Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Maneo]

If I gave two shits, I would be wasting my time. I can't stop two guys from engaging in a private sale, especially if one of them is a criminal. Even if I implemented UBCs, people would still engage in private sales without even considering them, even though that's not a good enough reason not to pass a law requiring them. What makes it a good enough reason not to pass a law requiring them, is that when criminals buy guns through private sales and/or people just don't do background checks still, WE HAVE NO WAY OF FINDING THESE PEOPLE AND PROSECUTING THEM WITH A CRIME. BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE ALREADY LARGELY NOT PROSECUTED IN THE EVENT THAT A CRIMINAL FAILS ONE, HOW THE FUCK DO YOU EXPECT THAT TO CHANGE WITH UBCS?



You cannot make them submit to a background check. The point is that when they don't, nothing is going to happen because no one is going to enforce that law.



No, I'm saying that because it so overwhelmingly easy to ignore background checks without any repercussions, it's pointless to pass a law requiring them. Again, if someone refuses to subject a private seller to a background check, no one is going to come along and prosecute that individual for breaking the law.



The ridiculous argument to make is that throwing paperwork at people who ignore it is a wise use of resources. No prosecution of individuals who avoid background checks = a waste of resources and time. [sarcasm]You're right, 600k refusals out of over 100 million checks is a huge number.[/sarcasm]



Yes, because a growing list of people who go on rampages with guns they obtained DESPITE background checks, is not evidence. Not only do we have that list, we know how many people have guns, how many guns are out there, how many background checks have been done since their implementation, and how many of those were failed by criminals.

So yes, we have all the scientific evidence we need to make the claim about UBCs being futile feel-good bullshit legislation which is not actually intended to accomplish anything.



The whole reason anyone is even talking about UBCs, AWBs, or any other gun legislation, is as a response to mass shootings, with Aurora and Sandy Hook being the most recent tragedies to spark the liberal gun control agenda. Without mass shootings, no one is talking about gun control. It would help gun control greatly if their arguments didn't stem from the mind boggling tragedies that spark them.



To you, maybe. Out here in the real world we actually have to assess the bigger picture, where we look at all the variables, not just the ones we like. Using your reasoning, we should just go door to door and confiscate guns, because it will stop 99% of criminals from obtaining them. We don't do that because 99% of gun owners don't deserve to have their guns taken away, and a nation wide gun bad would negatively impact them in an unreasonable way.



You CAN'T, that's the entire point. What you CAN do, is enact legislation that will provide more funds for police departments to hire the manpower to enforce the laws we currently have. Give them the money to investigate and go after straw sales and purchasers. Give them the money to go after illegal arms sales to criminals. Give them the money to go after private sellers who arm criminals.

Because it's already illegal to sell guns in those ways. If you haven't noticed, it goes largely unenforced, which wouldn't change one iota even if UBCs were implemented. You have to actually ENFORCE LAWS FOR THEM TO BE MEANINGFUL.

Don't think you are ever going to get him to understand cause he either fails or refuses to grasp the concept.

That being said yeah I think taking all this funding and time spent on this legislation should go directly to law enforcement to, I don't know maybe enforce the laws that are on the books already. Not create new ones that won't be enforced.

I am curious though as to your thoughts on my proposed background check system assuming it was enforced.

Once a year you have to go to the sheriff, to submit to a background check. After 3 days of waiting you will get a photo ID that will enable you to purchase any legal firearm, and ammo.

Anytime you go to buy ammo or a gun you must present this ID, if not it would be criminal for the establishment to sell it to you w/out it.

To me this accomplishes a few things if it was enforced.

1. The gun control people get the background checks they want

2. No data about what guns you have or don't just that you were eligible to purchase.

3. Another small hurdle for criminals to get ammo

Of course the law would have to be enforced, and that goes back to increased funding for police.

[Deadvolcanoes]

WE HAVE NO WAY OF FINDING THESE PEOPLE AND PROSECUTING THEM WITH A CRIME. BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE ALREADY LARGELY NOT PROSECUTED IN THE EVENT THAT A CRIMINAL FAILS ONE, HOW THE FUCK DO YOU EXPECT THAT TO CHANGE WITH UBCS?

