[Athens]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Sen Feinstein will intro this in 2013
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons
I have a Beretta 92FS and three 15 round clips. Shall I expect a visit from ATF?

Wow thats almost a direct copy of the Gun Control laws added in Canada in the 1990's...


Just a heads up, gun registries DON'T work and waste a lot of money at least for rifles and long guns. Its just for the pooo'lice to run your name through a computer before storming your house or car to see if your registered. And in todays world the pooo'lice assume every one has a gun anyways and treats every situation as such.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I agree that people get to hold beliefs.
I do NOT agree that people who hold certain beliefs that come at the expense of others' lives get to assert those beliefs like it's their god-given right to do so.
And apparently, an increasing number of people LIVING WHERE YOU DO agree.

What is at who's expense?

Gun-rights activists' freedom to believe that it is their right to own a gun comes at the expense of thousands of OTHER people's lives. In this case, twenty kids' worth.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You're presuming your conclusion. How do you know that 5 per year isn't just a statistical fluctuation? Using evidence or using gut feeling? I have a gut feeling you don't have any evidence

I thought someone else in the thread quoted the figure of 4-5 spree killings per year in the USA. Whatever the figure, its obviously possible to reduce it if you can reduce the availability of guns.


[QUOTE=Uncle Skeleton;4209037]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

• Second, why on earth would you aspire to be as terrible as the enemy you so despise? You don't find it convincing when they do it, so what makes you think it sounds convincing when you do it? Don't you want to be better than them, and isn't that precisely why you dislike them in the first place, for being inadequate? Take the high road.

I don't aspire to be like them, far from it. For the record, I don't despise the player, just the play. I don't find it convincing but they apparently do. Either that or they are lying. If I can't persuade some with reason, why not try the language they claim to understand?

[QUOTE=Uncle Skeleton;4209037]
• Third, you're still doing it, the polarizing. It is the very essence of what gives us our despised deadlock. We wouldn't be able to fixate on partisan cheerleading and ignore the facts and issues if we didn't have this polarization,

 

Oh my god, where to start. You're so far off the rails here...
• First, I'm not The Right, or the NRA. That's a textbook strawman. You have this mental identity of your enemy and you're pigeon-holing me into it so you can attack me with things they've done, real or imagined. I can't defend against things I didn't do, things I can't even verify if anyone really did. There is a reason this is well-known as a logical fallacy. You cast doubt on your own intellect with every additional time you sink to this level. Please stop, i know you're better than this. No, it's not fine when they do it, and I'm not afraid to tell them so either.

Its not an accusation or a pigeon-holing. If you regurgitate right wing BS, I'm going to call you on it.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

• Second, why on earth would you aspire to be as terrible as the enemy you so despise? You don't find it convincing when they do it, so what makes you think it sounds convincing when you do it? Don't you want to be better than them, and isn't that precisely why you dislike them in the first place, for being inadequate? Take the high road.

I don't aspire to be like them, far from it. For the record, I don't despise the player, just the play. I don't find it convincing but they apparently do. Either that or they are lying. If I can't persuade some with reason, why not try the language they claim to understand?

[QUOTE=Uncle Skeleton;4209037]
• Third, you're still doing it, the polarizing. It is the very essence of what gives us our despised deadlock. We wouldn't be able to fixate on partisan cheerleading and ignore the facts and issues if we didn't have this polarization,

All the facts referenced by anyone in this thread clearly show a strong correlation between increased gun control and reduced gun deaths of all types. You can argue that causation is not shown, but the correlation should be strong enough to convince anyone that its worth a try given what is at stake. Despite this, there are still plenty of people arguing against this bang-your-head-against-a-concrete-wall-obvious solution, including you. You were ignoring the facts before any mention of partisanism, you all were.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If you think I have ever used soundbites over reason, please point it out. I will make amends. Otherwise, kindly stfu with your unfounded accusations.

