67097
Post by: angelofvengeance
 Ouze wrote:When I got my conceal carry permit, all that was required was to watch a video and then take a test; all online. The video was 45 minutes and the test was 10 question of which you had to answer 6 correctly; nearly all of which were "where can't you carry a gun". I was truly surprised how lax it was.
I would definitely support nonmandatory safety classes much in the same way I would support a pool safety awareness campaign.
Yeah, that's tied to the idea that you're in a militia. The supreme court recently ruled the second amendment doesn't require militia membership to exercise. You can't just pick words out of the clause and strip them of context - it's a declaratory sentence.
I don't know that I agree with that interpretation, but it is what it is.
That is truly hilarious. Dreadful
12313
Post by: Ouze
 Alex C wrote:On the other hand, mine was 2 days at 8 hours per day. One day was classroom going over safety and legal stuff, the other was on the range doing practical exercises. It was extremely thorough and taught by an ex-Detroit LEO and a lawyer.
Such are the pitfalls of having a patchwork of regulations across the entire country.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
 Kilkrazy wrote:
However my point is for people to identify whether they think safety training in the operation of guns is in principle a good thing or a bad thing (or pointless.)
I think it's a good thing and I encourage people to seek training, but it should not be mandatory to complete a class prior to use or ownership, for reasons that CptJake outlined.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Alex C wrote: Ouze wrote:When I got my conceal carry permit, all that was required was to watch a video and then take a test; all online. The video was 45 minutes and the test was 10 question of which you had to answer 6 correctly; nearly all of which were "where can't you carry a gun". I was truly surprised how lax it was.
On the other hand, mine was 2 days at 8 hours per day. One day was classroom going over safety and legal stuff, the other was on the range doing practical exercises. It was extremely thorough and taught by an ex-Detroit LEO and a lawyer.
12 hours for the wife. She got a perfect score on the written test. I got a perfect score on the shooting test.  Now Genghis Connie wants one and has confiscated my Beretta for future use. I'm very much for safety training and shooting classes. I'm less for requiring them, but could live with it if the mandate had private options and it was purely a safety course. The devil is in the details as some states have used such things to exclude ownership previously.
33125
Post by: Seaward
 dogma wrote:The US Federal Government abridges the freedom of speech by way of the fighting words doctrine, so it seems a bit odd that it cannot also infringe upon the right to bear arms.
It really doesn't, though. "Fighting words" is one of those things that people on the "restrict speech!" side of the free speech debate like to throw around, but never seem to actually research. It's simply not an applicable restriction anymore. The court has refused to invoke it for ~70 years, and has in fact continually narrowed, rather than expanded its domain every time the issue comes up.
It's dead in all but name.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Indeed, its a false equivalency argument.
92641
Post by: Chief Tugboat
Alex C wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:
However my point is for people to identify whether they think safety training in the operation of guns is in principle a good thing or a bad thing (or pointless.)
I think it's a good thing and I encourage people to seek training, but it should not be mandatory to complete a class prior to use or ownership, for reasons that CptJake outlined.
You mean you don't want more government regulation in your life???
A mandatory training class is just a bad idea. Who offers the class? The police department? (Already stretched thin here in northern CA, and they should be responding to more important matters.) The ATF? Some other agency sucking up tax payer money?
Where does the class take place? Most government buildings are closed on weekends and police departments aren't exactly spacious.
How long is the course? 4 hours? 8 hours? A week? Guess I have to take some time off work, awesome.
Don't want to take it? Thats ok! Just pay the fine!
Who sets the fine? How much do you think it should be? $100, $500, $1000?
All ways to control and infringe IMO.
And again all for what? To hopefully reduce the amount of negligent discharges or other negligent behavior? I'm all for training, but it should be SELF regulated. I'm responsible for my actions. Its MY job as a responsible gun owner to make sure my firearms are safely stowed, and others living with me are taught to respect these potentially dangerous items. If someone can't do that, thats on them. But I'm personally not ok being forced to jump through MORE hoops because some people aren't responsible.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
Exactly.
4402
Post by: CptJake
 Jihadin wrote:I can get behind the mandatory training. As long as its free.
No such thing as free. Tax dollars fund 'free' stuff. And again, there are so few injuries and deaths due to accidents that it is a waste of resources to implement and track training for 10s of millions of people. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Chief Tugboat wrote: Alex C wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:
However my point is for people to identify whether they think safety training in the operation of guns is in principle a good thing or a bad thing (or pointless.)
I think it's a good thing and I encourage people to seek training, but it should not be mandatory to complete a class prior to use or ownership, for reasons that CptJake outlined.
You mean you don't want more government regulation in your life???
A mandatory training class is just a bad idea. Who offers the class? The police department? (Already stretched thin here in northern CA, and they should be responding to more important matters.) The ATF? Some other agency sucking up tax payer money?
Where does the class take place? Most government buildings are closed on weekends and police departments aren't exactly spacious.
How long is the course? 4 hours? 8 hours? A week? Guess I have to take some time off work, awesome.
Don't want to take it? Thats ok! Just pay the fine!
Who sets the fine? How much do you think it should be? $100, $500, $1000?
All ways to control and infringe IMO.
And again all for what? To hopefully reduce the amount of negligent discharges or other negligent behavior? I'm all for training, but it should be SELF regulated. I'm responsible for my actions. Its MY job as a responsible gun owner to make sure my firearms are safely stowed, and others living with me are taught to respect these potentially dangerous items. If someone can't do that, thats on them. But I'm personally not ok being forced to jump through MORE hoops because some people aren't responsible.
Not to mention there are already penalties (criminal and civil) for injuries and deaths due to negligence. You want to avoid the penalties? Don't be negligent. Have trouble not being negligent? Take one of the many available safety courses the NRA, local ranges, the Civil Marksmanship Program and other agencies offer. (CMP has some great resources: http://thecmp.org)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Kilkrazy wrote: CptJake wrote:It is exactly the same. Mandatory training required to exercise a constitutionally protected right is mandatory training required to exercise a constitutional right. The rights are similar in that they are constitutionally protected.
If you refuse to grasp that, there is nothing I can do about it. It should be clear to every kid who made it through high school.
Let's suppose for the sake of a little thought experiment that mandatory safety training for gun use was not prohibited by the Constitution. Would you still hold that safety training was a bad thing?
I never said safety training was a bad thing. I said federally mandated training required to exercise a right is a bad thing. I encourage folks to seek out an get the training they feel they need. I provide training to those who ask for it. I run my home range in a very safe manner and ensure any guests we have over fully understand my rules and why they are rules.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
CptJake wrote: Jihadin wrote:I can get behind the mandatory training. As long as its free.
No such thing as free. Tax dollars fund 'free' stuff. And again, there are so few injuries and deaths due to accidents that it is a waste of resources to implement and track training for 10s of millions of people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chief Tugboat wrote: Alex C wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:
However my point is for people to identify whether they think safety training in the operation of guns is in principle a good thing or a bad thing (or pointless.)
I think it's a good thing and I encourage people to seek training, but it should not be mandatory to complete a class prior to use or ownership, for reasons that CptJake outlined.
You mean you don't want more government regulation in your life???
A mandatory training class is just a bad idea. Who offers the class? The police department? (Already stretched thin here in northern CA, and they should be responding to more important matters.) The ATF? Some other agency sucking up tax payer money?
Where does the class take place? Most government buildings are closed on weekends and police departments aren't exactly spacious.
How long is the course? 4 hours? 8 hours? A week? Guess I have to take some time off work, awesome.
Don't want to take it? Thats ok! Just pay the fine!
Who sets the fine? How much do you think it should be? $100, $500, $1000?
All ways to control and infringe IMO.
And again all for what? To hopefully reduce the amount of negligent discharges or other negligent behavior? I'm all for training, but it should be SELF regulated. I'm responsible for my actions. Its MY job as a responsible gun owner to make sure my firearms are safely stowed, and others living with me are taught to respect these potentially dangerous items. If someone can't do that, thats on them. But I'm personally not ok being forced to jump through MORE hoops because some people aren't responsible.
Not to mention there are already penalties (criminal and civil) for injuries and deaths due to negligence. You want to avoid the penalties? Don't be negligent. Have trouble not being negligent? Take one of the many available safety courses the NRA, local ranges, the Civil Marksmanship Program and other agencies offer. (CMP has some great resources: http://thecmp.org)
Or you could cut all of that out and just ensure everybody is going to know what they are doing handling a deadly weapon. If everybody could just choose not to be negligent, we would not have the problem of accidental discharges in the first place. So far this all comes down to "government regulation bad grrr" and not a lot of substance in an argument. You admit that accidental discharges and deaths happen, but do not think it is worth spending money on it to save lives. Why is it not worth saving lives? Why is this something we should not be spending money on but instead we give tax breaks to companies? We have the money and resources to do this. We have the infrastructure to do this. It just makes sense to ensure that people know how to handle a deadly weapon if they are going to be handling one.
92641
Post by: Chief Tugboat
Like I stated earlier in this thread, unless there is a mechanical malfunction, there is no such thing as "accidental" discharges. It is always negligence. Therefore it doesn't matter what training you mandate, if someone is negligent, they are negligent and should be punished by law.
I voiced reasonable concerns about this hypothetical "training". If you don't share those same concerns, thats fine, but saying "cut all that out" doesn't address any of them. Some of those concerns was questioning the infastructure. Where would the training take place? Who would conduct it? Who sets the bar on what is "trained enough to handle a deadly weapon"? Again all reasonable.
But this might be OT.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Thats a very optimistic attitude.
What if the safety course is a six weeks course, taught once a year, in Omaha? Thats how these things work.
Further, infringements on the Bill of Rights of this nature often don't withstand scrutiny. Should you have to take a government mandated education class before you can vote?
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
 Frazzled wrote:Thats a very optimistic attitude.
What if the safety course is a six weeks course, taught once a year, in Omaha? Thats how these things work.
Further, infringements on the Bill of Rights of this nature often don't withstand scrutiny. Should you have to take a government mandated education class before you can vote?
I had to look twice there, because I thought you said Omaha beach! 
Anyway, I read some interesting statistics about guns in the USA.
In 2015, you were more likely to be shot by a dog, or a person under 5 years old, than you were by gun toting terrorists.
Rural gun owners were less likely to be the victim of gun violence than non gun owning urban dwellers.
Hell, if you take the urban gun crime figures out of the official counting. the USA looks a lot better.
Going further, If I were an average American, I'd be more concerned about lightning bolts, type 2 diabetes, and bad drivers, than guns.
Point is, I don't think this proposal will change that much.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Frazzled wrote:Thats a very optimistic attitude.
What if the safety course is a six weeks course, taught once a year, in Omaha? Thats how these things work.
Further, infringements on the Bill of Rights of this nature often don't withstand scrutiny. Should you have to take a government mandated education class before you can vote?
I had to look twice there, because I thought you said Omaha beach!
Anyway, I read some interesting statistics about guns in the USA.
In 2015, you were more likely to be shot by a dog, or a person under 5 years old, than you were by gun toting terrorists.
Rural gun owners were less likely to be the victim of gun violence than non gun owning urban dwellers.
Hell, if you take the urban gun crime figures out of the official counting. the USA looks a lot better.
Going further, If I were an average American, I'd be more concerned about lightning bolts, type 2 diabetes, and bad drivers, than guns.
Point is, I don't think this proposal will change that much.
You are more likely to die from a drunk driver than a gun.
You are more likely to die from a drug overdose than a gun.
*the more you know*
I mean I support gun control at its basic level, I think more ATF agents is a great idea as I know its a very underfunded department and probably one of the smallest branches of enforcement.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Frazzled wrote:
Further, infringements on the Bill of Rights of this nature often don't withstand scrutiny. Should you have to take a government mandated education class before you can vote?
Well.... we do require that children go to school for quite some time, so you could consider that "government mandated education prior to voting"
I agree that making firearm safety courses mandatory for ownership is generally bad. That said, I think most people could use a safety course, with a couple refreshers over the years, however it is and should be, up to the individual person.
Personally, I would like to see some strengthening of safety courses from a legal/judicial point of view, specifically with the mindset that if I have a CCL (or whatever they are called in your locality), it should transfer and be recognized anywhere else in the US, the same as a marriage or drivers' license.
221
Post by: Frazzled
In 2015, you were more likely to be shot by a dog, or a person under 5 years old, than you were by gun toting terrorists.
I see you've met Team Wienie.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
Frazzled wrote:In 2015, you were more likely to be shot by a dog, or a person under 5 years old, than you were by gun toting terrorists.
I see you've met Team Wienie.
It's true, Frazz. Remember that story of a woman hunting in the woods? She left her rifle on the ground, her dog started chewing on it, and the rifle went off 
Or that tragic tale of a woman who left her gun in her handbag during shopping, and her kid was in a shopping cart, started looking through the bag... 
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Do gun clubs offer safety training courses?
21720
Post by: LordofHats
I find they either offer gun safety training, or government resistance training. Depends on the gun club 
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
I know, or know of many that do, so I would sort of assume, based on the few that I know of, that it's fairly common. I would bet that it has something to do with insurance costs as well.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
Some do, depends on the club.
221
Post by: Frazzled
When the dog wants a treat, if you know whats good for you, you're going to give that dog a treat!
37231
Post by: d-usa
So are we done talking about the EOs?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
And are clubs open at the weekend? And they aren't all on a remote mountain top in Omaha, that no-one can get to?
You can see where this is leading.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
Kilkrazy wrote:
And are clubs open at the weekend? And they aren't all on a remote mountain top in Omaha, that no-one can get to?
You can see where this is leading.
I will report you to the other mods for using logic in a gun thread. DO NOT TEMPT ME!
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Its not logical at all. Such safety courses cannot be guaranteed to be equally distributed.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
 Grey Templar wrote:Its not logical at all. Such safety courses cannot be guaranteed to be equally distributed.
The same way venues for voting cannot be guaranteed to be equally distributed? Monarchy it is then!
221
Post by: Frazzled
Not yet. Has there been any clarity on the definition change for "Seller" yet?
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
Grey Templar wrote:Its not logical at all. Such safety courses cannot be guaranteed to be equally distributed.
Umm, how can they not be? Are there places in the US without Police or Gun Clubs?
21720
Post by: LordofHats
I'm all for gun control and bans on guns no one has any business owning, but a litmus test for exercising Constitutionally protected rights has been done before. It was called Jim Crow, and I don't think we look kindly on that these days
Though I think a law requiring that all guns be packaged with a piece of paper reading "<Gun maker> highly advises taking a gun safety course when possible before using this product" would not be unreasonable, cause taking such a course would seem a responsible thing to do and for all I know there are stupid people who don't know such things exist
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
Depends on the club. My current one, for example, lets you shoot any day from 10am until dark, or noon-dark on Sundays. They don't have any classes though, the only formal gathering is occasional Cowboy Action Shooting events. Otherwise, the range is usually empty when I go.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
 Dreadwinter wrote:Umm, how can they not be? Are there places in the US without Police or Gun Clubs?
Actually yes to both Not like we need cops out in the middle of nowhere New Mexico, and you'll very easily find that the number of gun clubs present in an area heavily corresponds with how urbanized it is.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Dreadwinter wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Its not logical at all. Such safety courses cannot be guaranteed to be equally distributed.
Umm, how can they not be? Are there places in the US without Police or Gun Clubs?
There are many places where such things would be an hour or more away from your place of residence.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
Grey Templar wrote: Dreadwinter wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Its not logical at all. Such safety courses cannot be guaranteed to be equally distributed.
Umm, how can they not be? Are there places in the US without Police or Gun Clubs?
There are many places where such things would be an hour or more away from your place of residence.
Ahh, I wonder how they get guns out there.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Because in rural places like that a general store, which would sell firearms, might be closer to you than the Sheriffs.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 LordofHats wrote: Dreadwinter wrote:Umm, how can they not be? Are there places in the US without Police or Gun Clubs?
Actually yes to both Not like we need cops out in the middle of nowhere New Mexico, and you'll very easily find that the number of gun clubs present in an area heavily corresponds with how urbanized it is.
How many gun clubs in the city of Chicago?
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Frazzled wrote: LordofHats wrote: Dreadwinter wrote:Umm, how can they not be? Are there places in the US without Police or Gun Clubs?
Actually yes to both Not like we need cops out in the middle of nowhere New Mexico, and you'll very easily find that the number of gun clubs present in an area heavily corresponds with how urbanized it is.
How many gun clubs in the city of Chicago?
Do gangs count
50512
Post by: Jihadin
LordofHats wrote: Frazzled wrote: LordofHats wrote: Dreadwinter wrote:Umm, how can they not be? Are there places in the US without Police or Gun Clubs?
Actually yes to both Not like we need cops out in the middle of nowhere New Mexico, and you'll very easily find that the number of gun clubs present in an area heavily corresponds with how urbanized it is.
How many gun clubs in the city of Chicago?
Do gangs count
State LEO's
National Guard
Cout to?
221
Post by: Frazzled
In the city of Chicago, sure. Not seeing where you're going to find national guard bases there, but I have been wrong before.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Oh wait now I see what you meant. I worded that so badly XD
I was saying that you won't find many gun clubs (or at least ones that are easy to get to) in big cities. The 'market' for gun clubs is at it's best in sub-rural and suburban areas. Rural and Urban areas are going to have a combination of distance and time that make gun clubs both less common and harder to get to.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
Also, in rural locations, a lot of people just shoot on their own property rather than going to a range/club, so the demand for one is less.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Alex C wrote:Also, in rural locations, a lot of people just shoot on their own property rather than going to a range/club, so the demand for one is less.