I'm not particularly interested in prosecuting individuals that fail background checks. I mean it would be nice, but making it increasingly difficult for criminals to obtain firearms is the endgame.

There is absolutely no doubt that background checks make it more difficult, and in many cases stop criminals all together from purchasing firearms.

You cannot make them submit to a background check. The point is that when they don't, nothing is going to happen because no one is going to enforce that law.

Right now you have law abiding citizens unknowingly selling weapons to criminals. What we can do is force them to run a background check, and if those individuals want to remain law abiding citizens, then they will.

No, I'm saying that because it so overwhelmingly easy to ignore background checks without any repercussions, it's pointless to pass a law requiring them. Again, if someone refuses to subject a private seller to a background check, no one is going to come along and prosecute that individual for breaking the law.

Simply not true. The ATFE strips FFL's of their license and prosecutes them when they find out that they are not implementing background checks. Why would a law abiding citizen take the risk? Of course they're going to implement a background check. There's no reason not to, especially since the process will take a matter of minutes. Law abiding citizens follow the law.

[sarcasm]You're right, 600k refusals out of over 100 million checks is a huge number.[/sarcasm]

Out of the 100 million, how many were criminals?

Yes, because a growing list of people who go on rampages with guns they obtained DESPITE background checks, is not evidence. Not only do we have that list, we know how many people have guns, how many guns are out there, how many background checks have been done since their implementation, and how many of those were failed by criminals.

Background checks stop individuals with criminal records that submit to a background check. Since not a single individual on that list falls into that category, the efficiency of background checks remains in tact.

People will always find ways to get around them, and mass shooting will always occur. Making it more difficult in the meantime is a good idea.

The whole reason anyone is even talking about UBCs, AWBs, or any other gun legislation, is as a response to mass shootings, with Aurora and Sandy Hook being the most recent tragedies to spark the liberal gun control agenda. Without mass shootings, no one is talking about gun control. It would help gun control greatly if their arguments didn't stem from the mind boggling tragedies that spark them.

Meh, I agree with this. HEY WE AGREE ON SOMETHING....

Using your reasoning, we should just go door to door and confiscate guns, because it will stop 99% of criminals from obtaining them. We don't do that because 99% of gun owners don't deserve to have their guns taken away, and a nation wide gun bad would negatively impact them in an unreasonable way.

Confiscation? No. My reasoning dictates that we should make every effort to tie every single purchase and transfer to a background check.

You CAN'T, that's the entire point. What you CAN do, is enact legislation that will provide more funds for police departments to hire the manpower to enforce the laws we currently have. Give them the money to investigate and go after straw sales and purchasers. Give them the money to go after illegal arms sales to criminals.

So we can't stop criminals from obtaining firearms through private sales, but you want to give law enforcement agencies money to do so anyway?

Give them the money to go after private sellers who arm criminals.

This is the biggest facepalm in your post. THEY CAN'T BECAUSE THERE IS NO LAW REQUIRING PRIVATE SELLERS TO ASCERTAIN CRIMINAL STATUS.

The only way for law enforcement to go after private sellers who arm criminals is if there is a law demanding they check criminal status first. You basically just advocated for UBC.

---------- Post added 2013-03-29 at 08:27 AM ----------

Don't think you are ever going to get him to understand cause he either fails or refuses to grasp the concept.

I don't think you understand the concept. Background checks stop a measurable number of criminals from obtaining firearms, and applying them universally will just stop more. It's a simple concept.

I am curious though as to your thoughts on my proposed background check system assuming it was enforced.

Your idea isn't half bad. It's much better than what we have now. ID would have to be revoked upon arrest or conviction, but I kinda like it.

[Knight Gil]

No amount of background checks will ever be effective enough to warrant their existence, since 99% of all people who have ever submitted to one, have passed it. Statistically speaking, it's far more likely that people capable of passing background checks will be the ones who use guns in a crime.

That 1% is still a damn good reason for there to be background checks.

[Eroginous]

Don't think you are ever going to get him to understand cause he either fails or refuses to grasp the concept.