You have mentioned both criminals not obeying laws and arming teachers. Both of these are soundbites.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You're wrong

Any evidence of that?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's easy for you to say that when you never question your premise that all your ideas are "perfectly sensible." They're security theater, just like the TSA. They would create a massive inconvenience and provide imperceptible benefit, meanwhile increasing the polarization of the issue and treating law-abiding citizens like they're worthless and their opinions are trivial. How about giving out free gun-safes to anyone who asks for one? How about funding an "apollo mission" for developing reliable smart-gun technology? How about any idea that uses the carrot instead of the stick? I haven't seen any of these "positive" ideas, because it's not about prevention, it's not about problem-solving, it's about vengeance, and finding someone we can take out our frustrations on when the perpetrator and his enabler are both dead, not by our hand. The vengeance parade will eventually run its course either way, and at the end either we will have been smart enough to look for real solutions, or we won't and the status quo will endure. I for one would rather have real solutions than not have them, and the carrot works about 10x better than the stick.

Its not about vengeance, its about preventing the deaths of innocent people. Nor is it theatre. Take guns out of the way of the ill or the vulnerable and less people will die. Clearly shown by the statistics from virtually everywhere else in the world.

You know what? If you think your right to shoot squirrels with an M16 is more important than the life of one of your fellow citizens, let alone up to 100 children per year, then your opinion shouldn't matter to anyone.

Gun safes is a great idea, free ones would be good too but whoever pays for it, I can see a lot of objections. If the government buys them, the conservatives will go nuts, if the gun owners have to buy their own, they are going to go nuts. Or ignore that law, reducing any benefit it might have had.

How is arming teachers or putting police or vets in schools a carrot solution btw?

Smart guns would be better than nothing but you still have to pay for you Apollo mission somehow which means you are going to run into resistance (and yes, like it or not, its mostly going to come from the right). What about a smart gun which only works within a certain range of your home? Perfect for home defence by any member of the family, requires some planning and hacking before you can take it to school.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

What about the buy-back program? Make it more lucrative (for now) to sell to the government than to the petty criminal who walks in the door.

That would cost more in resources than implementing a sound mental healthcare plan. Also, most people don't want to sell their guns, except with weapons that are already in disrepair or of poor quality to begin with. Criminals can't legally buy guns, the background checks are pretty thorough. Again, gun education and a better net to catch the mentally and emotionally disturbed, those are the best tools I can see which have a fighting chance, without infringing on Constitutional rights or provoking a civil war.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Sen Feinstein will intro this in 2013
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons
I have a Beretta 92FS and three 15 round clips. Shall I expect a visit from ATF?

Well, that won't pass. Typical knee-jerk nonsense.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Gun-rights activists' freedom to believe that it is their right to own a gun comes at the expense of thousands of OTHER people's lives. In this case, twenty kids' worth.

You have no idea what you are blathering about! My RIGHTS are from our Bill of Rights and the US Constitution. YOUR ASSUMPTION is worthless BS.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by knifecarrier2 

Oh, so you're saying we should put them in some sort of structure, hire people to care for them, etc? Who pays for that?

The non-victims. How much do you think it would cost to deal with a guns and rifles database? How about through health insurance? Mental health insurance.

[BadKosh]

500 gun murders in Chicago this year. That gun ban really does make a difference.

[Spheric Harlot]

Have you the thread? Localized gun bans are bunk. For obvious reasons. It was discussed when talking about state-level regulations and bans.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

500 gun murders in Chicago this year. That gun ban really does make a difference.

Are those guns also illegal in the rest of Illinois? How about Indiana, Missouri, Wisconsin or Iowa? It will work if its done on a national/federal level.

Or if you prefer I could argue that gun murder is just an ingrained part of Chicago's culture and heritage, you know Al Capone and all that.

[mattyb]

Why does the 2nd amendment start with : A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ...

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Gun-rights activists' freedom to believe that it is their right to own a gun comes at the expense of thousands of OTHER people's lives. In this case, twenty kids' worth.

You have no idea what you are blathering about! My RIGHTS are from our Bill of Rights and the US Constitution. YOUR ASSUMPTION is worthless BS.

