Gun Control

[SWedd523]

You can make it illegal to sell person-to-person without the same background check being run that a brick-and-mortar merchant would have to go through. You can also make it much harder to illegally sell firearms to people by actually tracking where the guns go after they leave the store the first time, which is where periodic registration (and actual proof of possession) comes in. So long as it's legal to sell to some guy your friend knows without any legal oversight, there may as well be no regulation. It's why there's nowhere easier for criminals to get guns than this country. I mean, Mexico doesn't even control its own country and its criminals have to come here to arm themselves.

Can't blame them when they can get them so easily from the same dumbasses who want to take mine away.



They tried the "registration/tracking method" with those cartels. How'd it work out?

Doesn't necessarily have to preclude you from owning a gun, but maybe you shouldn't be able to carry outside the home/firing ranges. If you can't be trusted to not operate a car when drinking, you may not be able to be trusted not to fire a gun when drinking.

Moot point. BAC levels are much lower (if not absolutely zero) if you're in possession of a firearm. (could be wrong, but I seem to remember that being the case)

if you do it right

That's the key point. If you do anything (illegal) right, you won't be caught.

Were you required to make sure that person wasn't a violent criminal?

I already answered that question. And I gave you my opinion on the practice itself

There's around the same number of passenger vehicles in the United States, and they have to be registered. The sheer numbers there haven't overwhelmed the system.

They didn't attempt to register all ~270 million vehicles at the same time either. Besides, which is easier to hide?

Okay, one more time: It's more important to keep guns out of the hands of bad people than it is to get rid of any one type of gun or capacity magazine. That being said, your average corner boy can (and does) do more damage with 18 rounds than 7.

One more time for you as well. The average corner boy isn't going to stop using 18 rounders just because it's illegal. The law abiding citizen will.

Do you know what that creates? A situation where your corner boy has 18 rounds and I have 7. Please give me a logical reason why I should be at any disadvantage to said average corner boy?

That's......exactly what ergonomics means. The shape/weight/size of the gun makes it easier to use in a combat role. It isn't about the rounds

We're arguing different points. A pistol is infinitely easier to use in confined spaces, and with modern ammunition, a volley of 124gr 9mm jacketed hollow points are going to do enough damage to kill en masse. The numbers bear this out, yet we're going after ARs instead, because they're an easier target for the left.

Call bullshit on this if you want, I don't care, it's true: My girlfriend works in the emergency room of the hospital where they took victims from the Newtown shooting that were still alive when responders showed up and saw the bodies of the kids that didn't make it. The .223 is plenty damaging.

Again, arguing a different point. the .223 is the minimum hunting round in many states. As in, the least powerful round you can use. Many calibers deal far more damage (like the aforementioned 30-06).

The point is, they aren't targeting the actual rounds, they're targeting something based on LOOKS.

It's not about what criminals are allowed to do, it's about what they're capable of doing. And they're capable of easily purchasing firearms even though they're not allowed to. A significant portion of the restrictions this country currently has on buying and selling of firearms are theoretical laws that rely solely on the honor code for enforcement. So, the question becomes, how do you make it harder for criminals to do what they're already not supposed to?

You can't other than all out confiscation of every gun in the world


Even then, they'll find a different way to rape, maim, and kill. That's what criminals do. In fact, the ones who can't get their hands on guns use things like knives, bats, and hammers. Did you know more people are murdered with blunt objects than ARs? Where is the outcry for the banning of baseball bats unless you're an athlete or using them for sporting purposes?


What you (and many others) seem to not be understanding is that regulations like these do more harm to the good than the bad. I don't have the money, but if I did, I'd buy an AR. You know why? Because it's the most effective means of self-defense. I don't want to lose the ability to have that rifle or my access to standard capacity magazines in any of the guns I own because if I'm ever in a situation where my life is on the line versus that of a criminal, I want to have the overwhelming advantage.


And just to make a "duh" question. Seriously, how many of your common criminal has the ability to get their hands on an AR? The cheapest one you can find in most places is between $500 and $700. That's on the legitimate market.

These criminals are using things like pistols and shotguns (Go look at places like Chicago and DC). The politicians aren't clamoring for the registration or regulation of those guns. And you know why, too, because ARs are a much easier target through their lies and propaganda.