Yeah, I don't understand it. Gun control advocates tout Background checks as a 'common sense' law, but it doesn't make much sense when criminals can easily get around it to get a gun anyway, and there's very little enforcement of our current laws to begin with. What's the point of making a law saying that Joe Bob Felon has to pass a background check to obtain a gun, when he's just going to find someone willing to get him a gun without a background check? What's the point of having a law that says it's a federal crime for Jo Bob Felon to even attempt to possess a gun, with penalties for both him and the person who supplied him the gun, when less than 0.01% of all failed attempts to buy a gun are actually prosecuted?

The problem ISN'T that we let criminals get guns too easily. It's that we don't do anything to pursue those that get guns in nearly all situations where they do. The problem is that a criminal can fail a background check and still get a gun, and NO ONE CARES.

I am curious though as to your thoughts on my proposed background check system assuming it was enforced.

Once a year you have to go to the sheriff, to submit to a background check. After 3 days of waiting you will get a photo ID that will enable you to purchase any legal firearm, and ammo.

Anytime you go to buy ammo or a gun you must present this ID, if not it would be criminal for the establishment to sell it to you w/out it.

Putting the onus on local law enforcement to maintain and establish such a system might be a great way to go about restricting who's got a gun and ammo, but I wonder how that's going to impact people who already have a gun, and how it's going to be enforced. What happens if someone forgets to come in for a background check? Police come out and arrest the guy? Confiscate his firearms? How do they know who has guns to begin with?

Seems like a lot of extra work on the part of law enforcement.

Confiscation? No. My reasoning dictates that we should make every effort to tie every single purchase and transfer to a background check.

At some point you have to realize that's simply not possible. That we've reached the limit on how many guns can be tied to a background check, and that asking for more is likely a waste of time. Private citizens can already do background checks on people they might sell a gun to, without it being required by law. So we already have people willing to do them, and people who are not willing to do them.

If UBCs become law, that won't change. There will still be people who are willing to do them, and people who are not willing to do them. The 'before UBCs' and the 'after UBCs' scenarios are virtually the same. So the question then comes down to how do you go about making sure people do these background checks? How do you penalize the people that don't?

And the answer is we need law enforcement to do their jobs.

Also, I just read the proposed bill, and the title 1 part of the bill seems good, but the title 2 part is never going to pass. It goes way to far into infringing on people's rights to gun ownership, trying to dictate when and how they use their firearms. Can't let your friends or family use your firearm except on your own property and only for a maximum of 7 days? Can't leave your gun at home in a safe while you're on vacation for more than a week?

So many parts of the second title are absurd, that it simply won't pass. Oh, and I love the part about how you can gift a gun to any family or friend without a background check. Exemptions are cool.

That 1% is still a damn good reason for there to be background checks.

That 1% is basically the most retarded of the stupid criminals who don't realize that are not allowed to purchase a firearm. Background checks are basically a retard check when it comes to felons and fugitives. Don't forget that 40% of the denials were not criminals or the mentally adjudicated. They were just people who were denied based on things like having the same name as another prohibited person or having things like a bench warrant.

On top of that, like I said. It's the 99% of background checks that pass, which are more likely to be the ones who commit a gun related crime. The 1% is really a statistical irrelevance.

[Jaxi]

That 1% is still a damn good reason for there to be background checks.

The issue comes down to what happens after they are denied a weapon because of a background check. Most weapons obtained for crime are not obtained through legal means, which indicates there are plenty of substitute method for a criminal to obtain a weapon. Take one from a family member, steal it, or more commonly through straw purchases. As another poster already pointed out, when an attempt was made by (california?) to warn people not to sell the weapons they bought, the amount of stolen gun reports doubled. Of course people were still selling them, but rather than risk the consequences coming back to them, they just reported the weapons stolen and carried on with their merry lives. This is why even though I'm not opposed to UBCS, I don't think they will be very effective. There are just too many alternative methods for obtaining firearms.

[Deleted]

The issue comes down to what happens after they are denied a weapon because of a background check. Most weapons obtained for crime are not obtained through legal means, which indicates there are plenty of substitute method for a criminal to obtain a weapon. Take one from a family member, steal it, or more commonly through straw purchases. As another poster already pointed out, when an attempt was made by (california?) to warn people not to sell the weapons they bought, the amount of stolen gun reports doubled. Of course people were still selling them, but rather than risk the consequences coming back to them, they just reported the weapons stolen and carried on with their merry lives. This is why even though I'm not opposed to UBCS, I don't think they will be very effective. There are just too many alternative methods for obtaining firearms.