I wasn't talking about taking your guns away. I was talking about holding you accountable for whatever is done with them. Which, you being a responsible adult, should make zero difference, as you're already securing them against abuse by others.

I was talking about actually making you PART of the mandated "well-regulated militia" (which would seem to imply some sort of regulation), rather than just being some random nut with a passion for bang-bang.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You're presuming your conclusion. How do you know that 5 per year isn't just a statistical fluctuation? Using evidence or using gut feeling? I have a gut feeling you don't have any evidence

I thought someone else in the thread quoted the figure of 4-5 spree killings per year in the USA. Whatever the figure, its obviously possible to reduce it if you can reduce the availability of guns.

And how does that compare with the rights of those affected by the measure itself? We could prevent 3x as many deaths by reducing the availability of cars, but we wouldn't consider doing that without considering the cost in freedom to those affected by the measure. Do you see the "reason and sense" I'm trying to communicate here? You advocate "reason and sense," and I just want you to agree to play by your own rules there.

All the facts referenced by anyone in this thread clearly show a strong correlation between increased gun control and reduced gun deaths of all types. You can argue that causation is not shown, but the correlation should be strong enough to convince anyone that its worth a try given what is at stake. Despite this, there are still plenty of people arguing against this bang-your-head-against-a-concrete-wall-obvious solution, including you. You were ignoring the facts before any mention of partisanism, you all were.

There is the same correlation between cars and car deaths, and even worse between cell phones and distracted driving deaths. I'm not disputing the correlation, I'm disputing the biased weighting of that correlation. You're not putting any weight at all on the rights of people who already take pains to follow safety precautions. If you called for banning cars or banning cell phones after an unusually tragic accident, rather than trying to find a way to prevent the misuse of cars and cell phones while still protecting the rights of people to use both safely, then I would be making the same objections.

You have mentioned both criminals not obeying laws and arming teachers. Both of these are soundbites.

Demonstrably false.
http://forums.macnn.com/newsearch/?search=teachers&sort=relevance&order=descending&t itleonly=0&byuser=uncle+skeleton&output=posts&sdat e=3m&containingforum%5B0%5D=89&replycompare=gt&num updates=&newer=1&type=all&advanced=1
http://forums.macnn.com/newsearch/?search=obey&sort=relevance&order=descending&title only=0&byuser=uncle+skeleton&output=posts&sdate=3m &containingforum%5B0%5D=89&replycompare=gt&numupda tes=&newer=1&type=all&advanced=1
(the sole latter result being part of a logical analysis of the logic of a post I was responding to)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zKPtQxPSgLk/UM89s_vqvwI/AAAAAAAAAqU/ihIl7SyYvko/s320/156570524516291844_m5PG6hWK_c.jpg
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/44397_150183655130080_393457641_n.jpg

I apologize, but I don't understand your meaning.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You're wrong

Any evidence of that?

Easy, me. Since you implied a negative, I only need a single counterexample to disprove it. I am in the middle (relax, I don't care if you believe me or not, it's just the truth). Of course, logic indicates that I am not the only person like me, even if I am the only person whose posts haven't reflected where I stand (beliefs are more "true" than posts). It's also logical to expect someone like me not to have to say things that have already been said, and only address the subset of posts that reflect those beliefs of mine that haven't yet been said. That's why I have only been arguing one side here so far, because only one side of the debate has been acting irrationally (here, mostly, not counting the NRA and not counting posters who don't stick around to even reply). The pro-gun side has been acknowledging both goals, both of reducing misuse which is already illegal and the goal of protecting individual rights and keeping checks and balances on government abuse. Meanwhile the pro-control side has been completely ignoring the latter goal, ignoring "sense and reason" and acting purely out of emotional knee-jerking. As soon as the fervor dies down and people regain some rationality, if any interest even remains in the topic then I'm sure my words will sound more balanced (as opposed to my beliefs, which are already balanced). I want there to be a control-side solution to this problem, I really do, but even more than that I want that solution to work, rather than just being security theater that ultimately causes more problems than it solves.