I only do it to zero and verify my zero occasionally. Though I do have a militia group near me that at times......given me "flash backs"
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
LordofHats wrote:Oh wait now I see what you meant. I worded that so badly XD
I was saying that you won't find many gun clubs (or at least ones that are easy to get to) in big cities. The 'market' for gun clubs is at it's best in sub-rural and suburban areas. Rural and Urban areas are going to have a combination of distance and time that make gun clubs both less common and harder to get to.
I think that is going to depend greatly on the city in question. There's a gun club/shop that I know of that is most definitely NOT in the suburbs of Tacoma, it's just outside of "down town" but still very much in a heavily urbanized area.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
There's gun clubs all over the place in the UK.
5534
Post by: dogma
Seaward wrote:
It really doesn't, though. "Fighting words" is one of those things that people on the "restrict speech!" side of the free speech debate like to throw around, but never seem to actually research. It's simply not an applicable restriction anymore. The court has refused to invoke it for ~70 years, and has in fact continually narrowed, rather than expanded its domain every time the issue comes up.
It's dead in all but name.
Alito invoked it in his '11 dissent, and apparently John Paul Stevens supported his position; so did Ginsburg.
443
Post by: skyth
Just a note...First amendment and voting rights are not a fair comparison since neither include a 'well regulated' clause to them...
221
Post by: Frazzled
edit: that was harsh. Never mind.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Just a note, the 'well regulated clause' as you call it is not the operative clause. SCOTUS has agreed. So it is indeed fair to compare mandating training to exercise the right with any other protected right.
443
Post by: skyth
Just because a conservative court ruled against the Constitution doesn't make the phrase it not in there.
4402
Post by: CptJake
 skyth wrote:Just because a conservative court ruled against the Constitution doesn't make the phrase it not in there.
No one said it is not there. What was said it it is not the operative clause. The operative clause gives the right to The People, not to a militia.
443
Post by: skyth
Still had a conservative court ignore what is actually written in the constitution.
34390
Post by: whembly
skyth wrote:Still had a conservative court ignore what is actually written in the constitution.
Conservative court?
I missed that when Kelo or PPACA was ruled for the libs.
1464
Post by: Breotan
skyth wrote:Still had a conservative court ignore what is actually written in the constitution.
Shall we derail this with how the same court ruled on Obamacare as a tax? Or would you rather just drop the bitter partisanship now?
91292
Post by: DarkLink
skyth wrote:Still had a conservative court ignore what is actually written in the constitution.
While grammar gets ignored on the internet frequently, it is important. "Well regulated" refers specifically to the militia, not to the right to bear arms. The issue addressed was not whether or not the militia needed to be regulated, it was whether or not "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" referred to an individual right to bear arms that happened to also allow a militia to be formed, or if you could only bear arms within the confines of being a member of a militia. Considering the historical context in that many people not only owned guns but relied on them as a source of food and protection from natives, foreign military, wildlife, etc, and that the militias of the time consisted of people grabbing their personal firearms (which, for rich people included artillery pieces, warships, and other high end military gear of the time) and meeting up with the rest of the neighborhood, it's very clear what it was originally intended to mean. You might disagree with it, and you absolutely have that right, but you shouldn't mistake "what should be" for "what is".
33125
Post by: Seaward
skyth wrote:Still had a conservative court ignore what is actually written in the constitution.
By that logic, we had a liberal court invent a right to abortions out of whole cloth. Come on.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
skyth wrote:Just because a conservative court ruled against the Constitution doesn't make the phrase it not in there.
"Well Regulated" doesn't mean what you think it means.
In the jargon of the time, regulated was synonymous with trained or disciplined. It did NOT refer to laws or some form of government oversight.
So "well regulated militia" actually means skilled and disciplined militia. Furthermore, its not the focus of the clause. The Amendment says that the rights of the people to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed, and the reason for this is because the security of a free state requires a well regulated militia. Militia have always been the citizenry themselves taking up arms, usually the weapons they personally owned. Its a very recent phenomena for governments to arm and equip their soldiers. Prior to 200 or so years ago, most soldiers owned their own weapons and armor. You didn't show up to the army expecting to be handed stuff, you brought your own. Occasionally the kingdom might have some extra stuff laying around they might dole out, but that was an exception and not the norm.
4402
Post by: CptJake
No where else in the document does The People refer to a subset of The People.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
CptJake wrote:No where else in the document does The People refer to a subset of The People.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Just saying
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
They're still "the people". Even when they were only 3/5 of a person.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Setting the 3/5ths compromise aside as a case of the post-Colonial South wanting to have it's cake and eat it to, the document very clearly identifies a subset of people as 'the people' because Free people were the only ones prior to the Reconstruction Amendments (12th, 13th, and 14th) to whom the Constitution assured rights and protections.
Arguably until Woman's Suffrage and the Civil Rights Act assured (at least as a matter of law) equality of all Americans in a general sense, 'the people' were only free white males.
5534
Post by: dogma
LordofHats wrote:Setting the 3/5ths compromise aside as a case of the post-Colonial South wanting to have it's cake and eat it to, the document very clearly identifies a subset of people as 'the people' because Free people were the only ones prior to the Reconstruction Amendments (12th, 13th, and 14th) to whom the Constitution assured rights and protections.
Eh, that isn't strictly true. The Federal Government basically punted to the States, and most of them only allowed free, white, male, land owners to vote; because racism and misogyny. It wasn't until Incorporation that any Rights were assured.
LordofHats wrote:
Arguably until Woman's Suffrage and the Civil Rights Act assured (at least as a matter of law) equality of all Americans in a general sense, 'the people' were only free white males.
Unless you were Mormon, or Jewish, or Irish, or Italian, or Polish, or insert quality which the US now accepts as "white" without hesitation.
443
Post by: skyth
 Breotan wrote: skyth wrote:Still had a conservative court ignore what is actually written in the constitution.
Shall we derail this with how the same court ruled on Obamacare as a tax? Or would you rather just drop the bitter partisanship now?
Actually, it was more of a tongue in cheek comment as the conservatives rail against the Supreme Court when it doesn't agree with them and try to claim they aren't following the Constitution even if they are. However, Well Regulated is part of the Second Amendment, and a court with different justices could rule that that permitted more regulation of firearms than other rights in the Constitution. Especially if that regulation involved mandatory training (Which fits the meaning of 'Well Regulated'). I don't see the current court doing that though.
I'm also amused that the Republicans are aghast at any kind of regulation of firearms (Including mandatory training) but have no problems putting in all sorts of regulations about another protected right (Abortion).
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
People have asked me why I get involved in these threads, and I say it's because American history/politics is a hobby of mine. It's a very fascinating subject, plus the source material is in my own language, which is obviously a huge help when you read old documents.
It's worth pointing out as well, that the gun issue in American politics is a very big thing, and it generates a lot of emotion on both sides of the argument, which is why you need an outsider like myself, with no dog in the fight, to add some zen like calming influence 
Sometime this year, I may start a thread on why I believe SCOTUS got it wrong over the Heller case, but that's for a later date.
But I will address the points people are making about the 2nd:
1) Militias were an effective 'police force' during the revolution to hold onto areas when the British troops left, and keep people in line, especially Tories, but they didn't win the revolution by themselves.
James Madison was a massive believer in militias, and was very suspicious of a standing army for obvious reasons.
And then came the war of 1812. President Madison rallies the militias...and then the British army marches through the Maryland militia and burns down Madison's house...
Needless to say, the militias fell out of fashion!
2) The right of the people to bear arms...
Well, if you read Madison's letters and see what he wanted to include in the 2nd amendment (something I believe SCOTUS failed to do in the Heller case) then you'll never look at the second amendment in the same way again. For the record, as a libertarian, I'm sympathetic to gun owners. I say this before anybody accuses me of being anti-gun ownership.
BUT,
If the 2nd was an individual right, then why did Madison want to include a pacifist clause to allow people to opt out of gun ownership? Quakers for example.
Logic tells you that if the 2nd were an individual right, you could exercise your right not to own a gun, but the inclusion of a pacifist clause says something else...
It tells me that the militias, and not the individuals, were the main focus of the 2nd...something which SCOTUS overlooked.
4402
Post by: CptJake
It has more to do with Madison wanting to allow Quakers to not be forced to gun up and move out when the Militia was called. At that point. Militia was pretty much every able bodied male. Forcing Quakers to be a part seemed to contradict the whole personal freedom thing.
The fact he wanted the clause really does do what you say, explicitly allowing someone to opt out does not take away the right from others. It was the 'forced into the militia' part rather than gun ownership (Quakers still owned guns and hunted, Madison did not want them to be forced to fight though).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
We deal with that now by allowing conscientious objectors to avoid military service, but there is generally a pretty hard burden to prove you are a conscientious objector. That pacifist clause was about religious freedom, not gun ownership.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Ouze wrote:I'd agree that mandating firearm safety courses or similar as a prerequisite to firearm ownership is pretty clearly unconstitutional in the US.
There is always the option to add incentives;
http://fox59.com/2016/01/05/indiana-lawmakers-file-bills-to-make-guns-easier-to-buy-carry/
Lucas also introduced a bill that would allow people to carry on state property, including public universities, as well as a law that would give a $100 income tax credit to anyone who took a firearms safety course.
40024
Post by: SOFDC
British army marches through the Maryland militia
To be fair, the British army at the time didn't enforce a huge empire because there were a lot of things they COULDN'T march through.
If the 2nd was an individual right, then why did Madison want to include a pacifist clause to allow people to opt out of gun ownership?
Because putting someone who is truly unwilling to fight, even at the expense of himself and those around him, in a gunline is a recipe for disaster. There are plenty of duties for this tiny group of people that don't involve shooting people while contributing to the war effort. No one wants to be next to that guy, and that guy doesn't want to be next to you. Your options at that point really are to shoot him yourself or give him the job of carrying water back and forth or something.
Well, if you read Madison's letters and see what he wanted to include in the 2nd amendment
Perhaps you'll enlighten us. He seems to think pretty clearly that the citizenry as a whole should be armed. Federalist 46 pretty blatantly states this as the justification for why a standing army wouldn't be a threat...because all the rednecks with rifles would leave said army hideously outnumbered.
It tells me that the militias, and not the individuals, were the main focus of the 2nd...something which SCOTUS overlooked.
Even were I to grant you the point, you do realize that the legal definition of who is in the militia is an enormous group of people, yes? Pretty much the exact same group that is buying all the guns right now? US Code 311 has the definition of who is in it, and yes, there are parts that talk about things other than the National/Coast Guards too.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
<--Militia of one (currently)
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
I don't have to tell any American dakka member that they have the right to own guns.
I also don't have to tell them that they have the right NOT to own guns. That goes without saying.
James Madison was a pretty smart guy. If he felt the need to clarify this distinction, then it tells me that something else is going on with the 2nd.
IMO the militia/right to own guns relationship is like the chicken and the egg scenario. You can't have one without the other.
And for historical reasons that everybody knows, standing armies were seen as bad, and militia was front and centre when it came to the second amendment.
In my mind, the militia element of the second is a historical relic and should be removed from the second. That would clear up any confusion.
If we were to ask the founders about the 2nd, our questions would probably confuse them, and their answers would probably confuse us.
And for the record, again! I do sympathise with gun owners. If armed robbers broke into my house at 3am, your damn right I would want to be returning fire!
Automatically Appended Next Post: If memory serves, I'm pretty sure that Pennsylvania was the only state that had a constitution that mentioned firearm ownership. Automatically Appended Next Post:
I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that militia is plural. You might want to re-word that
34390
Post by: whembly
Ain't over yet... Guns in America town hall with President Obama: Live updates He made some whoppers that's going to bite him in the ass... Especially this: Obama tells a rape victim that a gun may not make her safer. pic.twitter.com/KGKxpnttEO — Emily Miller (@EmilyMiller) January 8, 2016
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
He's not wrong. It won't.
The amount of time it would take to pull a gun out to stop a rapist or someone would be very slow. The twenty feet rule applies and makes guns obsolete and in most rape cases they are by people who the victim knows.
So no I don't think that was uncalled for. It won't make her safer, and it won't guarnette it. Pepper Spray, tasers, and other non-lethal items are far better to use than a gun. I am sorry gun peeps but I Do not think giving someone a gun is always the brightest of ideas.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
 Asherian Command wrote:
He's not wrong. It won't.
The amount of time it would take to pull a gun out to stop a rapist or someone would be very slow. The twenty feet rule applies and makes guns obsolete and in most rape cases they are by people who the victim knows.
So no I don't think that was uncalled for. It won't make her safer, and it won't guarnette it. Pepper Spray, tasers, and other non-lethal items are far better to use than a gun. I am sorry gun peeps but I Do not think giving someone a gun is always the brightest of ideas.
I agree with you that he's not wrong. However, I think that he shouldn't have said it the way he did. As you said, the majority of rape cases, the victim knows the perpetrator. On top of that, you also have to consider the number of cases where alcohol and/or other drugs are involved.
42013
Post by: Sinful Hero
Asherian Command wrote:
He's not wrong. It won't.
The amount of time it would take to pull a gun out to stop a rapist or someone would be very slow. The twenty feet rule applies and makes guns obsolete and in most rape cases they are by people who the victim knows.
So no I don't think that was uncalled for. It won't make her safer, and it won't guarnette it. Pepper Spray, tasers, and other non-lethal items are far better to use than a gun. I am sorry gun peeps but I Do not think giving someone a gun is always the brightest of ideas.
What's the difference between pulling out Pepper Spray, a taser, or a small pistol?
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
 Sinful Hero wrote: Asherian Command wrote: He's not wrong. It won't. The amount of time it would take to pull a gun out to stop a rapist or someone would be very slow. The twenty feet rule applies and makes guns obsolete and in most rape cases they are by people who the victim knows. So no I don't think that was uncalled for. It won't make her safer, and it won't guarnette it. Pepper Spray, tasers, and other non-lethal items are far better to use than a gun. I am sorry gun peeps but I Do not think giving someone a gun is always the brightest of ideas.
What's the difference between pulling out Pepper Spray, a taser, or a small pistol?
Would you rather A: Kill someone Or B: let them be completely blind and have the preprator be tracable and unable to move. Nonlethal things are far more inexpensive far more easier to use. Plus twenty feet rule, chances are they know the person which means alot. It would be harder for the person holding the gun to fire the weapon, I don't think a potential rape victim would like to remember how they flat out shot someone. Rape cases are already hard to defend as it is. So no I don't think it is reasonable to give everyone pistols, give them a taser and a pepper spray it will do the same job if not better than a lethal weapon. I agree with you that he's not wrong. However, I think that he shouldn't have said it the way he did. As you said, the majority of rape cases, the victim knows the perpetrator. On top of that, you also have to consider the number of cases where alcohol and/or other drugs are involved.
Yep! Most of them if I remember correctly are used with substances and the 'date rape' drug. But I do agree he shouldn't of said it is one of the reasons why I am quite adamant on saying "Guns won't help rape victims or potential rape victims." IF everyone had access to guns, then rape would be a lot more common. (which it sorta is and is not.) But considering how many politicians put their foots in their mouthes when talking about rape, I find it on the lesser side of terrible.
34390
Post by: whembly
A.
Rapist caught in the act deserves no less.
42013
Post by: Sinful Hero
@Asherion Command
You didn't answer my question, but I suppose it doesn't matter because there's not much difference in between pulling a pistol out of a purse/pocket than a can of mace.
If they're too close for a gun, or they already know them pepper spray or a taser aren't going to help either. Hosing someone down with pepper spray while they're on top of you isn't exactly the smartest idea either. As for a taser it will only work if they're already in striking range(as in already attacking), unless it's a taser pistol in which case a small revolver would still be more reliable and threatening.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
I don't think they deserve to die, especially if they didn't commit it yet. I rather them face time than face death with no possiblity of changing and reform. Rapists are pretty bad but they don't deserve an execution.
If they're too close for a gun, or they already know them pepper spray or a taser aren't going to help either. Hosing someone down with pepper spray while they're on top of you isn't exactly the smartest idea either. As for a taser it will only work if they're already in striking range(as in already attacking), unless it's a taser pistol in which case a small revolver would still be more reliable and threatening.
Having been trained in close quarters fighting, a gun won't help you either. ITs better to blind someone than to have them avoid the shot, its fairly easy to disarm someone who is arms length away or even twenty feet away, Especially a moving target.
Threatening helps but at the same time so does a taser, or hell a knife. Pepper spray Or anything of the like to use for self defense can be intimdiating but most often it won't matter because most times it won't make a difference. Sometimes it could be a parent, a brother, or a friend. I think someone so easily turning a gun on someone they know and probably loved is alot harder a bit more difficult than many of you make it out to be. Plus the ages it would happen at would be college level so at campuses so the likelihood of someone bringing a gun to college IS VERY UNLIKELY
42013
Post by: Sinful Hero
Asherian Command wrote:
I don't think they deserve to die, especially if they didn't commit it yet. I rather them face time than face death with no possiblity of changing and reform. Rapists are pretty bad but they don't deserve an execution.
If they're too close for a gun, or they already know them pepper spray or a taser aren't going to help either. Hosing someone down with pepper spray while they're on top of you isn't exactly the smartest idea either. As for a taser it will only work if they're already in striking range(as in already attacking), unless it's a taser pistol in which case a small revolver would still be more reliable and threatening.