Also, I find it strange that you didn't address the comment of "regulation doesn't work". The AWB failed last time, so why are we going after them now?

Again, because they're an easier target.

[Bogg]

So, to summarize: even though no other developed nation in the world has this problem, it's impossible to not have the problems we have, and any attempt to make life harder for criminals will invariably make life easier for criminals, unless the attempt in question is everyone should have a gun always?

[SWedd523]

That sort of sarcastic statement isn't even worth a serious response. I'll let the discussion end there.

[Chef]

While I agree with you that treating drug addiction as a crime instead of a public health issue is a mistake, and lengthy mandatory sentences for low-level dealers can do more harm than good, total legalization isn't the route to go. Marijuana? Sure, I couldn't care less about that. Heroin? Not a chance. The goal is to reduce the criminal incentive while treating the health risk.




Really? Hitler? Comments like that are why people don't get taken seriously. It's the equivalent calling someone racist because they didn't vote for Obama.



.

1. my goal is not to treat any health risk or reduce criminal incentive. my goal is to actually honor the freedom of any individual to choose what they want or don't want to put into their body. there is no victim, hence no crime. there is no gov't authority to regulate drugs. i also could give a shit about "health risks". it is personal responsibility. there is no government authority to legislate or provide health risk management. there was a time where private charities helped and it wasn't so much "charity at the point of gun".

and as far as hitler. that is a false argument. you made an illogical leap. i never called anyone hitler. i merely stated the FACT that history has shown that every major genocide and huge advances by tyrannical leaders/gov't was directly preceded by two events. 1. national registration of arms 2. using that info to systematically disarm the population.

the threat of tyranny is no less severe today as it was 300, 200, 100, 50 years ago. and like it or not, that is exactly why we have a clearly 2nd amendment that says shall not be infringed.

[Chef]

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=216697

[QC Thundercats]

Okay, this is such a contentious issue, and I wasn't really wanting to jump into the fray. But I do have a few questions on the debate.

Swedd, Chef - it seems yall know the most about guns and all the gun laws in the country here by far. I'm not even going to pretend I know all the details about the various weaponry and regulations of the land.

First, I'll say that the 2nd amendment says we have the right to bear arms, so I support the constitution on this. We also all can agree that these tragedies are terrible, and something must be done about it. What that "it" is seems to be what is dividing the country, and with both sides throwing out hyperbole and worst case scenarios, it accomplishes nothing but intransigence of opinions and outrage, instead of reasonable debate. I'm trying the reasonable route.

There was so much ground covered here, and I have learned some more on the subject here and through links provided. If I have this correct, you guys seem to think the government is just proposing laws to pay lip service to gun control activists, where in actuality there would be no positive effect on the activities they're trying to curtail.

But it seems like every single thing proposed is being shot down as pointless, worthless, ineffectual, or infringing on freedoms. Now it can't be an all or nothing proposition, there is always gray area for laws. Some of these propositions are heavily researched and vetted, and there has to be some positive effect of what they are trying to accomplish. Whether the tradeoff is worth it is what should be debated, not that everything should be brushed away as nonsense.

If we take the best parts out of everything proposed, tweak it to pinpoint the problems more accurately, is it then ok to create a new regulation? Or is this a right so sacred that it must not be touched at all by anyone, no matter what happens in the country? I can't agree with this last part, that some kind of compromise can't be agreed upon.

I want to ask you two, besides heavily arming the populace, what you think would be reasonable propositions to help the problem? I know you guys think it is more a criminal/mental health/societal problem rather than a gun problem, but these aren't separable either. These issues are too intertwined with guns to just say eff it, whatever happens, happens.

Second, in regards to arming the populace, I still don't think that is the best solution either. If a criminal is determined to perpetrate a crime, he will do so regardless. The element of surprise can easily disarm any victim in an isolated space, and if mental health is their issue, the threat of their own death won't stop them from acting. Also, I wouldn't trust everyone to have a gun in stressful situations, even with training. To use a basketball analogy, we see NBA players, who have been trained all their life, and made it to the highest level, proceed to shit the bed at end of game situations. Many people just don't have it in them to come through in clutch situations, even with the most preparation and training. Now, in a real life-or-death situation, the pressure is exponential, and I'd say most people would freeze, shake, run, or make some serious mental error and make a situation worse. I wouldn't trust my life in their hands. Also, even if we want to arm teachers and everyone else, many people are pacifists and flat out don't want anything to do with violence. You can't just force these people to serve and protect if they just don't have it in them to do so.