Its not about vengeance, its about preventing the deaths of innocent people. Nor is it theatre. Take guns out of the way of the ill or the vulnerable and less people will die. Clearly shown by the statistics from virtually everywhere else in the world.

Did you forget all about the transition problem, which you acknowledged was a serious concern but had sidelined in order to try getting people to put their cards on the table (the Picard Canard)?
Aren't you worried that the people more interested in control than in safety (otherwise why wouldn't they have been enforcing the laws we already have against straw sales and corrupt dealers?) will continue to let safety slip through the cracks while they pursue their prior agenda of control?
I'm sure you have noticed that gun manufacturers benefit from the hype surrounding the misuse of their products, but have you also noticed that the control fetishists also benefit from the failure of their stated goals? They can exploit each tragedy to increase their control (don't say it didn't happen after 9/11, for example), and now is the time to put the brakes on that exploitation. Not after you give them what they want and the emotional knee-jerking has died down. If there is a time for "sense and reason", it has to be now, before we give away the farm.

You know what? If you think your right to shoot squirrels with an M16 is more important than the life of one of your fellow citizens, let alone up to 100 children per year, then your opinion shouldn't matter to anyone.

Don't do that. The same logic condemns McDonalds drive-throughs and the whole suburban lifestyle. "The life of one of your fellow citizens" is demonstrably not sacrosanct. It is a cost of living in a free society, the question is what cost. If you can't come to the table with that mindset, then it's you who is rejecting "sense and reason."

Gun safes is a great idea, free ones would be good too but whoever pays for it, I can see a lot of objections. If the government buys them, the conservatives will go nuts, if the gun owners have to buy their own, they are going to go nuts. Or ignore that law, reducing any benefit it might have had.

Jesus, give your opponent a chance to object before you cave to those objections.

Smart guns would be better than nothing but you still have to pay for you Apollo mission somehow which means you are going to run into resistance (and yes, like it or not, its mostly going to come from the right). What about a smart gun which only works within a certain range of your home? Perfect for home defence by any member of the family, requires some planning and hacking before you can take it to school.

I like it. I don't know what technology it could use, but it sounds doable, maybe even without electronics (mechanical solution).

Paying for it is part of every proposal. It's a foregone conclusion (and arguably "pays for itself" if it prevents theft). But paying for something that helps both sides is going to be orders of magnitude easier than paying for something that punishes one side while supporting the prior agenda of the other side. Plus paying for stuff is a solved problem, as opposed to crushing the rights of half the country at the whim of the other half.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I wasn't talking about taking your guns away. I was talking about holding you accountable for whatever is done with them. Which, you being a responsible adult, should make zero difference, as you're already securing them against abuse by others.

That's more than just a zinger. I can't imagine how more punishment is going to change this behavior. Taking the current incident as a fine example, the gun owner died as a result of failing to secure them. We can't administer a harsher punishment than that. Surely if any punishment was going to scare her into action, that one would have done it. The logical conclusion is that she thought she was doing what was necessary, not that she thought the punishment was too lenient to outweigh being lazy.

I would support any sane measure that would increase the use of safes or locks (after all, gun owners don't want their property stolen either, nor do they want a family member to murder-suicide people with it, it's win-win), but adding punishment for not using one does not seem the slightest bit sane to me, due to the above.

[Spheric Harlot]

It's enough of a freak case that it can be shrugged off. If accountability were codified into law, people who didn't secure their guns and got them stolen would be charged for involuntary manslaughter if their gun showed up in a subsequent gas station hold-up where somebody got killed.

You don't think that would get the message across pretty quickly?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Why does the 2nd amendment start with : A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ...

There is no comma in the version that was ratified, there's some revisionism at work by adding it.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

It's enough of a freak case that it can be shrugged off. If accountability were codified into law, people who didn't secure their guns and got them stolen would be charged for involuntary manslaughter if their gun showed up in a subsequent gas station hold-up where somebody got killed.
You don't think that would get the message across pretty quickly?

I would agree to that, as a compromise. Though I'd change it to reckless endangerment (same penalty, different wording).