Having been trained in close quarters fighting, a gun won't help you either. ITs better to blind someone than to have them avoid the shot, its fairly easy to disarm someone who is arms length away or even twenty feet away, Especially a moving target.
Threatening helps but at the same time so does a taser, or hell a knife. Pepper spray Or anything of the like to use for self defense can be intimdiating but most often it won't matter because most times it won't make a difference. Sometimes it could be a parent, a brother, or a friend. I think someone so easily turning a gun on someone they know and probably loved is alot harder a bit more difficult than many of you make it out to be. Plus the ages it would happen at would be college level so at campuses so the likelihood of someone bringing a gun to college IS VERY UNLIKELY
I'd be very impressed if you could disarm a moving target from 20ft away.
Yes, on college campuses you can't bring a pistol, and pepper spray/taser is a very valid choice in those environments(although I believe there may be some campuses that don't allow those either). As far as threat level goes, a gun is the best you can do. A gun is not going to be a saving grace in every situation, and neither will a taser or spray. Especially while intoxicated or in an intimate setting with a well known friend/relative. On the other hand there are going to be situations where a gun would be far more preferable than either a taser or pepper spray, and restricting yourself to dealing without is not a wise move in my opinion.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
Sinful Hero wrote: Asherian Command wrote:
He's not wrong. It won't.
The amount of time it would take to pull a gun out to stop a rapist or someone would be very slow. The twenty feet rule applies and makes guns obsolete and in most rape cases they are by people who the victim knows.
So no I don't think that was uncalled for. It won't make her safer, and it won't guarnette it. Pepper Spray, tasers, and other non-lethal items are far better to use than a gun. I am sorry gun peeps but I Do not think giving someone a gun is always the brightest of ideas.
What's the difference between pulling out Pepper Spray, a taser, or a small pistol?
A gun is not guaranteed to hit the target. People can be wildly inaccurate.
A taser is a much more up close and personal approach with less aiming to it, you just need to make skin contact.
Pepper Spray will make anything within a small radius wish they had never been there. Pepper spray is by far the most effective.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Sinful Hero wrote: Asherian Command wrote: I don't think they deserve to die, especially if they didn't commit it yet. I rather them face time than face death with no possiblity of changing and reform. Rapists are pretty bad but they don't deserve an execution. If they're too close for a gun, or they already know them pepper spray or a taser aren't going to help either. Hosing someone down with pepper spray while they're on top of you isn't exactly the smartest idea either. As for a taser it will only work if they're already in striking range(as in already attacking), unless it's a taser pistol in which case a small revolver would still be more reliable and threatening.
Having been trained in close quarters fighting, a gun won't help you either. ITs better to blind someone than to have them avoid the shot, its fairly easy to disarm someone who is arms length away or even twenty feet away, Especially a moving target. Threatening helps but at the same time so does a taser, or hell a knife. Pepper spray Or anything of the like to use for self defense can be intimdiating but most often it won't matter because most times it won't make a difference. Sometimes it could be a parent, a brother, or a friend. I think someone so easily turning a gun on someone they know and probably loved is alot harder a bit more difficult than many of you make it out to be. Plus the ages it would happen at would be college level so at campuses so the likelihood of someone bringing a gun to college IS VERY UNLIKELY
I'd be very impressed if you could disarm a moving target from 20ft away. Yes, on college campuses you can't bring a pistol, and pepper spray/taser is a very valid choice in those environments(although I believe there may be some campuses that don't allow those either). As far as threat level goes, a gun is the best you can do. A gun is not going to be a saving grace in every situation, and neither will a taser or spray. Especially while intoxicated or in an intimate setting with a well known friend/relative. On the other hand there are going to be situations where a gun would be far more preferable than either a taser or pepper spray, and restricting yourself to dealing without is not a wise move in my opinion.
Mean't to say harder to hit a moving target especially someone untrained. Campuses usually allow pepper spray, but won't allow tasers. But most rape's are by people they know. So turning the gun on them is especially hard. Most rapists aren't idiots either. Hell I was pepper sprayed during my close quarters training to show why its so damn effective. To this day, I have never been in that much pain. Its like someone rubbing haberno peppers in your face. Pepper spray will always be the highest and most effective thing you could possibly imagine. I have even though about buying one just in case. Even though I am a dude, I live in a Crip owned area.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
Asherian Command wrote:He's not wrong. It won't.
Plenty of would-be rape victims who defended themselves with firearms would disagree.
Asherian Command wrote:The amount of time it would take to pull a gun out to stop a rapist or someone would be very slow. The twenty feet rule applies and makes guns obsolete and in most rape cases they are by people who the victim knows.
Why would it be slow? Most people I know with CPL training can draw in ~1 second. Maybe 2 on the high end. There's also draw techniques for when an attacker is right on top of you.
Asherian Command wrote:Pepper Spray, tasers, and other non-lethal items are far better to use than a gun.
Says who?
Asherian Command wrote:I am sorry gun peeps but I Do not think giving someone a gun is always the brightest of ideas.
Agreed. Nobody should be "given" anything. It should be up to the individual to decide for themselves what they wish to do for their own protection, if anything.
Asherian Command wrote:Would you rather A: Kill someone Or B: let them be completely blind and have the preprator be tracable and unable to move.
If we're talking rapists, option A.
Asherian Command wrote:Nonlethal things are far more inexpensive far more easier to use.
Generally, though some electronic incapacitative devices can be more costly. As to ease of use, I disagree. In most cases it's aim and pull a trigger, regardless of the tool. In fact, most pepper sprays and tasers I've seen have manual safeties, so they require more actions to fire than some of my handguns.
Asherian Command wrote:Plus twenty feet rule, chances are they know the person which means alot. It would be harder for the person holding the gun to fire the weapon,
Depends on the person and their mindset.
Asherian Command wrote:I don't think a potential rape victim would like to remember how they flat out shot someone.
Many volunteer their stories so that others may learn from their experience.
Asherian Command wrote:So no I don't think it is reasonable to give everyone pistols, give them a taser and a pepper spray it will do the same job if not better than a lethal weapon.
Absolutely don't give everyone pistols. Again, it's up to the individual. Non-lethal will do better than lethal? Interesting...
Asherian Command wrote:IF everyone had access to guns, then rape would be a lot more common.
Source?
Asherian Command wrote:Rapists are pretty bad but they don't deserve an execution.
We disagree there.
Asherian Command wrote:Having been trained in close quarters fighting, a gun won't help you either.
Having been trained in self-defense with a handgun, I beg to differ.
Asherian Command wrote:ITs better to blind someone than to have them avoid the shot,
Neo is a rapist now?
Asherian Command wrote:its fairly easy to disarm someone who is arms length away or even twenty feet away.
Please share your wisdom on disarming people from 20' away, sensei.
Asherian Command wrote:Plus the ages it would happen at would be college level so at campuses so the likelihood of someone bringing a gun to college IS VERY UNLIKELY
Rape is strictly a college problem? Better tell Cologne.
Asherian Command wrote:
Pepper spray will always be the highest and most effective thing you could possibly imagine. I have even though about buying one just in case. Even though I am a dude, I live in a Crip owned area.
It is effective, until it blows back into your own face. For the record I carry it too on occasion (even though I'm a dude, in a non-crip area), as it can be great in the right situation and it is good to have non-lethal options, but I understand it's limitations and it does not replace my gun.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Alex C wrote: Asherian Command wrote:its fairly easy to disarm someone who is arms length away or even twenty feet away.
Please share your wisdom on disarming people from 20' away, sensei. Asherian Command wrote:Plus the ages it would happen at would be college level so at campuses so the likelihood of someone bringing a gun to college IS VERY UNLIKELY
Rape is strictly a college problem? Better tell Cologne. Asherian Command wrote:
Pepper spray will always be the highest and most effective thing you could possibly imagine. I have even though about buying one just in case. Even though I am a dude, I live in a Crip owned area.
It is effective, until it blows back into your own face. For the record I carry it too on occasion (even though I'm a dude, in a non-crip area), as it can be great in the right situation and it is good to have non-lethal options, but it does not replace the gun.
Better known as the 21 Foot rule ( http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/articles/2014/09/revisiting-the-21-foot-rule.aspx) It is where the perpator has a knife. It is used as the standard of a police officer to determine if it is safe for a kill shot or a nightstick. It is often debated and is used as a defense by officers but 21 feet rule is fairly common as taking a gun away from someone especially someone untrained is exceptionally easy, even if they fire wildly, (As most people who have never used a gun would) They aren't all going to be experts with weapons, in most of the scenarios a gun won't be useful. As has been said, in this situation especially in Cologne it wouldn't of helped. At college it is out right banned. Asherian Command wrote:
IF everyone had access to guns, then rape would be a lot more common.
Source?
Scenario: SO the rapist has a gun. Scenario ends. Absolutely don't give everyone pistols. Again, it's up to the individual. Non-lethal will do better than lethal? Interesting...
If a college student was defending herself or himself, most would go for the non-lethal option because they don't want to kill someone and end their life. Most would know this. And would seek this alternative.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
Oh, you mean the 21' rule. I misunderstood, sorry. I'm well aware of that rule. I thought you were proposing the use of telekenesis or something
As for college carry, it depends on the campus, and they are not the sole domain of rapists. Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wait, I thought you claimed it was super easy to disarm people or to avoid the shot?
Wouldn't the rapist probably use pepper spray or a taser, as they do the job just as well, if not better?
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Alex C wrote:Oh, you mean the 21' rule. I misunderstood, sorry. I'm well aware of that rule. I thought you were proposing the use of telekenesis or something As for college carry, it depends on the campus, and they are not the sole domain of rapists.
True true! But it is usually where the highest amount are. I mean if you are woman or a guy (as rape does happen to men!) I would suggest both to carry non-lethal options, I mean you can carry a gun if you are out of college! But for college students no I don't agree. Yes I accidentally said 20ft rule! I then realize I missed a foot, the knife rule! As most rapists while use something to well.... Bring someone down to their level and disempower, as is the MO of most rapists. I mean gun control is a tough issue in general to use or justify for everyone to have, it is fine for most people to have them, and is up to the individuals choice, but the effectiveness of each one is varying differently according to different situations. Which we could go on for eons about, But the rapists in general don't deserve a bullet to the head, they deserve a fair trial and swiftly being throw in jail. Automatically Appended Next Post: Wait, I thought you claimed it was super easy to disarm people or to avoid the shot? Wouldn't the rapist probably use pepper spray or a taser, as they do the job just as well, if not better?
You pull a knife, They pull a gun. You are facing someone who has a fire arm, in either situation it doesn't matter if it was a girl the opportunity is to run. Not to fight. Yes the 21 foot rule applies to either party but either way it is not going to end well. It is easy for someone who is trained, especially if they are going after something. Why would a rapist use that? they would probably use drugs or substances to tip the balance in their favor.
42013
Post by: Sinful Hero
Dreadwinter wrote: Sinful Hero wrote: Asherian Command wrote:
He's not wrong. It won't.
The amount of time it would take to pull a gun out to stop a rapist or someone would be very slow. The twenty feet rule applies and makes guns obsolete and in most rape cases they are by people who the victim knows.
So no I don't think that was uncalled for. It won't make her safer, and it won't guarnette it. Pepper Spray, tasers, and other non-lethal items are far better to use than a gun. I am sorry gun peeps but I Do not think giving someone a gun is always the brightest of ideas.
What's the difference between pulling out Pepper Spray, a taser, or a small pistol?
A gun is not guaranteed to hit the target. People can be wildly inaccurate.
A taser is a much more up close and personal approach with less aiming to it, you just need to make skin contact.
Pepper Spray will make anything within a small radius wish they had never been there. Pepper spray is by far the most effective.
People can be very accurate with a pistol as well.
A taser is not guaranteed to connect with skin.
Pepper spray is not guaranteed to just affect your attacker.
Why do you think pepper spray is the most effective? Or is it just the most effective in certain instances? Is there a scenario where pepper spray will always be a better alternative than a gun, or even a taser when stopping/preventing an attack?
37231
Post by: d-usa
I'm enjoying the after effects of pepper spray right now, very effective.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
People can be very accurate with a pistol as well.
A taser is not guaranteed to connect with skin.
Pepper spray is not guaranteed to just affect your attacker.
Why do you think pepper spray is the most effective? Or is it just the most effective in certain instances? Is there a scenario where pepper spray will always be a better alternative than a gun, or even a taser when stopping/preventing an attack?
Neither can the assumption of someone being accurate with their gun. Especially in a terrified corner or drug scenario. Most times it won't make a difference, sometimes it can! But most won't.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
I would take a gun for 7.99 with a side of french fries. Preferably bullet to face.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Heeeeere we go with the hypotheticals...
No, pepper spray and tasers are not good alternatives to firearms for most people. Pepper spray doesn't typically stop threats even with direct hits to the eyes. Tasers sometimes stop threats, but are often impeded by garments as common as sweat shirts.
Sweat shirts don't stop bullets. Guns in a proper caliber, with good shot placement, will stop threats. Good shot placement is a product of training. Guns aren't magical talismans that ward off evil - you need to train with them, and obviously anyone who carries a gun should train regularly, and try to avoid dangerous situations in the first place.
And Asherian Command has it right that guns aren't a fix-all. Date rape is unfortunately very common, and none of these tools will prevent a woman from being roofied, from being attacked by someone close to her, etc. This kind of thing is awful and we all want it to go away, but we have to be realistic about the role of firearms and their use against criminals.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
 NuggzTheNinja wrote:Heeeeere we go with the hypotheticals...
No, pepper spray and tasers are not good alternatives to firearms for most people. Pepper spray doesn't typically stop threats even with direct hits to the eyes. Tasers sometimes stop threats, but are often impeded by garments as common as sweat shirts.
Sweat shirts don't stop bullets. Guns in a proper caliber, with good shot placement, will stop threats. Good shot placement is a product of training. Guns aren't magical talismans that ward off evil - you need to train with them, and obviously anyone who carries a gun should train regularly, and try to avoid dangerous situations in the first place.
And Asherian Command has it right that guns aren't a fix-all. Date rape is unfortunately very common, and none of these tools will prevent a woman from being roofied, from being attacked by someone close to her, etc. This kind of thing is awful and we all want it to go away, but we have to be realistic about the role of firearms and their use against criminals.
Wow, you started by commenting about hypotheticals and they talked about how hypothetically a gun is better with proper training.
Luckily you do not need training for pepper spray. Or accuracy.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Dreadwinter wrote: NuggzTheNinja wrote:Heeeeere we go with the hypotheticals...
No, pepper spray and tasers are not good alternatives to firearms for most people. Pepper spray doesn't typically stop threats even with direct hits to the eyes. Tasers sometimes stop threats, but are often impeded by garments as common as sweat shirts.
Sweat shirts don't stop bullets. Guns in a proper caliber, with good shot placement, will stop threats. Good shot placement is a product of training. Guns aren't magical talismans that ward off evil - you need to train with them, and obviously anyone who carries a gun should train regularly, and try to avoid dangerous situations in the first place.
And Asherian Command has it right that guns aren't a fix-all. Date rape is unfortunately very common, and none of these tools will prevent a woman from being roofied, from being attacked by someone close to her, etc. This kind of thing is awful and we all want it to go away, but we have to be realistic about the role of firearms and their use against criminals.
Wow, you started by commenting about hypotheticals and they talked about how hypothetically a gun is better with proper training.
Luckily you do not need training for pepper spray. Or accuracy.
The only problem with pepper spray is that it can blow back in your face but , that would take alot of wind current to blow completely back.
28942
Post by: Stormrider
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So if you buy a gun on a whim, don't fire it, and want to sell it (as perhaps your only firearm sale all year) then you may now be considered a dealer. I'm glad that we now have such "clear, definitive standards"...
As a collector and hobbyist with firearms, I don't appreciate the insinuation that I would:
A. Knowingly sell a collector grade weapon (like a vintage era WWII rifle for example) to a criminal - the multitudes of reasons why a perp wouldn't buy said weapon for potential crimes doesn't bear the treatise needed to explain it all. Furthermore, any one I have sold to has been a collector and someone I have known for years, not just a random stranger. I can indemnify myself without compulsion, thanks.
B. Need to either go through a 3rd Party FFL for a private transaction sale (even for someone I know personally, especially if said person has already filled out a 4473 in the past) or would myself have to acquire an FFL (which is getting to be a very difficult license to have if you're not a practicing businessman and have a storefront) just to sell is ludicrous and would muddy up the numbers of an already near worthless NICS system anyways. It's bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy.
C. Continue to follow their laws that I am not subject to, Missouri doesn't require a NICS check for private transactions and I don't sell across state lines. If I did, I would be sure to go through a 3rd Party FFL as the receiver of the weapon (the details regarding shipments of firearms are verbose and frankly more trouble for criminals to even dream of attempting to do unless they're criminally dumb) and they run the NICS check before my buyer would take ownership of the weapon. Since most of my collection is C&R eligible or Antique, I don't need to worry about most of the interwebz action anyway.