So, using my logic, lets say that with the current laws in place, there will be 20 mass murder shootouts in the next decade. If there is anything we can do in regards to any regulation that say, cuts this down to 10 mass murders, is that not worth it? I know the actual chance of being a victim in a mass shooting is infinitesimally small, but I think the chance of a maniacal tyrant taking over the country and convincing thousands of soldiers loyal to Americans to suddenly turn on their own people and proceed in genocide is many times smaller than that. What is the proper tradeoff to help improve our society?

[SWedd523]

I probably won't address everything you're asking, so I'll just go off on my own policy spiel. (Seriously, this is going to get long)


An "Assault Weapons" or "Military-Style Weapons" Ban is an absolute non-starter. Not only is there no way you can justify it Constitutionally, but even a person who has no idea about guns in general should see that Obama, Feinstein, and co. are using these recent murders as political capital to get their agenda pushed. Feinstein in particular has been an avid anti-gunner for centuries (even wrote the Clinton AWB). The bringing of kids up on stage with him to grandstand the signing of his EOs plays on the emotions of the nations, especially ironic since those kids were brought up there because they wrote him letters about how guns are evil, yet were surrounded by a multitude of guns meant to protect the President.

(This is not to say any other President/politician wouldn't take advantage of the national conversation to pass any of their own preferred legislation. The incredibly unconstitutional Patriot Act is a shining example of such.)

It's as simple as stating factually based numbers. From the 2011 UCR:

6220 murders by handgun
1694 murders by knife
496 murders by blunt object
356 murders by shotgun
323 murders by rifle


Yet they decide that ARs are the nation's epidemic and need to be banned. Why? Two of the reasons seem obvious to me: 1. It's much easier to ban those than pistols/shotguns because they're less common/newer and 2. they "look scarier" than pistols/shotguns. I don't say that to be facetious. The Clinton AWB and the current proposed one use criteria such as an adjustable butt stock or muzzle break to determine "assault weapon" as if either of those (among other features) make any gun any more deadly.

They want to ban this:



but not this:




Because the first picture "looks" like an "assault weapon", despite the fact that those two pictures are the exact same gun. They work the exact same ways, shoot the exact same rounds, use the exact same magazines. The only difference is taking the wood stock off a stock Ruger 10/22 and putting the new plastic stuff on. There's no way you can tell me that isn't a load of manure. (Empirical proof that "AWBs" don't work, go look at the murder statistics during the Clinton ban and the years since)


If you want to reduce gun violence, you go after the biggest cause no? Not the smallest.




Now that we've hit the inevitable "Should ARs be banned?" aspect of the conversation, let's move towards some other things.


Background checks: As I have already stated in this thread, Every time a FFL dealer sells a gun, they are required by federal law to submit a background check (form 4473) and are required to call the FBI and run your social and other info to ensure you were truthful and don't have any other disqualifying issues. The only way around that is if you have a CWP but, even then, I have to fill out the 4473 (The CWP typically exempts you from the FBI call, but they still can if they decide to).

Those background checks are as extensive as they can be. They do a full criminal history check. The only way to make it more in depth is if you do a mental health check, but that requires the lifting of HIPAA and other constitutionally mandated doctor-patient privileges and whatnot, so honestly, that isn't going to happen.

You can only limit the use by mentally deficient by addressing the mentally deficient in ways other than giving them some pills and sending them on their way. That's my second proposal: Do something about the woeful state of our politically correct, yet socially inept mental health system. If it's so easy to register 270 million guns, they should be able to register the mentally deficient.

I have no idea what the logistics could/would be, but that is certainly a more pressing aspect of long term public safety. However, it runs the slippery slope risk of the government legislating which mental health issues can preclude you from purchasing or owning a firearm. Psycho/Socio -paths, bipolar, split personalities, etc are all "dangerous" and are "reasonable" in my opinion, but I don't doubt they'd overstep those bounds and add less serious things as a means of de facto gun banning.