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

It's enough of a freak case that it can be shrugged off.

Does a gun owner being killed by their own gun (not suicide) happen less often than a school shooting? I would be surprised at that, but I can't seem to find data for that at the moment.

If accountability were codified into law, people who didn't secure their guns and got them stolen would be charged for involuntary manslaughter if their gun showed up in a subsequent gas station hold-up where somebody got killed.

You don't think that would get the message across pretty quickly?

Let's see, there's a probabilistic chance that your unsecured gun will be used to kill you or your child (purposefully or otherwise), and there's a probabilistic chance that your unsecured gun will be used to convict you of manslaughter. If a person is not convinced by the former, why would they be convinced by the latter? Personally, I would be convinced by either. But obviously there are a lot of people out there who aren't as logical as I am.

I'm not saying that law isn't a good idea, or a fair punishment. I am just skeptical that it would be an effective deterrent.

[besson3c]

Why do we treat the constitution as some biblical thing? Shaddim is right in saying that the USSC is never going to permit unconstitutional anti-second amendment gun laws, but it kind of sucks that we are so locked into this old document as if it is worth our unconditional faith that it always knows what is best for this country in modern times - be this with second amendment stuff or anything else.

The amount of deadlock designed into the American system of politics is frustrating, it's no wonder anything ever gets done, but I've never understood why people just unconditionally default to treating the constitution as being absolutely sacred, as if it is worth adding additional deadlock at every turn. And yes, this works both ways no matter what your political persuasion (such as the gay marriage constitutional amendment ban, which I would not support).

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why do we treat the constitution as some biblical thing?

Your answer is right in the question.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why do we treat the constitution as some biblical thing? Shaddim is right in saying that the USSC is never going to permit unconstitutional anti-second amendment gun laws, but it kind of sucks that we are so locked into this old document as if it is worth our unconditional faith that it always knows what is best for this country in modern times - be this with second amendment stuff or anything else.

Then why did you ignore the other part of what Shaddim said in the same post? The reason the constitution DOES know what is best for this country in modern times: amendments. If the people could agree on what is best for us, then we would amend the constitution to reflect that. Easy peasy. Any time we can't muster that support, then the proposed change is not as good or just as you would like to believe.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'm not saying that law isn't a good idea, or a fair punishment. I am just skeptical that it would be an effective deterrent.

This is where I would have been impressed if the NRA volunteered to fund a round of PSAs or some other methods to help spread the word to the average American that leaving your weapons unsecured can have unintended side-effects.

(For some reason I look at it like encouraging seatbelt use)

[Uncle Skeleton]

Yeah or forest fires. The NRA sucks at playing the game; I have a feeling they're in the twilight of their relevance. On the other side, I expected the health-care proponents to jump all over the mental health angle of this incident, and win some strange bedfellows to support socialized medicine. Wouldn't that be a coup?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yeah or forest fires. The NRA sucks at playing the game; I have a feeling they're in the twilight of their relevance.

I've heard some people lament that the NRA claims to represent gun owners, but now really is a front for commercial gun interests. I'm too far outside to make head or tails of that.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

On the other side, I expected the health-care proponents to jump all over the mental health angle of this incident, and win some strange bedfellows to support socialized medicine. Wouldn't that be a coup?

I feel like this angle hasn't been getting much play. IMO, it was mentioned more in passing than as a serious proposal.

[raleur]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I've heard some people lament that the NRA claims to represent gun owners, but now really is a front for commercial gun interests. I'm too far outside to make head or tails of that.

Nobody outside the NRA and gun manufacturers knows for sure. The NRA is not required to disclose the majority of its financials.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Gun-rights activists' freedom to believe that it is their right to own a gun comes at the expense of thousands of OTHER people's lives. In this case, twenty kids' worth.

I fail to see that because even if you took away all gun rights, and made everything about guns illegal its still going to happen with illegal guns. I fail to see who that's at your expense.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The non-victims. How much do you think it would cost to deal with a guns and rifles database? How about through health insurance? Mental health insurance.