4473's aren't kept by the BATFE (I'll bring the Chips!  ) either, the data entered is merely run through the FBI Criminal database and after the potential buyer is: A. Allowed to buy the Firearm B. The Buyer is Denied due to a felony in their background or C. Denied due to a false positive from name familiarity, the form is forgotten at the Federal Level. That's it, the mighty NICS is an avenue that makes people who aren't committing crime go through a step to go do an activity that isn't criminal. Intrinsic danger of said activity isn't relevant. Intent with said activity is, and NICS cannot prevent that, even with someone with no history of mental illness, a criminal past or a desire to blow their brains out. That's part of being in a Free Society. If B occurs, it's up to the Feds to ringy-dingy the local LE and let them know a prohibited possessor is trying to buy a gun, if the Local LE drops the ball, that's not something NICS or the Feds can stop. NICS cannot also flag anything the local LE's fail to report due to their own incompetence (Jared Loguhner not being reported to the Feds by the Pima County Sherrif's department being one glaring example or James Holmes who should've been reported by his campus Psychiatrist but she couldn't have been bothered), so the idea that an already clunky system will stop crime (when habitual criminals already circumvent said processes to commit crime) is bordering on the onanistic.
Our gun violence rate has gone down in this state save for one major reason, Meth. That's also banned, good luck stopping it all.
hotsauceman1 wrote:Thats......stupid. Like really stupid.
People know my feelings on guns, but the idea that you sell something you are no longer interested in, you are a dealer in it?
By the same logic, im a war machine dealer cause I sold my Khador Army.
Government Logic: If it doesn't anything we don't like, deploy regulations and more murky definitions.
Asherian Command wrote:
Difference is that a gun is a weapon, and your selling hobbyist models. They are not a weapon or weapons, they are collectables. A gun is useless without its bullets, but it is still a weapon. IF I sold one to a neighbor kid do you really think I should really be doing that? Or selling it to a gangbanger? Don't you think I should be fined for that? I understand that you don't want that responsiblty but you have your responsiblity to your community and keeping people safe. If you sell a gun to someone who shoots up a school are you really going to be fine with that?
By that logic, I couldn't sell a bayonet to just anyone without the Government's permission, even though it's still just a knife.
PS - Nice strawman at the end, clearly people who would sell weapons that were used in future crimes would be 100% A OK with that. Of course they wouldn't, they'd be criminally liable.
So oh I have all these morphine or focus drugs that I have from my days in the hosptial or when I had ADD to focus on school work, If I sell them that is illegal, I would be fined and thrown in prison.[/quite]
Those are controlled substances that required prescriptions to buy or use, not a fundamental right. Those are also respectively mind-altering, a gun in your hands or on your person doesn't automatically make you want to kill.
You know that you can buy a firearm in many States without a license, right? Especially long guns (shot guns, rifles).
Wait a second.
So in the united states. Where I Have to buy a permit for my modelling software, and a permit to practice explosives, and then defensive driving, and then bodyguarding, and building permits if you want to build a ramp. I don't need liscense for a gun?
You do live in the land of "Bilk Your Money" Chicago, Illinois.
SOFDC wrote:and improve the tracing of lost or stolen guns.
That's rich, especially if said firearm has had parts swapped or has had the numbers obliterated. I realize that there's a lot of Americans that are ignorant of firearms, but this is really "How To Criminal 101" stuff. Drop weapons (improvised or modified is preferred as there's no paper trail) are quite common in murders if the criminal is only slightly sophisticated. If a perp is dumb enough to allow that damning a piece of evidence to be found, they're really dumb and will be caught.
Alright I have to know: How many people who actually -own- firearms would willingly go and replace their daily carry (Or lets go a step further, buy at all) with a "Smart" gun? Put me down in the "No" category. You can dump all the government money into trying to develop the tech, but if there are no buyers....
Not a chance, redundancy and reliability are best friends in my book. Some fidgety electronics are exactly what I don't need in a carry weapon. Fanciful wish-listing from the ignorant once again.
"Buy my utopian fantasy or else!"
How about no?
angelofvengeance wrote:I think you guys are long overdue some form of gun control.
Location: UK - Please opine the ease of being a legal buyer in the US using personal experience and real anecdotes. It's really easy if you're not a criminal, but for them, it's extremely easy if they're willing to circumvent scads of existing laws and risk lots of extra jail time. The chief culprit of gun violence (I don't consider suicide to be violence as it is singular) is gang violence, and most gang members have rap sheets a mile long. Why aren't they in prison? A lack of severe penalties for committing gun crimes in the past, which in turn makes any subsequent gun crime committed by said criminal DOUBLE ILLEGAL.
Kudos to Obama for at least trying.
I'm sure there's plenty of evidence of a singular man defying the will of Bicameral houses and the people they represent as having motives of nothing but the most austere intentions. That's never gone awry in history, ever. Politics for the sake of assuaging a base or imposing will is the worst kind of cynical, calculating and worthless type. It's thumbing millions of Americans in the eye for the sake of it. Fake tears are just the icing on the gak cake.
Kilkrazy wrote:I think the USA has quite a lot of gun control but it seems to be badly organised and badly coordinated.
Most of it is ineffective because the people it's intended to stop don't go through the channels it monitors.
Why isn't safety training compulsory, for instance?
No, but any responsible parent teaches their children from a very early age that guns aren't toys. That doesn't need compulsion, it needs people to not be reprobates.
Why isn't there a properly organised register of guns?
Because registering that number of firearms would be a Herculean feat and would also pave the way for confiscation. History has been very unkind to this action.
I say we ban High Capacity Gravity forces, it's clearly a scourge on the American people.
Ouze wrote:When I got my conceal carry permit, all that was required was to watch a video and then take a test; all online. The video was 45 minutes and the test was 10 question of which you had to answer 6 correctly; nearly all of which were "where can't you carry a gun". I was truly surprised how lax it was.
It's handled the correct way IMO, State to State. MO Requires a lot of classroom time with a little range time, I was already way past proficient so the range time was a joke. I did learn some minor subtitles in the State Statutes regarding Self Defense however.
I personally think the second amendment is horribly outdated; a relic of the times when the government was not expected to have a standing army. I'm not averse to the idea that people are free to own firearms for self defense but as it's currently implemented, I'm not a huge fan.
Good news, your home will now be Quarters to a Platoon of Engineers. I think the 2nd is just fine the way it is, simple, effective and not really up for interpretation unless you're a serious rules lawyer. A poorly placed comma doesn't preclude Self Defense or the free exercise thereof.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
In 2015, you were more likely to be shot by a dog, or a person under 5 years old, than you were by gun toting terrorists.
Aww shucks, guess we should ignore every instance of Jihadism because it's less likely. I was also more likely to be struck by lighting than killed by a Terrorist, it still doesn't mean I am going to re-enact Agincourt in a severe thunderstorm.
Rural gun owners were less likely to be the victim of gun violence than non gun owning urban dwellers.
Population density plays a large role in that (as does high violent crime areas in larger cities, which skew the data generally), but Rural Gun Ownership also is a lot higher, so they're the chicken to the high gun crime urban areas Egg. Criminals won't go where they're likely to face resistance, they'll go close by and to people they can victimize without much fight back.
If you take the urban gun crime figures out of the official counting. the USA looks a lot better.
The amount of homicides committed in high crime areas of major metropolitan areas makes the US look like a war zone, but if you live in an area like I do, crime is relatively low in comparison to the population size with most of the firearms related crime being gang or drug related in some way or another.
Point is, I don't think this proposal will change that much.
That's not relevant to me, no one President can do what he did legally, appointed blue ribbon commission of lackeys in lock step agreement with it or not. EO's cannot infringe on Amendments to the Constitution and be legal, it's quite clear. If a court decides that is is legal, then the entire purpose behind the separation of powers and the need for a court is void IMO. That would signal the dog most certainly enjoying being wagged by the tail.
skyth wrote:
I'm also amused that the Republicans are aghast at any kind of regulation of firearms (Including mandatory training) but have no problems putting in all sorts of regulations about another protected right (Abortion).
One is codifying a voluntary guaranteed death of a human being, one is merely an expression of natural rights. They're not congruous at the basal level.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Sometime this year, I may start a thread on why I believe SCOTUS got it wrong over the Heller case, but that's for a later date.
Please do, I am sure it will be riveting and full of wrong.
1) Militias were an effective 'police force' during the revolution to hold onto areas when the British troops left, and keep people in line, especially Tories, but they didn't win the revolution by themselves.
Not really, you're conflating Militias with Posses, which is what the local constable or Sheriff would drum up, Militias were supplementary soldiers used in local conflicts as they possessed tactical knowledge a non-local Federal force wouldn't possess.
Needless to say, the militias fell out of fashion!
The National Guard? They were federalized under Woodrow Wilson, prior to that, they were begged to join Wars the Federal Government declared. It was up to the Governors of the respective states to sign off on their participation.
Aye..... Deterrence is a major portion of crime prevention.
Asherian Command wrote:
I don't think they deserve to die, especially if they didn't commit it yet. I rather them face time than face death with no possiblity of changing and reform. Rapists are pretty bad but they don't deserve an execution.
You know, that's really not up to the judge in the heat of the moment, ramifications for bad decisions can be quite a bear if you're willing to do something that heinous to someone else. If I do ever have a daughter, you bet your ass she's learning how to defend herself in multiple ways, firearms included.
I think someone so easily turning a gun on someone they know and probably loved is alot harder a bit more difficult than many of you make it out to be. Plus the ages it would happen at would be college level so at campuses so the likelihood of someone bringing a gun to college IS VERY UNLIKELY
What do you think training is for? It doesn't stop at the range, aware carriers should entertain any possibility in a theoretical sense. Also, a gun drawn doesn't preclude a bullet being fired. Again, deterrence can be just if not more effective than actually killing said attacker, in many states, it's probably better if they run away from a legal POV, a lot less headache and potential prosecution for protecting yourself.
Your comment about bullet dodging was also true laugher, please don't say things like that.
96539
Post by: Los pollos hermanos
Eh its not so bad but I'm still against it. I don't like where these things tend to lead. Its testing the waters if the President can pass one minor gun law its only a matter of time before restrictions start bleeding through other bills and changes and the stranglehold gets tighter and tighter. So far the American government has been desperate to get rid of American citizens guns for years, now that they have a doorway well more of a crack its only a matter of time before they make that into a massive break. Gov taking away peoples guns is like springing a leak on a ship once it starts it only grows and grows until it sinks the whole thing.
Trust me people give the government a way in and they're rob you blind by the end of it.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Asherian Command wrote: He's not wrong. It won't. The amount of time it would take to pull a gun out to stop a rapist or someone would be very slow. The twenty feet rule applies and makes guns obsolete and in most rape cases they are by people who the victim knows. So no I don't think that was uncalled for. It won't make her safer, and it won't guarnette it. Pepper Spray, tasers, and other non-lethal items are far better to use than a gun. I am sorry gun peeps but I Do not think giving someone a gun is always the brightest of ideas.
Thats less than sane. You can't pull a pistol from a holster but you can fumble out pepper spray? Why do cops even carry guns then? Having done both, I can assure you I can draw a pistol far far faster. Also, there's nothing wrong with having BOTH. Automatically Appended Next Post:
And Asherian Command has it right that guns aren't a fix-all. Date rape is unfortunately very common, and none of these tools will prevent a woman from being roofied, from being attacked by someone close to her, etc. This kind of thing is awful and we all want it to go away, but we have to be realistic about the role of firearms and their use against criminals.
Very true.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Asherian Command wrote:He's not wrong. It won't.
The amount of time it would take to pull a gun out to stop a rapist or someone would be very slow. The twenty feet rule applies and makes guns obsolete and in most rape cases they are by people who the victim knows.
So no I don't think that was uncalled for. It won't make her safer, and it won't guarnette it. Pepper Spray, tasers, and other non-lethal items are far better to use than a gun. I am sorry gun peeps but I Do not think giving someone a gun is always the brightest of ideas.
My wife got a got a gun and started carrying several years ago when I was deployed and she was getting stalked at work by a guy who ultimately ended up following her home on more than one occasion, after the police said they couldn't do anything until he actually committed a crime.
Her best time so far on drawing from the surrender position (hands over the head) and putting two in the A and one in the A/B (also known as the Miami Vice drill, after Jim Zubiena) so far is two seconds flat. I'd take that over pepper spray, and not coincidentally, so would she.
1464
Post by: Breotan
So earlier a policeman was shot by a thug with a pistol that was stolen... FROM THE POLICE about two or three years ago.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3389974/Philadelphia-police-Officer-shot-police-cruiser.html
So first off, a statement from the new Mayor.
Jim Kenney, in his first week as mayor of the nation's fifth-largest city, said, 'There are just too many guns on the streets, and I think our national government needs to do something about that.'
His statement comes on the heels of President Barack Obama's announcement Tuesday of his plan to tighten gun control laws.
The Fed should do "something". Gotcha.
At a press conference today it was revealed the gunman, who has a criminal record, used a police handgun reported stolen in 2013.
I'm guessing that by closing the "gun show loophole" there will be fewer stolen police handguns on the street?
No? Okay, what should the Fed do about local police getting their firearms stolen? Besides imposing further restrictions on law abiding citizens, I mean.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Breotan wrote:So earlier a policeman was shot by a thug with a pistol that was stolen... FROM THE POLICE about two or three years ago.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3389974/Philadelphia-police-Officer-shot-police-cruiser.html
So first off, a statement from the new Mayor.
Jim Kenney, in his first week as mayor of the nation's fifth-largest city, said, 'There are just too many guns on the streets, and I think our national government needs to do something about that.'
His statement comes on the heels of President Barack Obama's announcement Tuesday of his plan to tighten gun control laws.
The Fed should do "something". Gotcha.
At a press conference today it was revealed the gunman, who has a criminal record, used a police handgun reported stolen in 2013.
I'm guessing that by closing the "gun show loophole" there will be fewer stolen police handguns on the street?
No? Okay, what should the Fed do about local police getting their firearms stolen? Besides imposing further restrictions on law abiding citizens, I mean.
Perp claims to have done his crime in the Name of Allah, striking at those who uphold laws other than Sharia.
I suspect this incident won't be the topic of the next POTUS Town Hall.
1464
Post by: Breotan
CptJake wrote:Perp claims to have done his crime in the Name of Allah, striking at those who uphold laws other than Sharia.
I suspect this incident won't be the topic of the next POTUS Town Hall.
Even with the claims, I refuse to believe this is terrorism. The guy is a gang thug and he's shouting this stuff to get attention and be defiant. Still, if he winds up getting terrorism charges tossed at him, I won't be crying about it. Let him do his time in Leavenworth for all I care.
4402
Post by: CptJake
I wasn't calling it terrorism, just pointing out what the perp says was his motivation and commenting that it is not the type of case Obama likes to bring to the forefront as he stumps for more gun control measures. It does not fit the narrative for a variety of reasons such as the motivation and source of the gun.
Thank goodness the cop was not killed, and kudos to him for returning fire and hitting the perp even after having been wounded himself.
34390
Post by: whembly
The dude just straight ambushed him:
1464
Post by: Breotan
They should go after the rest of the gang as co-conspirators.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Breotan wrote:
Even with the claims, I refuse to believe this is terrorism. The guy is a gang thug and he's shouting this stuff to get attention and be defiant. Still, if he winds up getting terrorism charges tossed at him, I won't be crying about it. Let him do his time in Leavenworth for all I care.
Thug? Whoa whoa...that word is a bannable offense these days. And let's be honest, Islamic terrorists who murder people aren't the problem. Fat white neckbeards who occupy empty buildings are the real threat.
(that's sarcasm BTW I agree with you )
12313
Post by: Ouze
Ok, we're done with the executive order discussion, then?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Dreadwinter wrote: NuggzTheNinja wrote:Heeeeere we go with the hypotheticals...
No, pepper spray and tasers are not good alternatives to firearms for most people. Pepper spray doesn't typically stop threats even with direct hits to the eyes. Tasers sometimes stop threats, but are often impeded by garments as common as sweat shirts.
Sweat shirts don't stop bullets. Guns in a proper caliber, with good shot placement, will stop threats. Good shot placement is a product of training. Guns aren't magical talismans that ward off evil - you need to train with them, and obviously anyone who carries a gun should train regularly, and try to avoid dangerous situations in the first place.
And Asherian Command has it right that guns aren't a fix-all. Date rape is unfortunately very common, and none of these tools will prevent a woman from being roofied, from being attacked by someone close to her, etc. This kind of thing is awful and we all want it to go away, but we have to be realistic about the role of firearms and their use against criminals.
Wow, you started by commenting about hypotheticals and they talked about how hypothetically a gun is better with proper training.
Luckily you do not need training for pepper spray. Or accuracy.
Pepper spray doesn't always incapacitate. There is a not insignificant chance it will only infuriate the target, and at close ranges it is just as likely to also effect the user.
Tasers also have major problems. If you miss the taser becomes useless, and you need both projectiles to hit. And if the target has any sort of thick clothing, it can have no effect if the prongs don't penetrate.
With a gun you have multiple chances, and far better stopping power.
1464
Post by: Breotan
Ouze wrote:Ok, we're done with the executive order discussion, then?
I was trying to use the "stolen police pistol" as an example of how ineffective these new regulations are.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
"A toddler shoots someone every 25 minutes."
We need to STOP THAT KID!
4402
Post by: CptJake
I may have missed it but did not see this posted.
Link is to the Town Hall and a full transcript:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/07/politics/transcript-obama-town-hall-guns-in-america/index.html
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Ouze wrote:Ok, we're done with the executive order discussion, then?
To try and help get us back on track;
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/most_voters_oppose_obama_acting_alone_on_gun_control
Voters don’t approve of President Obama’s decision to go it alone with several gun control initiatives and don’t believe his actions will reduce the number of mass killings the country has experienced recently.