Magazine sizes: I have yet to see any empirical proof that magazine restrictions lead to less carnage. It does more to hurt the innocent because Joe Nobody in New York is going to have 7 rounds per mag to defend himself as opposed to 12, 15, 17, 20, 30, whatever. If I'm going to need to defend myself/family, why should I not be allowed to have as many rounds as I can muster?


The criminal element is never going to go away, especially not in a place like America where the melting pot society combines multitudes of ethnic background, cultural differences, language barriers, etc. and the wealth disparity coupled with shrinking middle class adding another element of strife. Cain and Abel (if you believe in that), Cavemen, the Crusades, etc. Millions upon millions of people have been murdered without the use of any sort of firearms, so it's naive to think removing ARs removes that threat.


There is a common link among all of these recent mass murders. They were all gun free zones. Aurora Theater? No guns allowed. Oregon Mall? No guns allowed. Sandy Hook? No guns allowed. It certainly seems like these anti-gun zones don't seem to be having much of a positive effect...

All it does is remove the most efficient means for a private citizen to protect his/herself against an aggressor.


I think we need to remove the evil stigma politicians have done so well to associate with firearms. Nowadays, everybody is scared of guns, thinks they're icky, or simply have no idea how they function. In previous generations, it wasn't odd to see people bring their rifles/shotguns to school so they can be ready to go hunt when they leave. It wasn't odd for schools to have "hunting education" which taught students the proper handling/use of firearms. Past generations knew how guns worked, knew how they could be used for good or bad, and it was simply viewed as a tool.

Nowadays, we have 5 year old girls getting suspended from school because they pointed a Hello Kitty bubble gun at another kid. SERIOUSLY?!


This is the third aspect: Better parenting. Teach your kids about guns, what they are, how they work, how to use them, and how to stay away from them unless an adult is present. They'll grow up without the belief that they're the "forbidden fruit". Go to a gun range, take a gun class, get educated. I wouldn't dare to argue about laws regarding things I have no knowledge of, so why do so many people have concrete beliefs regarding guns? I bet many would soften their stances if they weren't so ignorant (not stupid, shouldn't have to clarify that because you're smart enough to know what I mean, but that is for whoever else may be reading)


Also wouldn't hurt to have some sort of education based around the Constitution or Federalist papers so that the general populous wasn't so fucking apathetic/ignorant about the rights and freedoms they are so lucky to have, and maybe they wouldn't be so happy to give them up. It'd blow people's minds if they knew the 2nd Amendment REALLY WAS designed to prevent a tyrannical government. That isn't some gun nut argument, it was the designed purpose. But the Constitution aspect is a massive tangent that should be taken in a different conversation.


It's past midnight and I have to get up at 6, so I'll cut it off there. I'm sure I didn't address many of the things you want my opinion on, so if you bother to read through that novel, feel free to bring them back up or send me a PM if you feel like discussing it on a more private manner

[QC Thundercats]

An "Assault Weapons" or "Military-Style Weapons" Ban is an absolute non-starter.

It's as simple as stating factually based numbers. From the 2011 UCR:

6220 murders by handgun
1694 murders by knife
496 murders by blunt object
356 murders by shotgun
323 murders by rifle


Yet they decide that ARs are the nation's epidemic and need to be banned. Why? Two of the reasons seem obvious to me: 1. It's much easier to ban those than pistols/shotguns because they're less common/newer and 2. they "look scarier" than pistols/shotguns.

If you want to reduce gun violence, you go after the biggest cause no? Not the smallest.

OK, so it seems that "assault weapon" is a misnomer, and is being used as a scapegoat for gun violence, correct? If the only difference is casing, then yes, it does seem ridiculous to ban one but not the other based on looks. I think it may be because kids use "scarier" looking weapons in video games, and a lot of people like to improperly paint violent video games as the bane of society.