Could just go after the alternatives to... Introduce a fine for "improper storage of firearm".

[Maneo]

Putting the onus on local law enforcement to maintain and establish such a system might be a great way to go about restricting who's got a gun and ammo, but I wonder how that's going to impact people who already have a gun, and how it's going to be enforced. What happens if someone forgets to come in for a background check? Police come out and arrest the guy? Confiscate his firearms? How do they know who has guns to begin with?

Seems like a lot of extra work on the part of law enforcement.

A

Na my idea would only be for recent purchases (what you described is what they have in Illinois I believe and they do confiscate guns)

The ID isn't needed for you to own a gun just for the purchase of a gun, and ammo.

Granted if you have a firearm already ya wouldn't need the ID to keep it, just to buy ammo for it. Then of course that gets into people who do reloading and what not.

[Svifnymr]

The issue comes down to what happens after they are denied a weapon because of a background check. Most weapons obtained for crime are not obtained through legal means, which indicates there are plenty of substitute method for a criminal to obtain a weapon. Take one from a family member, steal it, or more commonly through straw purchases. As another poster already pointed out, when an attempt was made by (california?) to warn people not to sell the weapons they bought, the amount of stolen gun reports doubled. Of course people were still selling them, but rather than risk the consequences coming back to them, they just reported the weapons stolen and carried on with their merry lives. This is why even though I'm not opposed to UBCS, I don't think they will be very effective. There are just too many alternative methods for obtaining firearms.

The same NIJ memo also said that any UBC system must be easy to use or it will be ignored. If you expect folks to go to a dealer and pay money, most will simply ignore the requirement. Make it easy for folks and it might work.

Edit to add: Currently if you get a reversal on a background check once the gun has been released, they do go seize the gun. AFAIK, they destroy the gun, so you're out the gun and the money.

Also, if you have a Gun License program, there's really no need to go submit to a background check, they can just keep your info on file and run it once a year really. If they ding you as a problem, they can revoke it. The system would require some method for folks to quickly & easily ascertain that a permit was still valid of course.

[Cthulhu 2020]

That 1% is still a damn good reason for there to be background checks.

As Deadvolcanoes posted, within the last 14 years background checks have stopped an average of ~110 people a day from attaining a gun, including criminals, felons, mentally unstable and illegal immigrants. This whole 99%/1% stuff is kinda weird as people throw it out there like it's a real stat rather than a made up one to make their argument sound good.

[Svifnymr]

As Deadvolcanoes posted, within the last 14 years background checks have stopped an average of ~110 people a day from attaining a gun, including criminals, felons, mentally unstable and illegal immigrants. This whole 99%/1% stuff is kinda weird as people throw it out there like it's a real stat rather than a made up one to make their argument sound good.

The 110 people a day works out to 1.2% of background checks resulting in a denial, that's where the "99/1%" thing comes from... the FBI stats.

[starlord]

As Deadvolcanoes posted, within the last 14 years background checks have stopped an average of ~110 people a day from attaining a gun, including criminals, felons, mentally unstable and illegal immigrants. This whole 99%/1% stuff is kinda weird as people throw it out there like it's a real stat rather than a made up one to make their argument sound good.

well really its an argument for banning guns entirely.
"background checks dont work, licenses dont work, safes dont work!!"

what works best is removing them entirely, shown by the relative lack of gun violence in every country that has done so.
in one fell swoop you eliminate straw purchases, thefts, the mentally unstable getting ahold of them, and manufacturers selling them under the table.

of course, many gun advocates simply dont want any legislation at all so theres really no point in debating.

[Jaxi]

Could just go after the alternatives to... Introduce a fine for "improper storage of firearm".

Some states do that. I THINK Massachusetts is one of them. Someone else might know more about that.