Fifty-eight percent (58%) of Likely U.S. Voters say the government should only do what the president and Congress agree on when it comes to gun control. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 34% believe Obama should take action alone if Congress does not approve the initiatives he has proposed. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Only 21% think the president’s new executive order further extending federal government oversight of gun sales will reduce the number of mass shootings in America. Fifty-nine percent (59%) disagree and say the additional oversight will not reduce the number of these shootings. But 20% are not sure.
Voters remain closely divided on the need for additional gun control. Forty-five percent (45%) believe the United States needs stricter gun control laws, but 50% disagree. In surveys for the past several years, voters have tended to oppose further gun control laws except during brief periods following high-profile shootings like the ones at Virginia Tech and at a Connecticut elementary school.
However, most voters have long believed that the government needs to do a better job enforcing the gun laws already on the books.
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on January 6-7, 2016 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Seventy-nine percent (79%) of voters think it is more important for Congress and the president to work together to achieve what’s best for the country rather than to stand for what they believe in.
But they are far more likely to blame Congress than the president for preventing that from happening.
Generally speaking, most voters continue to believe the federal government should only do what the president and Congress agree on. More specifically, they oppose Obama going it alone on issues like global warming, the nuclear deal with Iran and his plan to exempt up to five million illegal immigrants from deportation.
Women and those under 40 continue to favor additional gun control more than men and older voters do. But most women and younger voters still oppose the president going it alone on gun control.
Seventy-three percent (73%) of Democrats think the country needs stricter gun control, but 76% of Republicans and 54% of voters not affiliated with either major party disagree.
Eighty-three percent (83%) of GOP voters and 59% of unaffiliateds believe the government should only do what the president and Congress agree on when it comes to gun control.
Democrats by a 56% to 34% margin think the president should take action alone on gun control if Congress does not approve the initiatives he has proposed. But even among voters in his own party, just 33% believe Obama’s new initiatives will reduce the number of mass killings in America.
Sixty-five percent (65%) of voters who favor stricter gun control say the president should take action on his own if necessary. Eighty-seven percent (87%) of voters who oppose additional gun control think the government should only do what the president and Congress agree on.
Most voters have said in surveys since the Newtown school shootings three years ago that the best way to prevent mass shootings is to focus more on the mentally ill rather than on increased gun control.
The president has singled out the National Rifle Association, the country’s leading gun rights organization, as the cause of Congress’ failure to approve additional gun control. But most Americans believe the NRA’s gun policies make this country safer, perhaps in part because they tend to think more gun control will only hurt law-abiding citizens.
Sixty-three percent (63%) of Americans with a gun in their household feel safer because that gun is there. This helps explain why guns have been selling at a record pace in recent weeks.
Just 34% of voters believe laws regarding the ownership of guns should be the responsibility of the federal government. Most see it as a state or local responsibility instead. Just 21% think it would be good for America if only government officials such as the police and military personnel were allowed to have guns.
A big problem for supporters of more gun control is that 62% of Americans don't trust the federal government to fairly enforce gun control laws.
Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
What's with the random underlining?
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Funny bit in there, considering the "repeal Obamacare" bill that just got voted on then vetoed:
Seventy-nine percent (79%) of voters think it is more important for Congress and the president to work together to achieve what’s best for the country rather than to stand for what they believe in.
84157
Post by: DutchWinsAll
Grey Templar wrote: Dreadwinter wrote: NuggzTheNinja wrote:Heeeeere we go with the hypotheticals...
No, pepper spray and tasers are not good alternatives to firearms for most people. Pepper spray doesn't typically stop threats even with direct hits to the eyes. Tasers sometimes stop threats, but are often impeded by garments as common as sweat shirts.
Sweat shirts don't stop bullets. Guns in a proper caliber, with good shot placement, will stop threats. Good shot placement is a product of training. Guns aren't magical talismans that ward off evil - you need to train with them, and obviously anyone who carries a gun should train regularly, and try to avoid dangerous situations in the first place.
And Asherian Command has it right that guns aren't a fix-all. Date rape is unfortunately very common, and none of these tools will prevent a woman from being roofied, from being attacked by someone close to her, etc. This kind of thing is awful and we all want it to go away, but we have to be realistic about the role of firearms and their use against criminals.
Wow, you started by commenting about hypotheticals and they talked about how hypothetically a gun is better with proper training.
Luckily you do not need training for pepper spray. Or accuracy.
Pepper spray doesn't always incapacitate. There is a not insignificant chance it will only infuriate the target, and at close ranges it is just as likely to also effect the user.
Tasers also have major problems. If you miss the taser becomes useless, and you need both projectiles to hit. And if the target has any sort of thick clothing, it can have no effect if the prongs don't penetrate.
With a gun you have multiple chances, and far better stopping power.
In a "jumps out of the bush" type attack, a gun would absolutely be the best option. But very few rapes are of this type, where an unknown attacker strikes from an unknown angle to beat and rape. It happened to a friend of mine years ago actually and was the straw that made me prejudice against a different race than mine, but that's beside the point.
The vast majority of rapes involve drunk girls putting themselves in positions with a new but known guy where they are unable to fight back, and basically then no weapon is going to help you all that much. That much talked about currently rapist Bill Cosby, how would any weapon including a gun have helped those unconscious women?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
True, it wouldn't help in all cases. But just because something doesn't work all the time doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. And guns are useful at preventing more than just rape.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Grey Templar wrote:True, it wouldn't help in all cases. But just because something doesn't work all the time doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.
I'm going to save this quote for the next gun control thread.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
I notice you doctored my quote and left the important part out so you can take it out of context.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Grey Templar wrote:I notice you doctored my quote and left the important part out so you can take it out of context.
Why does the quote apply to your example but not to gun control?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
 AlmightyWalrus wrote: Grey Templar wrote:I notice you doctored my quote and left the important part out so you can take it out of context.
Why does the quote apply to your example but not to gun control?
Context perhaps.
Gun control allegedly wants to reduce the number of people who get killed with guns. But gun control doesn't succeed at that, it only succeeds in infringing on a constitutional right.
The logic behind gun control is "Illegal guns kill X people a year." "Lets take away the guns that people legally own!"
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Grey Templar wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Grey Templar wrote:I notice you doctored my quote and left the important part out so you can take it out of context.
Why does the quote apply to your example but not to gun control?
Context perhaps.
Gun control allegedly wants to reduce the number of people who get killed with guns. But gun control doesn't succeed at that, it only succeeds in infringing on a constitutional right.
The logic behind gun control is "Illegal guns kill X people a year." "Lets take away the guns that people legally own!"
There's no debate to be had if you think that's the gun control argument. At all. I even agree that gun control isn't going to do anything, but your argument is so full of cognitice dissonance that it's silly.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Grey Templar wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Grey Templar wrote:I notice you doctored my quote and left the important part out so you can take it out of context.
Why does the quote apply to your example but not to gun control?
Context perhaps.
Gun control allegedly wants to reduce the number of people who get killed with guns. But gun control doesn't succeed at that, it only succeeds in infringing on a constitutional right.
The logic behind gun control is "Illegal guns kill X people a year." "Lets take away the guns that people legally own!"
There's no debate to be had if you think that's the gun control argument. At all. I even agree that gun control isn't going to do anything, but your argument is so full of cognitice dissonance that it's silly.
Nope, that really is their logic.
They see people getting killed, so their response is to try and prevent people who aren't involved from owning guns. They ban guns which aren't even the kinds being use to kill the people they allegedly want to prevent from getting killed.
It really is "Illegal guns kill people = take away completely different guns that people own legally!"
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Grey Templar wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Grey Templar wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Grey Templar wrote:I notice you doctored my quote and left the important part out so you can take it out of context.
Why does the quote apply to your example but not to gun control?
Context perhaps.
Gun control allegedly wants to reduce the number of people who get killed with guns. But gun control doesn't succeed at that, it only succeeds in infringing on a constitutional right.
The logic behind gun control is "Illegal guns kill X people a year." "Lets take away the guns that people legally own!"
There's no debate to be had if you think that's the gun control argument. At all. I even agree that gun control isn't going to do anything, but your argument is so full of cognitice dissonance that it's silly.
Nope, that really is their logic.
They see people getting killed, so their response is to try and prevent people who aren't involved from owning guns. They ban guns which aren't even the kinds being use to kill the people they allegedly want to prevent from getting killed.
It really is "Illegal guns kill people = take away completely different guns that people own legally!"
As I said, if you can't see how the debate is more nuanced than that then the debade is completely wasted.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
If gun control advocates didn't constantly try to take away the wrong type of guns or enact measures that didn't do anything to address the actual problem you might have a point.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Seaward wrote: Asherian Command wrote:He's not wrong. It won't.
The amount of time it would take to pull a gun out to stop a rapist or someone would be very slow. The twenty feet rule applies and makes guns obsolete and in most rape cases they are by people who the victim knows.
So no I don't think that was uncalled for. It won't make her safer, and it won't guarnette it. Pepper Spray, tasers, and other non-lethal items are far better to use than a gun. I am sorry gun peeps but I Do not think giving someone a gun is always the brightest of ideas.
My wife got a got a gun and started carrying several years ago when I was deployed and she was getting stalked at work by a guy who ultimately ended up following her home on more than one occasion, after the police said they couldn't do anything until he actually committed a crime.
...
In the UK stalking is a crime. Automatically Appended Next Post: Breotan wrote:So earlier a policeman was shot by a thug with a pistol that was stolen... FROM THE POLICE about two or three years ago.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3389974/Philadelphia-police-Officer-shot-police-cruiser.html
So first off, a statement from the new Mayor.
Jim Kenney, in his first week as mayor of the nation's fifth-largest city, said, 'There are just too many guns on the streets, and I think our national government needs to do something about that.'
His statement comes on the heels of President Barack Obama's announcement Tuesday of his plan to tighten gun control laws.
The Fed should do "something". Gotcha.
At a press conference today it was revealed the gunman, who has a criminal record, used a police handgun reported stolen in 2013.
... ...
Presumably it was identified as a stolen police gun thanks to a national database of police gun serial numbers. This of course shows that a national database of gun serial numbers would be of no use in crime investigation.
4402
Post by: CptJake
It was IDed as a stolen police gun because the cops reported it stolen. And as gov't owned property paid for by the tax payers they ned to keep accountability and therefore need to know what they have on hand.
That is no justification at all for a registry of privately owned guns.
62229
Post by: Minx
What would be the pros and cons of a federal registry of privately owned guns?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
No real Pros that I can think of. Criminals won't register their guns. And stolen weapons don't magically get found because they were on a registry. Cons are that the government knows you own weapons and can use that knowledge against you.
4402
Post by: CptJake
The other con is it costs money to create and maintain something as massive as a federal registry of all privately owned weapons, and as has been pointed out, that registry does little good towards preventing a fething thing. Therefore it is a big waste of resources even if it wasn't unconstitutional.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
You're assuming that no one ever does anything criminal with a legally owned gun.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
That is such an incredibly small portion of crimes committed that it can be ignored.
42013
Post by: Sinful Hero
More likely I think things like insurance rates would go up for gun-owners; which dog, trampoline, and smokers already know all too well.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Grey Templar wrote:That is such an incredibly small portion of crimes committed that it can be ignored.
Do you have a source on that claim?
37231
Post by: d-usa
 Minx wrote:What would be the pros and cons of a federal registry of privately owned guns?
Pros (that people pretend don't exist):
- Tracking the movement of guns. If guns are registered and tracked at the time of manufacture, and each subsequent sale, you can identify patters when guns end up being used in crimes. Are certain stores selling a large percentage of weapons that are used in crimes? Are certain buyers engaged in straw purchases?
- Enforcement of laws requiring private sellers to run background checks. If guns are registered at the same time as the background check, you verify that the check was conducted.
Do the pros outweigh the perceived cons of a database? That's a legitimate question. But we should admit that there are potential benefits and argue about their effectiveness instead of pretending that they don't exist at all.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
CptJake wrote:It was IDed as a stolen police gun because the cops reported it stolen. And as gov't owned property paid for by the tax payers they ned to keep accountability and therefore need to know what they have on hand.
That is no justification at all for a registry of privately owned guns.
No, however the ability to ID a stolen or illegally transferred civilian gun would have utility.
1464
Post by: Breotan
There is only one "Pro" about a national registry. By checking serial numbers, it would allow stolen/missing guns to quickly be identified and a police investigation begun to trace it's history back to the lawful owner.
The "Cons" include a government database with your name on it that anyone, like insurance companies, can get ahold of. No guarantee that your name comes off that list should you sell your firearms (administrative error). Local municipalities could use the list to identify gun owners and harass them with compliance "inspections". Prospective employers could use the list to screen out applicants who own guns. Advertisers and "non-profits" could target people on the list for spam/activist related mailings. An anti-gun neighbor could use the information to "out" or "shame" gun owners in the neighborhood the same way they do for pedophiles on those registries. The list goes on.
121
Post by: Relapse
Breotan wrote:There is only one "Pro" about a national registry. By checking serial numbers, it would allow stolen/missing guns to quickly be identified and a police investigation begun to trace it's history back to the lawful owner.
The "Cons" include a government database with your name on it that anyone, like insurance companies, can get ahold of. No guarantee that your name comes off that list should you sell your firearms (administrative error). Local municipalities could use the list to identify gun owners and harass them with compliance "inspections". Prospective employers could use the list to screen out applicants who own guns. Advertisers and "non-profits" could target people on the list for spam/activist related mailings. An anti-gun neighbor could use the information to "out" or "shame" gun owners in the neighborhood the same way they do for pedophiles on those registries. The list goes on.
Like that stunt the newspaper did by publishing the list of owners addresses?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
 d-usa wrote: Minx wrote:What would be the pros and cons of a federal registry of privately owned guns?
Pros (that people pretend don't exist):
- Tracking the movement of guns. If guns are registered and tracked at the time of manufacture, and each subsequent sale, you can identify patters when guns end up being used in crimes. Are certain stores selling a large percentage of weapons that are used in crimes? Are certain buyers engaged in straw purchases?
- Enforcement of laws requiring private sellers to run background checks. If guns are registered at the same time as the background check, you verify that the check was conducted.
Do the pros outweigh the perceived cons of a database? That's a legitimate question. But we should admit that there are potential benefits and argue about their effectiveness instead of pretending that they don't exist at all.
Registration would require voluntary participation to create a complete and accurate registry of the 300,000,000+ unregistered guns currently privately owned. Good luck with that. It is an unenforceable law. The government doesn't know who own which guns currently so how would they know if every one got registered? Would agents check every residence in the country? How does the Federal government have jurisdiction to demand that private property gets registered? The interstate commerce clause doesn't cover the passive act of ownership after a commercial transaction.
How does informing the federal government that I own guns and specifically which guns do anything to make anyone safer or more law abiding? If someone passes the background check they've proven themselves trustworthy enough to own firearms so at that point who cares which guns and how many he/she owns?
Every dealer must have an FFL because buying and selling guns is subject to federal regulations because its interstate commerce. Everyone with an FFL is required to have buyers fill out a 4473 form and undergo a NICS check. FFLs must run NICS checks on buyers regardless of where the sale takes place. The BATFE regulates FFLs and can do spot checks of their business records anytime and revoke the FFL and file charges if laws and regulations aren't being followed. Any dealer that wants to avoid a federal prosecution runs background checks on every buyer.
A gun registry does nothing to prevent criminal activity. It is an unwarranted government intrusion whose sole purpose is to enable greater control over the populace.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Relapse, agreed. Even if your firearm is recovered after being stolen, it's fairly common knowledge that PDs hardly ever return property.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
 Kilkrazy wrote: CptJake wrote:It was IDed as a stolen police gun because the cops reported it stolen. And as gov't owned property paid for by the tax payers they ned to keep accountability and therefore need to know what they have on hand.
That is no justification at all for a registry of privately owned guns.
No, however the ability to ID a stolen or illegally transferred civilian gun would have utility.
How so? Citizens are allowed to sell privately owned guns and they're not required to run background checks and don't have access to NICS so what's the point of tracing previous ownership?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
63623
Post by: Tannhauser42
Breotan wrote:The "Cons" include a government database with your name on it that anyone, like insurance companies, can get ahold of. No guarantee that your name comes off that list should you sell your firearms (administrative error). Local municipalities could use the list to identify gun owners and harass them with compliance "inspections". Prospective employers could use the list to screen out applicants who own guns. Advertisers and "non-profits" could target people on the list for spam/activist related mailings. An anti-gun neighbor could use the information to "out" or "shame" gun owners in the neighborhood the same way they do for pedophiles on those registries. The list goes on.
To be fair, the government already has at least half a dozen such lists for other things that all do those same things (or so the conspiracy nuts and anti-government crowd tells us), so what's one more?
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Grey Templar wrote:True, it wouldn't help in all cases. But just because something doesn't work all the time doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.
I'm going to save this quote for the next gun control thread.
Why would you jeopardize whatever point you wish to make by sacrificing your credibility from the get go by using a cherry picked quote that ignores vital context?
Is that like the gun show loophole that people pretend exists?
Minx wrote:What would be the pros and cons of a federal registry of privately owned guns?
What business is it of the government what firearm(s) a person may own?
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Breotan wrote:There is only one "Pro" about a national registry. By checking serial numbers, it would allow stolen/missing guns to quickly be identified and a police investigation begun to trace it's history back to the lawful owner.
The "Cons" include a government database with your name on it that anyone, like insurance companies, can get ahold of. No guarantee that your name comes off that list should you sell your firearms (administrative error). Local municipalities could use the list to identify gun owners and harass them with compliance "inspections".
This is exactly what happened in CA with the "Assault Weapons" ban.