The Canadian Long Gun Registry which was recently dropped cost tax payers Billions, yes Billions of dollars and did nothing to improve safety. Was a massive waste of money. A country with 34 million people, with about 16 million firearms and it cost a couple Billion dollars. Just imagine how much that would cost the US with hundreds of millions of people and guns...

[Athens]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why do we treat the constitution as some biblical thing? Shaddim is right in saying that the USSC is never going to permit unconstitutional anti-second amendment gun laws, but it kind of sucks that we are so locked into this old document as if it is worth our unconditional faith that it always knows what is best for this country in modern times - be this with second amendment stuff or anything else.

The amount of deadlock designed into the American system of politics is frustrating, it's no wonder anything ever gets done, but I've never understood why people just unconditionally default to treating the constitution as being absolutely sacred, as if it is worth adding additional deadlock at every turn. And yes, this works both ways no matter what your political persuasion (such as the gay marriage constitutional amendment ban, which I would not support).

Ever notice how much faith people put into the words on the paper of a fantasy book called the Holly Bible? I mean if people will put that much faith behind fiction just imagine how much faith they will put behind something real like the rights under the constitution.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

It's enough of a freak case that it can be shrugged off.

Does a gun owner being killed by their own gun (not suicide) happen less often than a school shooting? I would be surprised at that, but I can't seem to find data for that at the moment.

When's the last time you saw it in the news? It don't happen unless people see it in TV..

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If accountability were codified into law, people who didn't secure their guns and got them stolen would be charged for involuntary manslaughter if their gun showed up in a subsequent gas station hold-up where somebody got killed.

You don't think that would get the message across pretty quickly?

Let's see, there's a probabilistic chance that your unsecured gun will be used to kill you or your child (purposefully or otherwise), and there's a probabilistic chance that your unsecured gun will be used to convict you of manslaughter. If a person is not convinced by the former, why would they be convinced by the latter? Personally, I would be convinced by either. But obviously there are a lot of people out there who aren't as logical as I am.

I'm not saying that law isn't a good idea, or a fair punishment. I am just skeptical that it would be an effective deterrent.

I have no numbers, but I *assume* that the vast majority of guns that are stolen are NOT used to kill their owners.

[raleur]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

When's the last time you saw it in the news? It don't happen unless people see it in TV..

In the US, there are about 600-1200 accidental deaths per year. In addition, there are over 20,000 accidental injuries per year.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I have no numbers, but I *assume* that the vast majority of guns that are stolen are NOT used to kill their owners.

Your assumption is correct, but there is very little hard data on this because the reporting is spotty.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Ever notice how much faith people put into the words on the paper of a fantasy book called the Holly Bible? I mean if people will put that much faith behind fiction just imagine how much faith they will put behind something real like the rights under the constitution.

The frustrating part about it is the inconsistency. People invoke the constitution only when it suits them, but it does get invoked every 5 minutes.

[Tiresias]

For someone on the outside looking in, this seems like a total no-brainer.

Should every Tom, Dick and Harry be able to pop down to the local gun store and buy an assault rifle?

Emphatically, no.

And the fact that it is possible in the U.S. I impute to the rather fusty and no longer justifiable revolutionary era amendment in your constitution.

But that's just me.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

For someone on the outside looking in, this seems like a total no-brainer.
Should every Tom, Dick and Harry be able to pop down to the local gun store and buy an assault rifle?
Emphatically, no.
And the fact that it is possible in the U.S. I impute to the rather fusty and no longer justifiable revolutionary era amendment in your constitution.
But that's just me.

It isn't, that's media hyperbole.

[raleur]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

For someone on the outside looking in, this seems like a total no-brainer.
Should every Tom, Dick and Harry be able to pop down to the local gun store and buy an assault rifle?
Emphatically, no.
And the fact that it is possible in the U.S. I impute to the rather fusty and no longer justifiable revolutionary era amendment in your constitution.
But that's just me.

That is incorrect- not everyone can pop down to the gun store and buy an assault rifle without a background check.

