security issues is Walmart. Rotary displays of guns behind plexi with easily breakable locks in an unmanned corner of a store with out CCTV on them. But then again, it's walmart. Actual gun stores? I have never been in one that does not have everything incredibly secure, not to mention they all carry openly.

[Wells]

The only "Gun store" i have ever been too that has had security issues is Walmart. Rotary displays of guns behind plexi with easily breakable locks in an unmanned corner of a store with out CCTV on them. But then again, it's walmart. Actual gun stores? I have never been in one that does not have everything incredibly secure, not to mention they all carry openly.

What does this have to do with anything? I don't really care what you have personally observed. Its entirely irrelevant.

[Dacien]

Thought-provoking pro-gun poster.

http://i.imgur.com/0jjXg0O.jpg

[Wells]

Like half the groups there had guns.

[Dacien]

Like half the groups there had guns.

That's true, but the argument being made I think is toward being armed against modern-day equivalents of many of those events. Except the ones like Waco, cuz they had guns.

But store owners in the LA Riots were able to fend off looters simply by waving rifles on top of their stores. Great deterrent without ever firing a shot. Katrina looting victims would have done well to be armed as well.

[Wells]

That's true, but the argument being made I think is toward being armed against modern-day equivalents of many of those events. Except the ones like Waco, cuz they had guns.

But store owners in the LA Riots were able to fend off looters simply by waving rifles on top of their stores. Great deterrent without ever firing a shot. Katrina looting victims would have done well to be armed as well.

Two major events seem a loose foundation to base this "we need to have guns!" argument on.

[Dacien]

Two major events seem a loose foundation to base this "we need to have guns!" argument on.

Well those are just two. That magazine had lots of bullets.

But even if half those groups had no access to guns, if they had, atrocities could have been fought back against.

[Wells]

Well those are just two. That magazine had lots of bullets.

But even if half those groups had no access to guns, if they had, atrocities could have been fought back against.

Does anyone really think that japanese people with guns could have stopped the internment camps? If they started shooting the GIs all youd have is a massacre and vindication for the anti japanese racism which would have let to even harder crack downs.

Or Kent state. Would people returning fire at Kent State resulted in anything more than more dead kids?

[Eroginous]

That's the point. Its one a year for an unannounced inspection. That makes it really damn hard to catch people and lead to an investigation.

An unannounced inspection has absolutely nothing to do with an investigation. They are entirely separate entities. The ATF is not limited to launching investigations pending the results of an unannounced inspection. You're straw manning this like a champ.

Why should the gun lobby get immunities to negligence that no one else gets?

Everyone should have immunities from misuse or unintended consequences. It's not the NRA's fault if other industries and companies don't fight for the same kinds of protection.

Do they happen by breaking into the SSI database? Your paranoia is hilarious and unfounded.

No one said anything about breaking into the SSI database. Do you not realize how many people have access to that? How many people can get access to it without 'breaking in' like some super secret hacker?

It's not paranoia when SSI information is the most widely misused private data that companies collect. The point is that we should probably not be in a rush to throw all our gun related information into one database when we know that sort of behavior leads to the acquisition and misuse of said data by the general public.

[Wells]

An unannounced inspection has absolutely nothing to do with an investigation. They are entirely separate entities. The ATF is not limited to launching investigations pending the results of an unannounced inspection. You're straw manning this like a champ.

Unannounced inspections are a fantastic way to find violations that lead to investigations.

Everyone should have immunities from misuse or unintended consequences. It's not the NRA's fault if other industries and companies don't fight for the same kinds of protection.

So again, you just don't understand what a negligence suit is. Read upthread please. I gave an example of one.

[Venant]

So this thread is going on 740 pages long, has anyone posted a good reason for not having an assault weapons ban? And saying that you might need to overthrow the federal government doesn't count.

[Grizzly Willy]

So this thread is going on 740 pages long, has anyone posted a good reason for not having an assault weapons ban? And saying that you might need to overthrow the federal government doesn't count.

We don't really have a good reason for the ban, to be honest.

[Svifnymr]

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

It's not snark, do you know what the firearms division of the ATFE is actually for? Their actual duties? They run traces, they compile data, they enforce regulations where dealers are concerned. The vast majority of their press is for firearms, the vast majority of their duty is to alcohol, tobacco and explosives regulations. They have a comparatively small enforcement division, most of their agents are non-gun wearing accountants.

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

It's not arbitrary, it's to prevent hindering the normal operation of a gun store. A two week inventory once a year with followups to verify compliance is more than enough.

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.

How about you actually debate instead of falling back on personal attacks? It is a debatable point if the penalties have no bearing on their actual job. If a dealer violates a law, pull his license and he's no longer a dealer. Waiting for that dealer to commit enough crimes to make it worth a felony may make the agency ego a little puffier, but has nothing to do with stopping the flow of guns.

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


You're basing this on what?

I've actually dealt with ATF/ATFE, I know what they can do, what they do (though it may vary by region) and what they don't do.

Like what? The law?

Snippets of laws gleaned from a summary highlighted in articles about how the NRA hamstrings the ATFE?