My father owned a couple of weapons that fell under the ban, and did the good citizen thing and registered them. However, he soon sold them because he wanted off the list. Well, he could never get off the list, even a decade after selling the weapons, despite multiple phone calls, certified letters with proof of sale to the CA DOJ, etc, and every year he'd get letters from the CA DOJ, as the owner of a "dangerous assault weapon", reminding of his "responsibilities" as such an owner and the consequences if they weren't kept up on, and other such things, up until he moved out of CA, even with the weapons having been sold out of state many years before.
That experience, and the CA SKS rifle debacle, proved very firmly to me that gun registries are absolutely a terrible idea.
40024
Post by: SOFDC
No, however the ability to ID a stolen or illegally transferred civilian gun would have utility.
And where, between 4473s and serial numbers on the firearms themselves, does the current state of things NOT allow us to do this?
so what's one more?
To me that means we should probably be knocking down a few registries rather than heaping yet more on the flame.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
 Dreadclaw69 wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Grey Templar wrote:True, it wouldn't help in all cases. But just because something doesn't work all the time doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.
I'm going to save this quote for the next gun control thread.
Why would you jeopardize whatever point you wish to make by sacrificing your credibility from the get go by using a cherry picked quote that ignores vital context?
Because it's the same argument that's often seen coming from the opposite side in gun debates, but then it's bad because reasons.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Grey Templar wrote:True, it wouldn't help in all cases. But just because something doesn't work all the time doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.
I'm going to save this quote for the next gun control thread.
Why would you jeopardize whatever point you wish to make by sacrificing your credibility from the get go by using a cherry picked quote that ignores vital context?
Because it's the same argument that's often seen coming from the opposite side in gun debates, but then it's bad because reasons.
As long as you are happy that you are deliberately using dishonest means to make your point then who am I to disagree with your decision. That does not mean I will not point out your dishonesty later of course.
34390
Post by: whembly
You know what... if I win the powerball tonight, Imma open up a gun store called "Loopholes"...
Or, maybe "Trigger Warnings: Loopholes"?
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
 whembly wrote:You know what... if I win the powerball tonight, Imma open up a gun store called "Loopholes"...
Or, maybe "Trigger Warnings: Loopholes"?
I think a gun store called Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms would be awesome You have a bar, smoking area, and range all under one roof (no shooting if you are under the influence)
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Dreadclaw69 wrote: whembly wrote:You know what... if I win the powerball tonight, Imma open up a gun store called "Loopholes"...
Or, maybe "Trigger Warnings: Loopholes"?
I think a gun store called Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms would be awesome You have a bar, smoking area, and range all under one roof (no shooting if you are under the influence)
Heck, if you won the jackpot in the powerball, you sure as gak wouldn't care about the cost of insurance for such a place
1464
Post by: Breotan
Open up a gun store called "Loopholes" and set up a table at local gun shows.
71169
Post by: kveldulf
People really like to focus of big words and big hands from politicians. I guess it makes them feel warm inside they are doing something than nothing. Heh, after all, if you don't do something in office, no one will remember what you did - guess infamy is just another route in this day and age - as long as you schmooze people like Obama.
Anyway, gun violence.... that's laughable in the US when we do resort to statisitics. Going off of violent crime offenses from the FBI stats, you will find that most mass shooting for example represent probably a less than .2% (that's point two percent) chance of that happening... if you happened to have a violent crime happen to you. That's very very very very low - rare. Furthermore, the hidden statistics too, reveal that much of gun related crime will point to gang violence.
Also, how would making it harder for everyone to get guns really spin a positive side to prevent overall violent crime? It doesn't! It reduces the good/law abiding citizens' chance of staving off an attack. If anything, one should ask, the statistic of what happen when you restrict guns; I'll just point to gun free zones. I personally would rather carry a pistol, than a knife in any potentially lethal altercation. If you don't ok - then don't; its your freedom - no matter how unwise I may think it is for you to do.
Furthermore, the second amendment is far beyond just personal protection, but an assurance to stand against tyranny. This is represented in the matter of 'militia' which the amendment makes clear - the correlation of your individual right and civic duty/right, that every citizen is apart of the militia. As such, the template regarding armaments infers an equal level access that you would expect on a 'rifleman'. This means automatic weapons, pistols etc. but as far as ordinance, cannons and such, would/should be a matter of state/county regulation.
And one more thing, if you want trust bureaucrats enforcing and maintaining rights with encroaching qualifications, then they better be perfect people, because history tells me that absolute power absolutely corrupts. People are inherently evil/flawed, not inherently good.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Breotan wrote:There is only one "Pro" about a national registry. By checking serial numbers, it would allow stolen/missing guns to quickly be identified and a police investigation begun to trace it's history back to the lawful owner.
The "Cons" include a government database with your name on it that anyone, like insurance companies, can get ahold of. No guarantee that your name comes off that list should you sell your firearms (administrative error). Local municipalities could use the list to identify gun owners and harass them with compliance "inspections". Prospective employers could use the list to screen out applicants who own guns. Advertisers and "non-profits" could target people on the list for spam/activist related mailings. An anti-gun neighbor could use the information to "out" or "shame" gun owners in the neighborhood the same way they do for pedophiles on those registries. The list goes on.
1. Data Protection Act.
2. Presumably people insure their guns, and the insurance company has a list of your serial numbers in order to verify you actually own them. Like your car insurance company having the licence plate number of your car.
71169
Post by: kveldulf
Kilkrazy wrote: Breotan wrote:There is only one "Pro" about a national registry. By checking serial numbers, it would allow stolen/missing guns to quickly be identified and a police investigation begun to trace it's history back to the lawful owner.
The "Cons" include a government database with your name on it that anyone, like insurance companies, can get ahold of. No guarantee that your name comes off that list should you sell your firearms (administrative error). Local municipalities could use the list to identify gun owners and harass them with compliance "inspections". Prospective employers could use the list to screen out applicants who own guns. Advertisers and "non-profits" could target people on the list for spam/activist related mailings. An anti-gun neighbor could use the information to "out" or "shame" gun owners in the neighborhood the same way they do for pedophiles on those registries. The list goes on.
1. Data Protection Act.
2. Presumably people insure their guns, and the insurance company has a list of your serial numbers in order to verify you actually own them. Like your car insurance company having the licence plate number of your car.
Yep, where I live, people wouldn't accept this as law. As a matter of fact I reckon our state govt would arrest a fed enforcing this.
Bureaucrats can write whatever laws about guns; the bullets will point out their errors eventually.
Anyone willing to make these national restrictions fail to see the same measure/principle can equally be thrown back at them. ( Consider Trump)
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Dreadclaw69 wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Grey Templar wrote:True, it wouldn't help in all cases. But just because something doesn't work all the time doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.
I'm going to save this quote for the next gun control thread.
Why would you jeopardize whatever point you wish to make by sacrificing your credibility from the get go by using a cherry picked quote that ignores vital context?
Because it's the same argument that's often seen coming from the opposite side in gun debates, but then it's bad because reasons.
As long as you are happy that you are deliberately using dishonest means to make your point then who am I to disagree with your decision. That does not mean I will not point out your dishonesty later of course.
Enlighten me then, oh great one. Why is it that it's OK to scoff when people support the usefulness of a gun registry with "at least it'll work some of the time!" but not when people use the exact same argument to argue in favour of guns as a means of protecting oneself from rape? And if you answer that it's because the usefulness of the gun registry is going to be low or whatever, remember the huge amounts of rape where the perpetrator is someone known to the victim.
Pointing out cognitice dissonance is not "dishonesty" just because you don't agree with the people who want a national gun registry.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
What does legislation enacted in the UK in 1998 have to do with gun control in America?
Kilkrazy wrote:2. Presumably people insure their guns, and the insurance company has a list of your serial numbers in order to verify you actually own them. Like your car insurance company having the licence plate number of your car.
That's a nice suggestion, but those opposed to guns have called repeatably for insurance on firearms as a means of pricing them out of the budget of most people as they want the insurance to cover the cost of the alleged danger you pose to society, not the value of replacing your firearm.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Enlighten me then, oh great one. Why is it that it's OK to scoff when people support the usefulness of a gun registry with "at least it'll work some of the time!" but not when people use the exact same argument to argue in favour of guns as a means of protecting oneself from rape? And if you answer that it's because the usefulness of the gun registry is going to be low or whatever, remember the huge amounts of rape where the perpetrator is someone known to the victim.
Pointing out cognitice dissonance is not "dishonesty" just because you don't agree with the people who want a national gun registry.
So as well as being in favour of dishonesty you are now engaging in false comparisons (ability to defend yourself v registry), and strawmen (people are only objecting to a registry because it'll work some of the time - no, people object to a registry because it is seen as the first step towards confiscation like in the UK and Australia, countries whose gun laws have been praised by this Administration).
It is also not cognitive dissonance because the two subjects you are attempting to forge a link between are not as closely related. It would be like saying that someone is suffering cognative dissonance because they like the heat of summer but not the cold of winter because temperatures are involved.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
What does legislation enacted in the UK in 1998 have to do with gun control in America?
Kilkrazy wrote:2. Presumably people insure their guns, and the insurance company has a list of your serial numbers in order to verify you actually own them. Like your car insurance company having the licence plate number of your car.
That's a nice suggestion, but those opposed to guns have called repeatably for insurance on firearms as a means of pricing them out of the budget of most people as they want the insurance to cover the cost of the alleged danger you pose to society, not the value of replacing your firearm.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Enlighten me then, oh great one. Why is it that it's OK to scoff when people support the usefulness of a gun registry with "at least it'll work some of the time!" but not when people use the exact same argument to argue in favour of guns as a means of protecting oneself from rape? And if you answer that it's because the usefulness of the gun registry is going to be low or whatever, remember the huge amounts of rape where the perpetrator is someone known to the victim.
Pointing out cognitice dissonance is not "dishonesty" just because you don't agree with the people who want a national gun registry.
So as well as being in favour of dishonesty you are now engaging in false comparisons (ability to defend yourself v registry), and strawmen (people are only objecting to a registry because it'll work some of the time - no, people object to a registry because it is seen as the first step towards confiscation like in the UK and Australia, countries whose gun laws have been praised by this Administration).
It is also not cognitive dissonance because the two subjects you are attempting to forge a link between are not as closely related. It would be like saying that someone is suffering cognative dissonance because they like the heat of summer but not the cold of winter because temperatures are involved.
If people actually object to gun registries based on the potential for gun registration then that's fine by me, because that's an actual argument, but it's not like there's no one in this thread arguing against a registry because it "wouldn't do anything". It's not a strawman to claim that this argument is being used to argue against gun control, it'd have been a strawman if I argued that was the only argument being used (which it isn't).
Grey Templar himself was arguing against alternatives to firearms because the alternatives don't always work, and as soon as someone points out that guns don't always works he turns around with "that's no reason not to try!". As I said, cognitive dissonance.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
AlmightyWalrus wrote:If people actually object to gun registries based on the potential for gun registration then that's fine by me, because that's an actual argument, but it's not like there's no one in this thread arguing against a registry because it "wouldn't do anything". It's not a strawman to claim that this argument is being used to argue against gun control, it'd have been a strawman if I argued that was the only argument being used (which it isn't).
And yet you ignored all other arguments against it to try and claim cognitive dissonance. So yet more dishonesty.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Dreadclaw69 wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:If people actually object to gun registries based on the potential for gun registration then that's fine by me, because that's an actual argument, but it's not like there's no one in this thread arguing against a registry because it "wouldn't do anything". It's not a strawman to claim that this argument is being used to argue against gun control, it'd have been a strawman if I argued that was the only argument being used (which it isn't).
And yet you ignored all other arguments against it to try and claim cognitive dissonance. So yet more dishonesty.
How is it dishonest? The other arguments aren't cognitive dissonance, so I'm not calling them out on being such, becaus they aren't. Listing a number of reasons why alternatives to guns don't work as well and then turning around and saying "that's no reason to not have guns!" when someone does the same to guns is.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
What does legislation enacted in the UK in 1998 have to do with gun control in America?
It's an example.
You could enact similar legislation in the USA, to protect people from interference and misuse of their personal data.
Kilkrazy wrote:2. Presumably people insure their guns, and the insurance company has a list of your serial numbers in order to verify you actually own them. Like your car insurance company having the licence plate number of your car.
That's a nice suggestion, but those opposed to guns have called repeatably for insurance on firearms as a means of pricing them out of the budget of most people as they want the insurance to cover the cost of the alleged danger you pose to society, not the value of replacing your firearm.
I meant that presumably people insure their guns against loss from theft, etc, as with any other household articles (and cars.) Perhaps you don't.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:If people actually object to gun registries based on the potential for gun registration then that's fine by me, because that's an actual argument, but it's not like there's no one in this thread arguing against a registry because it "wouldn't do anything". It's not a strawman to claim that this argument is being used to argue against gun control, it'd have been a strawman if I argued that was the only argument being used (which it isn't).
And yet you ignored all other arguments against it to try and claim cognitive dissonance. So yet more dishonesty.
How is it dishonest? The other arguments aren't cognitive dissonance, so I'm not calling them out on being such, becaus they aren't. Listing a number of reasons why alternatives to guns don't work as well and then turning around and saying "that's no reason to not have guns!" when someone does the same to guns is.
The answer was already given.
Kilkrazy wrote:I meant that presumably people insure their guns against loss from theft, etc, as with any other household articles (and cars.) Perhaps you don't.
Even if that were the case private companies =/= government registry
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Dreadclaw69 wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:If people actually object to gun registries based on the potential for gun registration then that's fine by me, because that's an actual argument, but it's not like there's no one in this thread arguing against a registry because it "wouldn't do anything". It's not a strawman to claim that this argument is being used to argue against gun control, it'd have been a strawman if I argued that was the only argument being used (which it isn't).
And yet you ignored all other arguments against it to try and claim cognitive dissonance. So yet more dishonesty.
How is it dishonest? The other arguments aren't cognitive dissonance, so I'm not calling them out on being such, becaus they aren't. Listing a number of reasons why alternatives to guns don't work as well and then turning around and saying "that's no reason to not have guns!" when someone does the same to guns is.
The answer was already given.
And I'm disputing that said answer actually matters, because it's not about the argument I'm actually making at all. I'm not making an argument about gun control, I'm not making an argument about any of the arguments used other than the one I quoted, and the argument was more or less "that's not what it usually sounds like when someone else uses that argument". You can keep going on about context as much as you want, the fact remains that following up a line of posts about why no alternatives to guns supposedly work with "that's no reason not to try" when someone makes the same point about guns IS cognitive dissonance.
4402
Post by: CptJake
The insurance issue is silly as well. Insurance does not cover willful acts. If someone intentionally were to shoot someone insurance would not pay out. Accidents are already pretty rare and tend to be covered by things like homeowners insurance and your normal medical insurance.
As for theft insurance, I told my insurance company how much I want to add for theft, I have not had to submit serial numbers or even number/types. My renters insurance covers XXXX amount against theft/damage and my guns are covered in it. I'm sure different companies handle it differently, but that is how mine works. Of course, the odds of mine being stolen are pretty darned low so I'm not really concerned.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Yes, a private company is a lot less accountable for what it does with your information.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote:
What does legislation enacted in the UK in 1998 have to do with gun control in America?
Kilkrazy wrote:2. Presumably people insure their guns, and the insurance company has a list of your serial numbers in order to verify you actually own them. Like your car insurance company having the licence plate number of your car.
That's a nice suggestion, but those opposed to guns have called repeatably for insurance on firearms as a means of pricing them out of the budget of most people as they want the insurance to cover the cost of the alleged danger you pose to society, not the value of replacing your firearm.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Enlighten me then, oh great one. Why is it that it's OK to scoff when people support the usefulness of a gun registry with "at least it'll work some of the time!" but not when people use the exact same argument to argue in favour of guns as a means of protecting oneself from rape? And if you answer that it's because the usefulness of the gun registry is going to be low or whatever, remember the huge amounts of rape where the perpetrator is someone known to the victim.
Pointing out cognitice dissonance is not "dishonesty" just because you don't agree with the people who want a national gun registry.
So as well as being in favour of dishonesty you are now engaging in false comparisons (ability to defend yourself v registry), and strawmen (people are only objecting to a registry because it'll work some of the time - no, people object to a registry because it is seen as the first step towards confiscation like in the UK and Australia, countries whose gun laws have been praised by this Administration).
It is also not cognitive dissonance because the two subjects you are attempting to forge a link between are not as closely related. It would be like saying that someone is suffering cognative dissonance because they like the heat of summer but not the cold of winter because temperatures are involved.
If people actually object to gun registries based on the potential for gun registration then that's fine by me, because that's an actual argument, but it's not like there's no one in this thread arguing against a registry because it "wouldn't do anything". It's not a strawman to claim that this argument is being used to argue against gun control, it'd have been a strawman if I argued that was the only argument being used (which it isn't).
Grey Templar himself was arguing against alternatives to firearms because the alternatives don't always work, and as soon as someone points out that guns don't always works he turns around with "that's no reason not to try!". As I said, cognitive dissonance.
Because the potential downsides aren't the same at all.
Having a gun isn't going to harm you if you are a victim of a rape in which it provides no defense. But if you are in a situation where you have the opportunity for self-defense, then a gun is much more effective than a taser or pepper spray. If you aren't in that situation, none of these items will help.