To avoid that, they have to pop down to the local gun show/swap meet instead.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by raleur 

That is incorrect- not everyone can pop down to the gun store and buy an assault rifle without a background check.
To avoid that, they have to pop down to the local gun show/swap meet instead.

Where they still run a background check (I went to one last weekend and saw them doing it). It wasn't efficient, there was a line, but they were doing their best.

[raleur]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Where they still run a background check (I went to one last weekend and saw them doing it). It wasn't efficient, there was a line, but they were doing their best.

Only if they want to- it's not a federal requirement.

[Chongo]

One of my fave clips.


[VIDEO]http://youtu.be/3OaF-j8x5Vc[/VIDEO]

[raleur]

Wrong thread- that really should go with the other "American myths" Besson is describing.

[Chongo]

Another.

[VIDEO]http://youtu.be/d-8CUulWqPA[/VIDEO]

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Where they still run a background check (I went to one last weekend and saw them doing it). It wasn't efficient, there was a line, but they were doing their best.

Who performs these background checks that these sorts of places anyway? The gun shop guys? Some sort of law enforcement? Assuming you've purchased a gun before what does it consist of in your state beyond looking at your criminal record? Should there be national standards, perhaps those that include some sort of mental health diagnosis? I'm not even sure how you'd conduct one of those...

[besson3c]

Never mind

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Who performs these background checks that these sorts of places anyway? The gun shop guys? Some sort of law enforcement? Assuming you've purchased a gun before what does it consist of in your state beyond looking at your criminal record? Should there be national standards, perhaps those that include some sort of mental health diagnosis? I'm not even sure how you'd conduct one of those...

The seller contacts something called "NICS," the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which is run by the FBI. For the sale to be legal, the seller has to wait for approval from NICS, with some exceptions. For example, in Texas if the buyer has a concealed carry license (issued by the state police here with a very stringent background check of its own), then there is no NICS requirement. The Virginia Tech shooter had been reported as mentally unstable, but this information was considered to be much too private to share with either local police or NICS; if it had been, the shooter would probably have been unable to buy the guns he did, because the gun store's NICS check would have told them "no." Other states require licensed mental health professionals to report "dangerous" people to the local authorities, which typically means they make an entry in NICS to that effect. (That opens up another large can of worms, since there is no standard for what would constitute "dangerous" for the purposes of NICS, and I'd suggest that such designation might be subject to abuse for a variety of reasons.)

There are a number of suggestions that private sales of firearms require a NICS check as well. That is probably not a great idea for a number of reasons. First, who will do the check? Since NICS access requires registration with NICS (and that seems to require a Federal Firearms License (a dealer's license)), this would add some level of complication and probably make it difficult for both the buyer and seller. In some places, the dealer actually charges the buyer anywhere from $5 -$30 to run the check (it takes from 1-5 minutes on the phone to do the check), so if you'd have to go to a licensed dealer to do the check, what would that dealer charge you for signing off on a sale that he doesn't get any profit from? That would effectively make the private sale background check a tax...

And it brings up another, rather telling issue: only legitimate purchasers and sellers would do this. How much would that impact illicit sales? If "Joe Gunrunner" is selling guns he's stolen from burglaries out of his trunk in the Wal-Mart parking lot at midnight, is he also going to conscientiously walk up to "Bob Licensed Dealer" and ask him to run a check on the illicit buyers he's dealing with? I am pretty sure he won't. On the other hand, for every private sale I've seen at a gun show, I've also seen both parties exchange information to establish identification and write up a bill of sale. It is a widely held belief that BATFE agents are at just about every gun show held, and I have seen what appear to be "agents provocateurs" asking (dealers and private parties) to buy guns for other people (illegal), asking about making guns into machine guns (illegal) and asking about how to do a few other suspicious activities, which sounds to me an awful lot like they were BATFE agents trying to catch people breaking the law in broad daylight.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by raleur 

Wrong thread- that really should go with the other "American myths" Besson is describing.

It's hardly a myth. Federal Firearms Licensees are required to maintain copies of the 4473 for at least 20 years.