But your last point, going after the biggest cause rather than the smallest cause of violence, this means we should address handguns then. Even though these are more used by criminals, these guns are more accepted in society than the lesser used rifles. Can there properly be a limit on the number of handguns a person can own, or limit the caliber? Or maybe increase the waiting period for each subsequent gun you purchase, so that you can't stockpile a large amount of guns in only a few months/years? And if you hit a certain number of purchases in a short time, allow another deeper background check into the mental health aspect, if possible. Maybe make a HIPAA exemption as it relates to guns.

Background checks: As I have already stated in this thread, Every time a FFL dealer sells a gun, they are required by federal law to submit a background check (form 4473) and are required to call the FBI and run your social and other info to ensure you were truthful and don't have any other disqualifying issues. The only way around that is if you have a CWP but, even then, I have to fill out the 4473 (The CWP typically exempts you from the FBI call, but they still can if they decide to).

Those background checks are as extensive as they can be. They do a full criminal history check.

As you state, it seems most gun sellers take the law very seriously, and the background checks go as far as they can to vet potential buyers. But is there a loophole or weak point that is being exploited by those trying to skirt the check? Are people able to hide certain things in there background that won't be picked up by the background check? I know its impossible to cover every single contingency, but it seems a lot of folks fall through the cracks that otherwise should have been discovered.

Maybe here is where a sort of registration or licensing can help fill in some gaps. Its definitely not a perfect solution, and I understand the Constitutional argument, but if it can in anyway help sellers and the FBI see who is and isn't properly registered and licensed, and could flag and deter those who aren't registered or are otherwise disqualified from it from obtaining weapons through the legal means. Or also, maybe everyone has the right to a gun for basic use and protection, but you have to prove your qualifications and mental stability to own a higher caliber gun through the licensing process. I know there are a ton of holes in this argument, but I'm just trying to think of a starting place.

And yes, it may be a nightmare trying to register the millions of handguns already in existence. But at the least, you could try to register guns manufactured from this point forward. Or if its not registering weapons, then registering yourself as a gun owner and declaring your past purchases. Even though this is the Big Brother situation that the amendment guards against, I think that a country wide takeover was something that is a relic of the revolutionary era (US only, not other countries of the world now where it is definitely a threat), and the founding fathers put enough safeguards and checks and balances in place to make sure that it won't happen in this country. And so that seems to me to be a reasonable way to keep track of or trace guns if necessary. And I also know that this is probably an untenable proposition to most gun owners.

You can only limit the use by mentally deficient by addressing the mentally deficient in ways other than giving them some pills and sending them on their way. That's my second proposal: Do something about the woeful state of our politically correct, yet socially inept mental health system. If it's so easy to register 270 million guns, they should be able to register the mentally deficient.

I have no idea what the logistics could/would be, but that is certainly a more pressing aspect of long term public safety. However, it runs the slippery slope risk of the government legislating which mental health issues can preclude you from purchasing or owning a firearm. Psycho/Socio -paths, bipolar, split personalities, etc are all "dangerous" and are "reasonable" in my opinion, but I don't doubt they'd overstep those bounds and add less serious things as a means of de facto gun banning.

Maybe they can propose some legislation that covers both mental illness and registration. The slippery slope is something that is difficult to nail down, but I think it may be better to be proactive than nonactive. If you are in the dangerous category, or are taking medication with certain side effects, then this disqualifies you from purchasing a gun.

Magazine sizes: I have yet to see any empirical proof that magazine restrictions lead to less carnage. It does more to hurt the innocent because Joe Nobody in New York is going to have 7 rounds per mag to defend himself as opposed to 12, 15, 17, 20, 30, whatever. If I'm going to need to defend myself/family, why should I not be allowed to have as many rounds as I can muster?

Here is where I do tend to disagree more. My probably terrible analogy, but when I play first person shooters, I most often am nailed by the enemy when I am reloading. The more times I have to reload, the more likely I am to perish in a horrible death. Now even though it is only a few seconds, maybe that extra second is enough for a person to get away during a shootout, or for someone who is carrying to take aim and take someone down.

I don't really like the example of the hypothetical Joe walking down the street and having to engage in a wild shootout with armed thugs. I don't think there are roving bandits with high round weapons waiting to prey on someone with a limited magazine. Someone brought up a corner boy in a previous post, but how many corner boys have most people encountered in their lives? Their friends, families, coworkers? As stated before, most of these kinds of crimes are due to the drug trade or gang wars, and if you're not affiliated with such, then this is not something that people should feel threatened about when it comes to magazine size.