Implementing gun control however tramples on the rights of millions while providing no tangible benefit. Seriously, none of the mass shootings which made the headlines would have been prevented by any proposed legislation, all it does is restrict our rights.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Kilkrazy wrote:
I meant that presumably people insure their guns against loss from theft, etc, as with any other household articles (and cars.) Perhaps you don't.
Here in the US at least, if someone breaks into my house and robs me of my TVs, computer, gaming system and guns, my homeowners insurance does cover everything, including the guns. I don't know of many, if any, insurance companies that require an itemized list of items within the home, only that if something should happen and you make a claim, that you have some kind of proof that you indeed bought/possessed whatever you are claiming.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Dreadclaw69 wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:If people actually object to gun registries based on the potential for gun registration then that's fine by me, because that's an actual argument, but it's not like there's no one in this thread arguing against a registry because it "wouldn't do anything". It's not a strawman to claim that this argument is being used to argue against gun control, it'd have been a strawman if I argued that was the only argument being used (which it isn't).
And yet you ignored all other arguments against it to try and claim cognitive dissonance. So yet more dishonesty.
How is it dishonest? The other arguments aren't cognitive dissonance, so I'm not calling them out on being such, becaus they aren't. Listing a number of reasons why alternatives to guns don't work as well and then turning around and saying "that's no reason to not have guns!" when someone does the same to guns is.
The answer was already given. Kilkrazy wrote:I meant that presumably people insure their guns against loss from theft, etc, as with any other household articles (and cars.) Perhaps you don't.
Even if that were the case private companies =/= government registry
You're happy for private companies to hold your personal data without any legal restriction to their use of it, in a way that obstructs the solution of crimes, but you're not happy for the government to hold your data with legal restrictions that prevent it being misused by private companies and helps solve crimes. Automatically Appended Next Post: The proof for your claim for contents being for example a serial number identifying the weapon, or camera, or lens, etc.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Kilkrazy wrote:You're happy for private companies to hold your personal data without any legal restriction to their use of it, in a way that obstructs the solution of crimes, but you're not happy for the government to hold your data with legal restrictions that prevent it being misused by private companies and helps solve crimes.
I see your angle, but the logical counterpoint is that when you enter into business with a private company, you do so of you own volition out of (ideally) a variety of different competing options and can walk away at any time you like - less so on the other hand.
I personally would not have a problem with registering my firearms.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Ouze wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:You're happy for private companies to hold your personal data without any legal restriction to their use of it, in a way that obstructs the solution of crimes, but you're not happy for the government to hold your data with legal restrictions that prevent it being misused by private companies and helps solve crimes.
I see your angle, but the logical counterpoint is that when you enter into business with a private company, you do so of you own volition out of (ideally) a variety of different competing options and can walk away at any time you like - less so on the other hand.
I personally would not have a problem with registering my firearms.
Whilst true that you can cease doing business with a private company, that is no guarantee that they are not still using your personal information or selling it to third parties.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
There is also what level of problems can a company vs the government do with your data.
At worst, a company just wants to sell you something and you'll end up with annoying advertisements. The government on the other hand is far more sinister.
12313
Post by: Ouze
 A Town Called Malus wrote: Ouze wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:You're happy for private companies to hold your personal data without any legal restriction to their use of it, in a way that obstructs the solution of crimes, but you're not happy for the government to hold your data with legal restrictions that prevent it being misused by private companies and helps solve crimes.
I see your angle, but the logical counterpoint is that when you enter into business with a private company, you do so of you own volition out of (ideally) a variety of different competing options and can walk away at any time you like - less so on the other hand.
I personally would not have a problem with registering my firearms.
Whilst true that you can cease doing business with a private company, that is no guarantee that they are not still using your personal information or selling it to third parties.
And if that happens, I have the option to cease business with them (theoretically), or sue them if they have breached their contract.
If you'll excuse me, this thread reminds me of a chore I've been meaning to take care of. I own something so obviously dangerous to the public that the government mandated that I have to register it with one of their agencies, so in the (likely) event I commit a crime with it, they can easily trace it - using it without registering it leaves me liable to a $250,000 fine.
Obviously I'm talking about my quadcopter. Because this is America.
121
Post by: Relapse
Damn, that's one high fine.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Kilkrazy wrote:You're happy for private companies to hold your personal data without any legal restriction to their use of it, in a way that obstructs the solution of crimes,
Nonsense. Providing an insurance company with the serial number for the purposes of insuring it in no way obstructs the solution of a crime. The investigating agency would have to show probable cause to compel me or the company to provide them with the information. Second you make the assumption that the information that I pass to a private entity was done with the purpose of frustrating a criminal investigation instead of verifying that I have an item that I am insuring. That assumption is patently false.
The police have no right to any information that is not already in the public domain without demonstrating probable cause. Your argument smacks of "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear".
Kilkrazy wrote:but you're not happy for the government to hold your data with legal restrictions that prevent it being misused by private companies and helps solve crimes.
Private companies are also held to legal restrictions on how they hold and handle my data. I can choose which companies I do business with, and I may end relationships with them much more easily than I can with a government.
What other data would you like the government to have unfettered access to which "helps solve crimes"? Are there any other Constitutional protections that you would like to dispose of now that you are proposing massive inroads into the 4th Amendment?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
I suspect that fine is the fine for having an unregistered aircraft. So it normally applies to things like planes and helicopters. Drones are causing some legal and safety issues, and have thus been classified as aircraft and subject to the same regulations.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Private companies are also held to legal restrictions on how they hold and handle my data. I can choose which companies I do business with, and I may end relationships with them much more easily than I can with a government.
...
What is the power or agency that holds private companies to account for legal restictions on the use of your personal data?
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Kilkrazy wrote:What is the power or agency that holds private companies to account for legal restictions on the use of your personal data?
The judicial branch.
Now that I've answered your question you still have some of mine that you did not answer;
What other data would you like the government to have unfettered access to which "helps solve crimes"?
Are there any other Constitutional protections that you would like to dispose of now that you are proposing massive inroads into the 4th Amendment?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Why do you trust the Judicial Branch of the government to oversee companies but not to oversee the Legislative Branch of the government? Do you not believe in the rule of law?
I haven't thought about your questions. They are not relevant to my question to you.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Breotan wrote:There is only one "Pro" about a national registry. By checking serial numbers, it would allow stolen/missing guns to quickly be identified and a police investigation begun to trace it's history back to the lawful owner.
The "Cons" include a government database with your name on it that anyone, like insurance companies, can get ahold of. No guarantee that your name comes off that list should you sell your firearms (administrative error). Local municipalities could use the list to identify gun owners and harass them with compliance "inspections". Prospective employers could use the list to screen out applicants who own guns. Advertisers and "non-profits" could target people on the list for spam/activist related mailings. An anti-gun neighbor could use the information to "out" or "shame" gun owners in the neighborhood the same way they do for pedophiles on those registries. The list goes on.
Very good points.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Kilkrazy wrote:Why do you trust the Judicial Branch of the government to oversee companies but not to oversee the Legislative Branch of the government? Do you not believe in the rule of law?
The judicial branch is also one of the checks and balances against government abuse, which I'm sure you know. I'm also sure that you know most people mean the Executive Branch and Legislative branch when they mention the "government'. Contract law =/= administrative law. The standards applied in review are very different, with most government agencies and departments being given significant latitude due to polycentricity so you are using a false comparison.
Also I may use a variety of tools to bear to pressure private companies into compliance that cannot be used with the same effect against government bodies.
Kilkrazy wrote:I haven't thought about your questions. They are not relevant to my question to you.
Now is your opportunity to think about them and answer as they are directly related to your questions given their undermining of the 4th Amendment. Do you not believe in the rule of law?
221
Post by: Frazzled
You could enact similar legislation in the USA, to protect people from interference and misuse of their personal data.
You mean the same USA that sifts every email and call ever but can't find anyone, that sells information legally-including things like voter registration for decades-and who's IRS was sifting through opposing groups to try to get their membership lists? Also, all these lists are subject to FOIA requests even if the government wanted to protect it. Thats why some states have specific laws that protect their lists of CHLers and other licenses from public release.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
At first I was like "no way he said this" then I was like "hah! Almost got me that time but nope "
42342
Post by: Smacks
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:If people actually object to gun registries based on the potential for gun registration then that's fine by me, because that's an actual argument, but it's not like there's no one in this thread arguing against a registry because it "wouldn't do anything". It's not a strawman to claim that this argument is being used to argue against gun control, it'd have been a strawman if I argued that was the only argument being used (which it isn't).
And yet you ignored all other arguments against it to try and claim cognitive dissonance. So yet more dishonesty.
How is it dishonest?
It's not, you caught a legitimately amusing example of people moving the goal post wherever it suits them. DC is trying to move them again now, it's not enough to just point out a double standard, now you need to win every conceivable argument against a gun registry and probably against gun control, or else you are "arguing dishonestly" (false dichotomy much?). It's actually kind of amusing given that DC's usual method of debate swings between spamming an overwhelming amount of incoherent "evidence" (which he never explains, or structures into any kind of logical statement), and pretending to be outraged.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
 Smacks wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:If people actually object to gun registries based on the potential for gun registration then that's fine by me, because that's an actual argument, but it's not like there's no one in this thread arguing against a registry because it "wouldn't do anything". It's not a strawman to claim that this argument is being used to argue against gun control, it'd have been a strawman if I argued that was the only argument being used (which it isn't).
And yet you ignored all other arguments against it to try and claim cognitive dissonance. So yet more dishonesty.
How is it dishonest?
It's not, you caught a legitimately amusing example of people moving the goal post wherever it suits them. DC is trying to move them again now, it's not enough to just point out a double standard, now you need to win every conceivable argument against a gun registry and probably against gun control, or else you are "arguing dishonestly" (false dichotomy much?). It's actually kind of amusing given that DC's usual method of debate swings between spamming an overwhelming amount of incoherent "evidence" (which he never explains, or structures into any kind of logical statement), and pretending to be outraged.
We're not going to get a national gun registry because congress isn't going to legislate one into existence any time soon because nobody wants one. Every poll shows that gun control is a very low priority for the vast majority of voters and the tens of millions of law abiding gun owners in this country realize the they, not criminals, are the targets of proposed legislation. Even a cursory examination of a proposed registry is enough to see that it will have no impact on reducing crime or increasing safety. The only positive that has been mentioned and agreed upon in this thread is that a registry might help find lost or stolen guns. Every gun has a serial number and every manufacturer and licensed dealer is required to keep records. Reporting a gun lost or stolen requires listing the serial number and the authorities will use the serial number to identify the gun. A registry has no impact on that system. It also ignores the fact that there isn't an epidemic of lost/stolen guns or a major problem of not finding them. A registry is a solution to a non existent problem.
42342
Post by: Smacks
Prestor Jon wrote: Smacks wrote:It's not, you caught a legitimately amusing example of people moving the goal post wherever it suits them. DC is trying to move them again now, it's not enough to just point out a double standard, now you need to win every conceivable argument against a gun registry and probably against gun control, or else you are "arguing dishonestly" (false dichotomy much?). It's actually kind of amusing given that DC's usual method of debate swings between spamming an overwhelming amount of incoherent "evidence" (which he never explains, or structures into any kind of logical statement), and pretending to be outraged.
We're not going to get a national gun registry because congress isn't going to legislate one into existence any time soon because nobody wants one. Every poll shows that gun control is a very low priority for the vast majority of voters and the tens of millions of law abiding gun owners in this country realize the they, not criminals, are the targets of proposed legislation. Even a cursory examination of a proposed registry is enough to see that it will have no impact on reducing crime or increasing safety. The only positive that has been mentioned and agreed upon in this thread is that a registry might help find lost or stolen guns. Every gun has a serial number and every manufacturer and licensed dealer is required to keep records. Reporting a gun lost or stolen requires listing the serial number and the authorities will use the serial number to identify the gun. A registry has no impact on that system.
My post was about AlmightyWalrus pointing to a double standard, and why that doesn't equate to arguing dishonestly. What was your post about? How is anything you wrote related to my post? I only ask because there is a discussion at the moment about people labelling other people as "the other side", and then firing their preprepared arguments, slogans and rhetoric at them, whether it's relevant or not. Did you even read my post? Prestor Jon wrote:there isn't an epidemic of lost/stolen guns or a major problem of not finding them.
I don't see how you can know that with any confidence, given that you are arguing against collecting data on where guns go. Are you denying that criminals obtain guns? Criminals are known to obtain weapons through straw purchase and crooked dealers. People who knowingly supply criminals with weapons aught to be stopped (or at least prosecuted). Is this something you can agree with? If a person is able to simply claim, after a crime, that a weapon used was lost or sold, without any record of the theft or sale, then there is absolutely no incentive for them to obey the law, and no recourse when they don't.
84919
Post by: Gwaihirsbrother
So today I had a shotgun pointed at me as I walked down the street. It was rather disconcerting. Best I could tell the guy in the car was showing his wares to the guy standing next to the car. The seller wasn't well versed on his gun safety rules in that YOU AREN'T SUPPOSED TO POINT YOUR WEAPON AT ANYTHING YOU DO NOT INTEND TO SHOOT! So he waived it around a bit sweeping past my legs and waist area a time or two before pumping it a few times for the buyer's benefit.
Anyway, despite that bit of stupidity I still favor private citizens having the right to own guns even though it potentially means I could be shot by some random moron or crook.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Smacks wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:there isn't an epidemic of lost/stolen guns or a major problem of not finding them.
I don't see how you can know that with any confidence, given that you are arguing against collecting data on where guns go. Are you denying that criminals obtain guns?
Criminals are known to obtain weapons through straw purchase and crooked dealers. People who knowingly supply criminals with weapons aught to be stopped (or at least prosecuted). Is this something you can agree with?
If a person is able to simply claim, after a crime, that a weapon used was lost or sold, without any record of the theft or sale, then there is absolutely no incentive for them to obey the law, and no recourse when they don't.
And how would a national registry address your concern?
The straw purchases are already illegal. Is it your position that the straw purchasers would correctly inform the registry when they transfer the weapons to other criminals?
42342
Post by: Smacks
CptJake wrote:Is it your position that the straw purchasers would correctly inform the registry when they transfer the weapons to other criminals?
Only if they don't want to be criminally liable for the weapon.
Straw purchases might be illegal, but they are very difficult to prosecute when a person can just claim that the weapon was stolen or sold privately. Making it an offence not to report a theft or transfer would make people accountable for the weapons that they buy.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Why would you need a national registry to 'make it an offense to not report a theft or transfer'?
How does the existence of this registry prevent the straw purchaser from claiming the weapon was stolen or sold privately? Are you intending to couple this registry with universal background checks? That may stop the 'sold privately' portion, but not the 'it was stolen' portion' (which would probably go way up).
I'm honestly having trouble understanding how a national registry does anything you say it would, let alone actually prevent a single act of 'gun violence' from happening.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
CptJake wrote:Why would you need a national registry to 'make it an offense to not report a theft or transfer'? How does the existence of this registry prevent the straw purchaser from claiming the weapon was stolen or sold privately? Are you intending to couple this registry with universal background checks? That may stop the 'sold privately' portion, but not the 'it was stolen' portion' (which would probably go way up). I'm honestly having trouble understanding how a national registry does anything you say it would, let alone actually prevent a single act of 'gun violence' from happening.
Well, if someone is regularly reporting their weapons as being stolen and those same weapons keep ending up in the hands of criminals then it would allow you to identify a possible source of illegal firearms. Same thing for if they sell it privately, details of the new owner need to be supplied so that in the registry the gun is switched to be the property of that new owner. It would allow you to track the movements of legally purchased firearms throughout the population and potentially help identify illegal weapons dealers by allowing that data to be analysed and patterns identified.
4402
Post by: CptJake
A Town Called Malus wrote: CptJake wrote:Why would you need a national registry to 'make it an offense to not report a theft or transfer'?
How does the existence of this registry prevent the straw purchaser from claiming the weapon was stolen or sold privately? Are you intending to couple this registry with universal background checks? That may stop the 'sold privately' portion, but not the 'it was stolen' portion' (which would probably go way up).
I'm honestly having trouble understanding how a national registry does anything you say it would, let alone actually prevent a single act of 'gun violence' from happening.
Well, if someone is very regularly reporting their weapons as being stolen and those same weapons keep ending up in the hands of criminals then it would allow you to identify a possible source of illegal firearms.
Again, the question is, how does a national registry enable what you are after?
You can levy a reporting requirement just fine without one.
443
Post by: skyth
I don't see how a reporting requirement can exist without a registry.
34390
Post by: whembly
I national registry will never happen.
Why? Because the Feds will need the State's cooperation to enforce it.
Good luck in getting many of the states to do that.
4402
Post by: CptJake
skyth wrote:I don't see how a reporting requirement can exist without a registry.
Pretty easy. New Law: You must report stolen weapons within 72 hours to your local sherif or police chief. Someone wants to claim 'it was stolen last year' when a gun comes up in a crime and they get fined for failure to report. Not too hard. Cops trace guns all the time without a national registry. But I digress from the real point: What issue are you expecting this National Registry to fix? What type of gun violence does it prevent? If the answer is 'none, all it does is make prosecution of a previous owner of the gun easier for the feds to accomplish', then I submit your solution is gak because it does not address the problem of gun violence and the prevention there of.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
whembly wrote:I national registry will never happen.
Why? Because the Feds will need the State's cooperation to enforce it.
Not really. There's this crazy thing called federal law enforcement officers, ever heard of them?
And the second a state, city, or county LEO tries to detain a federal officer for enforcing firearms regulations/laws--expect that state, city, or county LEO's career to be over.