Originally Posted by 27CFR 478.129b

Licensees shall retain each Form 4473 and Form 4473(LV) for a period of not less than 20 years after the date of sale or disposition.

What a handy way to find all the gun owners in a convenient manner!

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I have no numbers, but I *assume* that the vast majority of guns that are stolen are NOT used to kill their owners.

Ok so the "teaching" part of this exercise rests on the user being swayed by the difference in probabilities between these two outcomes, despite the fact that neither you nor I know what that difference is, and the user undoubtedly won't either. That user is already stupider than either of us, because any non-zero probability of either outcome should have already persuaded them, so I remain fully skeptical that this little probabilities exercise is going to be the thing that finally carries the message across to them.

Like I said yesterday, it is a fine system for delivering justice, but I am not at all convinced that it would also deliver a behavioral change.

[Spheric Harlot]

Right now, there is absolutely no recourse for not securing your guns other than loss of property and the very rare freak shooting.

If people start getting prosecuted and jailed for shit that is done with their unsecured guns AFTER they've been stolen, you can bet your ass that people will start locking them up.

[raleur]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

It's hardly a myth. Federal Firearms Licensees are required to maintain copies of the 4473 for at least 20 years.

No, the myth I was referring to was the premise of the movie Red Dawn.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The seller contacts something called "NICS," the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which is run by the FBI. For the sale to be legal, the seller has to wait for approval from NICS, with some exceptions. For example, in Texas if the buyer has a concealed carry license (issued by the state police here with a very stringent background check of its own), then there is no NICS requirement. The Virginia Tech shooter had been reported as mentally unstable, but this information was considered to be much too private to share with either local police or NICS; if it had been, the shooter would probably have been unable to buy the guns he did, because the gun store's NICS check would have told them "no." Other states require licensed mental health professionals to report "dangerous" people to the local authorities, which typically means they make an entry in NICS to that effect. (That opens up another large can of worms, since there is no standard for what would constitute "dangerous" for the purposes of NICS, and I'd suggest that such designation might be subject to abuse for a variety of reasons.)
There are a number of suggestions that private sales of firearms require a NICS check as well. That is probably not a great idea for a number of reasons. First, who will do the check? Since NICS access requires registration with NICS (and that seems to require a Federal Firearms License (a dealer's license)), this would add some level of complication and probably make it difficult for both the buyer and seller. In some places, the dealer actually charges the buyer anywhere from $5 -$30 to run the check (it takes from 1-5 minutes on the phone to do the check), so if you'd have to go to a licensed dealer to do the check, what would that dealer charge you for signing off on a sale that he doesn't get any profit from? That would effectively make the private sale background check a tax...
And it brings up another, rather telling issue: only legitimate purchasers and sellers would do this. How much would that impact illicit sales? If "Joe Gunrunner" is selling guns he's stolen from burglaries out of his trunk in the Wal-Mart parking lot at midnight, is he also going to conscientiously walk up to "Bob Licensed Dealer" and ask him to run a check on the illicit buyers he's dealing with? I am pretty sure he won't. On the other hand, for every private sale I've seen at a gun show, I've also seen both parties exchange information to establish identification and write up a bill of sale. It is a widely held belief that BATFE agents are at just about every gun show held, and I have seen what appear to be "agents provocateurs" asking (dealers and private parties) to buy guns for other people (illegal), asking about making guns into machine guns (illegal) and asking about how to do a few other suspicious activities, which sounds to me an awful lot like they were BATFE agents trying to catch people breaking the law in broad daylight.

You don't do the check at the point of sale. You do the check at the point of issuing gun licenses. 2 licensed gun owners should be able to exchange with very little difficulty. But that would require a license based system for ownership.

[Chongo]

Like this one?

GODWIN'S LAW ALERT

 

[Tiresias]

And Goodwin's Law is fulfilled!

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

[Spheric Harlot]

No, that was broken way earlier, when it was established that gun nuts need weapons to be able to overthrow their own representative government, because a state monopoly on guns "had been tried once before", an look how that worked out.