There is a common link among all of these recent mass murders. They were all gun free zones. Aurora Theater? No guns allowed. Oregon Mall? No guns allowed. Sandy Hook? No guns allowed. It certainly seems like these anti-gun zones don't seem to be having much of a positive effect...

All it does is remove the most efficient means for a private citizen to protect his/herself against an aggressor.

Yeah, announcing yourself as a gun free zone probably is the best way to present yourself as a sitting duck. They should probably have signs that state there are armed undercover Navy Seals waiting to take out the first bastard that dares make a move.

I think we need to remove the evil stigma politicians have done so well to associate with firearms.

Education is very important. But I don't know if it would be allowed in schools. We need some solution.

This is the third aspect: Better parenting.

This is a huge problem with a lot of society's ills. Probably good for a separate discussion.

Also wouldn't hurt to have some sort of education based around the Constitution or Federalist papers so that the general populous wasn't so fucking apathetic/ignorant about the rights and freedoms they are so lucky to have, and maybe they wouldn't be so happy to give them up. It'd blow people's minds if they knew the 2nd Amendment REALLY WAS designed to prevent a tyrannical government. That isn't some gun nut argument, it was the designed purpose. But the Constitution aspect is a massive tangent that should be taken in a different conversation.

Its sad, but I do think a great portion of the population is grossly uneducated, and many don't care to be. There's just so many idiotic comments on Facebook and other websites, but people only believe in what they want to believe.

Regarding the Constitution, as its written, that is correct. But the nature of an amendment itself is something that updated the constitution, based on current times. The abolishment of slavery, voting, etc., that all had to be updated based on the further enlightening of the country over time. As I stated above, maybe this safeguard of the 2nd Amendment was absolutely necessary during those unsteady times. But because of the separation of powers, along with the federalist system, I don't think its possible for there to be such a centralization of power that someone could take over the country.

[Bogg]

That sort of sarcastic statement isn't even worth a serious response. I'll let the discussion end there.

I know it's a dickhead post, but the idea that it's impossible to make it harder for criminals to get guns is a cop-out, because plenty of other nations have found a way to do it. For like the fifth time: a ban on assault weapons isn't going to address the day-to-day violence that makes up the vast majority of the murders committed with guns. The problem is widespread availability of handguns to common criminals. Trying to address that doesn't result in some sort of siege situation out of a Charles Bronson movie: that hasn't happened in Canada or across Europe. However, whatever does get done to reduce the access that criminals have to handguns has to happen on a national level, unless we're going to set up customs-style checkpoints at every state border crossing (which obviously isn't going to happen).

[Chef]

I know it's a dickhead post, but the idea that it's impossible to make it harder for criminals to get guns is a cop-out, because plenty of other nations have found a way to do it. For like the fifth time: a ban on assault weapons isn't going to address the day-to-day violence that makes up the vast majority of the murders committed with guns. The problem is widespread availability of handguns to common criminals. Trying to address that doesn't result in some sort of siege situation out of a Charles Bronson movie: that hasn't happened in Canada or across Europe. However, whatever does get done to reduce the access that criminals have to handguns has to happen on a national level, unless we're going to set up customs-style checkpoints at every state border crossing (which obviously isn't going to happen).

by their very nature, criminals will find a way. making it harder only serves to limit access to non-criminals, which also flies in the face of the 2ndA. it also is exactly what the statists want. a slow erosion of the 2A so that eventually an all out confiscation can happen. it strikes me as odd that the one sure way to make sure hundreds of unarmed citizens are not massacred is to allow those that wish to carry to carry, but people continue to want to create a fantasy land where the gov't protects us all the time, on the spot so that we don't need to do it ourselves.

this is not to sound obtuse or like i am trying to end an argument, but i could give a hairy rat's ass what the rest of the "civilized" world does with gun control. the fact of the matter is that in all of those countries the gov't could seize total control in less than a few days if it wanted to because the populace has chosen to disarm themselves and make it illegal to arm themselves.