[GreatOak]

well really its an argument for banning guns entirely.
"background checks dont work, licenses dont work, safes dont work!!"

what works best is removing them entirely, shown by the relative lack of gun violence in every country that has done so.
in one fell swoop you eliminate straw purchases, thefts, the mentally unstable getting ahold of them, and manufacturers selling them under the table.

of course, many gun advocates simply dont want any legislation at all so theres really no point in debating.

So you're saying that more violence is ok as long as it isn't gun violence specifically? That's what happens in most nations around the world with heavy firearm laws. Some nations even see much higher murder rates. Murder and crime actually went up after the UK placed heavy restrictions on arms. Crime increased in Australia as well. The murder rates were already low before gun laws in Britain, but making blanket statements like the ones you just made aren't very good.You remove cars and car deaths go down. It's obvious. If people treated all deaths and accidents as equal all weapons and dangerous things would be "removed" (which is virtually impossible to do in a nation the size of America). I imagine that actually enforcing the laws we have now and making sure people properly store and train with their weapons would cause the already decreasing violence rates to decrease even faster.

You should watch the debate mentioned in this video. One of the people debating brings up many of the points you do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo6j-3Un7IY

[starlord]

So you're saying that more violence is ok as long as it isn't gun violence specifically? That's what happens in most nations around the world with heavy firearm laws. Some nations even see much higher murder rates. Murder and crime actually went up after the UK placed heavy restrictions on arms. Crime increased in Australia as well. The murder rates were already low before gun laws in Britain, but making blanket statements like the ones you just made aren't very good.You remove cars and car deaths go down. It's obvious. If people treated all deaths and accidents as equal all weapons and dangerous things would be "removed" (which is virtually impossible to do in a nation the size of America). I imagine that actually enforcing the laws we have now and making sure people properly store and train with their weapons would cause the already decreasing violence rates to decrease even faster.

You should watch the debate mentioned in this video. One of the people debating brings up many of the points you do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo6j-3Un7IY

i think you must be mistaken. murder rates were about the same in the UK and australia, (and trending down as before). assaults went up. and over there a simple fistfight is reported as a violent assault. so yes the type of violence is very important. you should note as well that not all guns are banned either there.
here is a report from the australian government: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@..../4522.0.55.001

and there are people here arguing that the current laws do very little even if enforced.

[Eroginous]

This whole 99%/1% stuff is kinda weird as people throw it out there like it's a real stat rather than a made up one to make their argument sound good.

Between 1998 and 2008 (the first 10 years of background checks being required), 96 million background checks were done according to FBI statistics, with 681k being denied (of course those aren't the most recent statistics, those are harder to find accurately). 681k just happens to be just shy of 1% of 96 million, so the number isn't made up.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

[Maneo]

Found this thread, I don't know where he got his numbers but still great.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5ELyG9V1SY

[ugotownd]

Perfect explanation of "universal' background checks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpcjp5QagII

[PizzaSHARK]

well really its an argument for banning guns entirely.
"background checks dont work, licenses dont work, safes dont work!!"

what works best is removing them entirely, shown by the relative lack of gun violence in every country that has done so.
in one fell swoop you eliminate straw purchases, thefts, the mentally unstable getting ahold of them, and manufacturers selling them under the table.

of course, many gun advocates simply dont want any legislation at all so theres really no point in debating.

Darenyon, that wouldn't work in the US. We have more guns than people! You can't just snap your fingers, declare guns outlawed, and expect to be able to snap them all up before people shove them into crawlspaces and under floorboards or whatever.

We need better, more effective control laws (and we need to shove the NRA's fat, pompous ass out of the way so we can get some reliable, useful statistics to work off of), but trying to ban guns in a country like the US simply won't have much of an effect; if anything, it'd just add guns to yet one more illicit thing crossing the border.

[breadisfunny]

well really its an argument for banning guns entirely.
"background checks dont work, licenses dont work, safes dont work!!"

what works best is removing them entirely, shown by the relative lack of gun violence in every country that has done so.
in one fell swoop you eliminate straw purchases, thefts, the mentally unstable getting ahold of them, and manufacturers selling them under the table.

of course, many gun advocates simply dont want any legislation at all so theres really no point in debating.

so we went from "no one's advocating banning guns" a couple pages ago to "let's ban guns"? did i miss something here?

[Eroginous]

We need better, more effective control laws

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.