Good luck in getting many of the states to do that.
Remove the federal subsidies many of those states rely on and see how fast they fall in line. Automatically Appended Next Post: CptJake wrote: skyth wrote:I don't see how a reporting requirement can exist without a registry.
Pretty easy.
New Law: You must report stolen weapons within 72 hours to your local sherif or police chief.
Someone wants to claim 'it was stolen last year' when a gun comes up in a crime and they get fined for failure to report. Not too hard.
Yeah...no. That's not a "fine" material. That's prison time. This isn't someone failing to file a police report on something like a camera or the like--this is a firearm.
Cops trace guns all the time without a national registry.
They really don't trace guns "all the time".
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
CptJake wrote: skyth wrote:I don't see how a reporting requirement can exist without a registry.
Pretty easy. New Law: You must report stolen weapons within 72 hours to your local sherif or police chief. Someone wants to claim 'it was stolen last year' when a gun comes up in a crime and they get fined for failure to report. Not too hard. Cops trace guns all the time without a national registry.
But if the gun gets used in a different state then isn't there the possibility that the information about it being stolen doesn't get passed along from the local police force to the one investigating in the other state? Also, it is a lot harder to collate and analyse data from hundreds of different sources to identify the patterns which will allow identification of repeated thefts of firearms that are later used illegally which could indicate that straw buying is occurring than it is to do it from one database.
34390
Post by: whembly
 Kanluwen wrote: whembly wrote:I national registry will never happen.
Why? Because the Feds will need the State's cooperation to enforce it.
Not really. There's this crazy thing called federal law enforcement officers, ever heard of them?
I've heard of them... Just not nearly enough of them.
And the second a state, city, or county LEO tries to detain a federal officer for enforcing firearms regulations/laws--expect that state, city, or county LEO's career to be over.
Good luck then!
Good luck in getting many of the states to do that.
Remove the federal subsidies many of those states rely on and see how fast they fall in line.
Then why the feth do we still have Sanctuary Cities?
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
CptJake wrote:
But I digress from the real point: What issue are you expecting this National Registry to fix? What type of gun violence does it prevent? If the answer is 'none, all it does is make prosecution of a previous owner of the gun easier for the feds to accomplish', then I submit your solution is gak because it does not address the problem of gun violence and the prevention there of.
If it will allow identification and prosecution of straw purchasers then it could cut down on the number of illegal firearms as the risk to reward ratio for the straw buyer increases.
4402
Post by: CptJake
The reality is creating and maintaining a national registry of all existing guns and all future guns would be expensive and difficult even if you had 100% cooperation of existing gun owners and local/state LEAs. Even if it were constitutional (and I doubt it would pass a SCOTUS review) the cost would far exceed any tangible benefit.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
Smacks wrote:Prestor Jon wrote: Smacks wrote:It's not, you caught a legitimately amusing example of people moving the goal post wherever it suits them. DC is trying to move them again now, it's not enough to just point out a double standard, now you need to win every conceivable argument against a gun registry and probably against gun control, or else you are "arguing dishonestly" (false dichotomy much?). It's actually kind of amusing given that DC's usual method of debate swings between spamming an overwhelming amount of incoherent "evidence" (which he never explains, or structures into any kind of logical statement), and pretending to be outraged.
We're not going to get a national gun registry because congress isn't going to legislate one into existence any time soon because nobody wants one. Every poll shows that gun control is a very low priority for the vast majority of voters and the tens of millions of law abiding gun owners in this country realize the they, not criminals, are the targets of proposed legislation. Even a cursory examination of a proposed registry is enough to see that it will have no impact on reducing crime or increasing safety. The only positive that has been mentioned and agreed upon in this thread is that a registry might help find lost or stolen guns. Every gun has a serial number and every manufacturer and licensed dealer is required to keep records. Reporting a gun lost or stolen requires listing the serial number and the authorities will use the serial number to identify the gun. A registry has no impact on that system.
My post was about AlmightyWalrus pointing to a double standard, and why that doesn't equate to arguing dishonestly. What was your post about? How is anything you wrote related to my post?
I only ask because there is a discussion at the moment about people labelling other people as "the other side", and then firing their preprepared arguments, slogans and rhetoric at them, whether it's relevant or not. Did you even read my post?
Prestor Jon wrote:there isn't an epidemic of lost/stolen guns or a major problem of not finding them.
I don't see how you can know that with any confidence, given that you are arguing against collecting data on where guns go. Are you denying that criminals obtain guns?
Criminals are known to obtain weapons through straw purchase and crooked dealers. People who knowingly supply criminals with weapons aught to be stopped (or at least prosecuted). Is this something you can agree with?
If a person is able to simply claim, after a crime, that a weapon used was lost or sold, without any record of the theft or sale, then there is absolutely no incentive for them to obey the law, and no recourse when they don't.
You remarked in your post about anti registry arguments that were posted in this thread so I rebutted.
A registry doesn't collect data on where guns go. We already know where guns go. Every gun manufactured has a serial number. Manufacturers track which guns go to which dealers via those serial numbers. Dealers track who buys which gun via serial numbers on the 4473 forms that must be filled out with every purchase from a dealer. Police track lost/stolen guns via serial numbers because without a serial number a gun owner can't file a lost/stolen gun report. When guns are recovered from crime scenes the serial numbers on the guns are run against the serial numbers in the lost/stolen database.
No registry is needed. No registry would change how the system works.
4402
Post by: CptJake
A Town Called Malus wrote: CptJake wrote:
But I digress from the real point: What issue are you expecting this National Registry to fix? What type of gun violence does it prevent? If the answer is 'none, all it does is make prosecution of a previous owner of the gun easier for the feds to accomplish', then I submit your solution is gak because it does not address the problem of gun violence and the prevention there of.
If it will allow identification and prosecution of straw purchasers then it could cut down on the number of illegal firearms as the risk to reward ratio for the straw buyer increases.
If wishes were horses beggars would ride. Again, cops currently trace guns without a national registry. What is gained by having one besides enormous cost?
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
A Town Called Malus wrote: CptJake wrote:
But I digress from the real point: What issue are you expecting this National Registry to fix? What type of gun violence does it prevent? If the answer is 'none, all it does is make prosecution of a previous owner of the gun easier for the feds to accomplish', then I submit your solution is gak because it does not address the problem of gun violence and the prevention there of.
If it will allow identification and prosecution of straw purchasers then it could cut down on the number of illegal firearms as the risk to reward ratio for the straw buyer increases.
A registry does nothing to stop straw purchases. Person A buys a gun, passes the background check, fills out the 4473 form at the dealer, leaves the store with a gun. Whether that purchase also gets recorded in a national registry doesn't matter, it's already been recorded by the dealer, there's a record of the NICS check, and a physical copy of the 4473 form. If Person A then gives the gun to Person B in a private transaction to complete a straw purchase there is no dealer involved, no NICS check done, no paper trail of the transaction. How does the government know that the transaction happened? It doesn't. There is no way to know that ownership of the gun was transferred. Unless the gun turns up at a crime scene the government is never going to interact with that gun at all. The only way to really prevent any straw purchases is to have a national registry AND do regular FREQUENT ownership checks on every gun owner in the US and account for every gun in civilian hands. That's multiple checks a year on tens of millions of gun owners to track hundreds of millions of guns and you'd have to get the law allowing frequent regular ownership checks past 4th amendment challenges in court in addition to getting all of the hundreds of millions of guns that are privately owned and unregistered to be voluntarily registered.
Straw purchases aren't even a big problem. To commit a straw purchase you have to buy a gun for somebody who isn't qualified to own one. The number of people who can't pass a NICS check or are otherwise unable to legally buy a gun is a small subset of the population. The majority of Americans can legally own guns and every gun sold by a licensed dealer is sold to a customer who passes a NICS check. There are more qualified buyers than unqualified buyers, all of the qualified buyers have a clean criminal record, why is it reasonable to assume that a significant portion of law abiding gun owners are buying guns for the minority of people in the US who are convicted criminals?
42342
Post by: Smacks
CptJake wrote:How does the existence of this registry prevent the straw purchaser from claiming the weapon was stolen or sold privately? Are you intending to couple this registry with universal background checks? That may stop the 'sold privately' portion, but not the 'it was stolen' portion' (which would probably go way up).
Pretty much as Malus said. If you sell the weapon, then you send back the form with the new owner's name and address to say that the gun has changed hands. We have a similar system here with cars, and it works quite well. Those names could then be cross referenced with other databases to flag known criminals etc... Someone could I suppose falsely report that a gun was stolen, but that isn't going to be something that people do idly. Especially if it means getting the police involved and potentially having an officer come around and interview you. That's gonna make a lot of people think twice about buying a gun on someone's behalf. It would also likely mean breaking a number of laws, for example: making a false statement, wasting police time etc... (I assume you have equivalent laws in most states). Even if someone did want to go to all that trouble, it's not something they could do more than once before it starts to look suspicious. CptJake wrote:Again, the question is, how does a national registry enable what you are after? You can levy a reporting requirement just fine without one.
Could you elaborate please? Who specifically would you suggest people might report to as an alternative? Prestor Jon wrote:Person A buys a gun, passes the background check, fills out the 4473 form at the dealer, leaves the store with a gun. Whether that purchase also gets recorded in a national registry doesn't matter, it's already been recorded by the dealer, there's a record of the NICS check, and a physical copy of the 4473 form. If Person A then gives the gun to Person B in a private transaction to complete a straw purchase there is no dealer involved, no NICS check done, no paper trail of the transaction. How does the government know that the transaction happened? It doesn't. There is no way to know that ownership of the gun was transferred. Unless the gun turns up at a crime scene the government is never going to interact with that gun at all.
The point is, if the gun does show up at a crime scene, the person who it is registered to would be held accountable. They could even be charged as an accessory. That will make people think twice about who they buy a gun for, and how much they want to risk not returning the forms when they have transferred ownership. If the gun never turns up at a crime scene, then that's good too, no one ever cares. why is it reasonable to assume that a significant portion of law abiding gun owners are buying guns for the minority of people in the US who are convicted criminals?
I guess because criminals keep showing up with guns. I have read that straw purchases and also crooked dealers (don't forget them) are the two easiest and most popular ways for criminals to obtain guns. Do you believe that is incorrect?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
You do understand that acting under color of law protects LEOs from arrest, right?
And that if a city, state, or county LEO unlawfully arrests a federal officer-- they can be arrested.
Good luck in getting many of the states to do that.
Remove the federal subsidies many of those states rely on and see how fast they fall in line.
Then why the feth do we still have Sanctuary Cities?
You understand that "Sanctuary Cities" don't prevent police from actually doing their jobs, right?
The only thing that cannot be done is ask the suspect/arrestee about their immigration status.
You really need to get an actual understanding of what a "Sanctuary City" is. It is a buzzwordy term used to describe a city that has ordinances that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws--notably by disallowing police officers or municipal employees to inquire about an individual's immigration status.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote:The reality is creating and maintaining a national registry of all existing guns and all future guns would be expensive and difficult even if you had 100% cooperation of existing gun owners and local/state LEAs. Even if it were constitutional (and I doubt it would pass a SCOTUS review) the cost would far exceed any tangible benefit.
Please elaborate upon what would be the constitutional violation of a national registry of firearms.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Kanluwen wrote:
CptJake wrote:The reality is creating and maintaining a national registry of all existing guns and all future guns would be expensive and difficult even if you had 100% cooperation of existing gun owners and local/state LEAs. Even if it were constitutional (and I doubt it would pass a SCOTUS review) the cost would far exceed any tangible benefit.
Please elaborate upon what would be the constitutional violation of a national registry of firearms.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
But, I also think that CptJake was referring to a potential that someone would want to amend the constitution to make firearm registries a part of said constitution, which has to go under judicial review prior to implementation.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Kanluwen wrote: CptJake wrote:The reality is creating and maintaining a national registry of all existing guns and all future guns would be expensive and difficult even if you had 100% cooperation of existing gun owners and local/state LEAs. Even if it were constitutional (and I doubt it would pass a SCOTUS review) the cost would far exceed any tangible benefit.
Please elaborate upon what would be the constitutional violation of a national registry of firearms.
It violates the 4th amendment. There is no other personal property the Federal Gov't tracks ownership of. It is a violation of privacy to force people to register private property with the federal gov't. Edit: To make participation in such a registry a prerequisite to practicing a constitutionally protected right is really bad.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Amendments are not subject to Judicial Review.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Indeed... I skimmed the article I was reading a bit fast.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
CptJake wrote: Kanluwen wrote:
CptJake wrote:The reality is creating and maintaining a national registry of all existing guns and all future guns would be expensive and difficult even if you had 100% cooperation of existing gun owners and local/state LEAs. Even if it were constitutional (and I doubt it would pass a SCOTUS review) the cost would far exceed any tangible benefit.
Please elaborate upon what would be the constitutional violation of a national registry of firearms.
There is no other personal property the Federal Gov't tracks ownership of.
Cars? Or is that at state level?
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
State and (sometimes) lower.
4402
Post by: CptJake
I don't have to register my vehicles at all, but when I do it is with the state.
You do have to register in most cases to drive on public roads. I've had a truck I owned for a couple of years that was purely for ranch use I never registered.
And again, I have no constitutionally protected right to own a vehicle.
And I can sell a vehicle and do not have to inform the state or county about it. Next year I just don't register it. Assumedly the new owner will register it, but frankly that is no concern of mine.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
 Ensis Ferrae wrote: Kanluwen wrote:
CptJake wrote:The reality is creating and maintaining a national registry of all existing guns and all future guns would be expensive and difficult even if you had 100% cooperation of existing gun owners and local/state LEAs. Even if it were constitutional (and I doubt it would pass a SCOTUS review) the cost would far exceed any tangible benefit.
Please elaborate upon what would be the constitutional violation of a national registry of firearms.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The burden of proof is on you to show how a national firearms registry is an "unreasonable search and seizure".
Requiring someone to have their firearm registered at the time of purchase is not an "unreasonable" burden. Automatically Appended Next Post: CptJake wrote: Kanluwen wrote:
CptJake wrote:The reality is creating and maintaining a national registry of all existing guns and all future guns would be expensive and difficult even if you had 100% cooperation of existing gun owners and local/state LEAs. Even if it were constitutional (and I doubt it would pass a SCOTUS review) the cost would far exceed any tangible benefit.
Please elaborate upon what would be the constitutional violation of a national registry of firearms.
It violates the 4th amendment. There is no other personal property the Federal Gov't tracks ownership of. It is a violation of privacy to force people to register private property with the federal gov't.
Edit: To make participation in such a registry a prerequisite to practicing a constitutionally protected right is really bad.
Boohoo. You have to register an item with the government. What an onerous burden!
Spoiler alert: It's not an onerous burden. By your logic, income tax is a "violation of privacy".
4402
Post by: CptJake
Kanluwen wrote: Ensis Ferrae wrote: Kanluwen wrote:
CptJake wrote:The reality is creating and maintaining a national registry of all existing guns and all future guns would be expensive and difficult even if you had 100% cooperation of existing gun owners and local/state LEAs. Even if it were constitutional (and I doubt it would pass a SCOTUS review) the cost would far exceed any tangible benefit.
Please elaborate upon what would be the constitutional violation of a national registry of firearms.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The burden of proof is on you to show how a national firearms registry is an "unreasonable search and seizure".
Requiring someone to have their firearm registered at the time of purchase is not an "unreasonable" burden.
Your view of the right to privacy is very skewed. The Gov't has to prove a need to violate. Again there is NO other property the Federal Gov't requires to be registered. When you add in that in the case of firearms you are making that registration a requirement to exercising the 2nd amendment protected right there is no way a court allows it to stand.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Kanluwen wrote:
The burden of proof is on you to show how a national firearms registry is an "unreasonable search and seizure".
Requiring someone to have their firearm registered at the time of purchase is not an "unreasonable" burden.
As it stands now, in order to search or seize your property, there must be probably cause, warrants and all that legal jargon going on, no?
If you follow that that is true, let's suppose for a moment that someone commits a murder in a public space and one of the few leads to go on is that the murder was carried out with a .40 caliber firearm.
Now, let's say you own a Glock .40 cal pistol.
What reason is there, that you should be getting your person/possessions/residence searched in this situation?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Kanluwen wrote:
The burden of proof is on you to show how a national firearms registry is an "unreasonable search and seizure".
Requiring someone to have their firearm registered at the time of purchase is not an "unreasonable" burden.
As it stands now, in order to search or seize your property, there must be probably cause, warrants and all that legal jargon going on, no?
Look up Terry Stops, exigent circumstances, yadda yadda yadda.
There are exceptions to the 4th Amendment that are upheld, just like there have been court cases protecting the 4th.
One notable thing is that, unlike the 2nd Amendment, the judges are actually keeping up with the times when it comes to the technology. Maryland v. King in 2013, for example, upheld the constitutionality of swabbing for DNA upon arrest, holding that it was something that could be considered noninvasive or unburdensome like taking fingerprints and mugshots.
If you follow that that is true, let's suppose for a moment that someone commits a murder in a public space and one of the few leads to go on is that the murder was carried out with a .40 caliber firearm.
Now, let's say you own a Glock .40 cal pistol.
Do you really think that they'd just look up who owns a Glock .40 caliber pistol?
Because there has been evidence thrown out by courts based upon similar circumstances utilizing motor vehicles registered via the DMV.
What reason is there, that you should be getting your person/possessions/residence searched in this situation?
Warrants are very narrow in scope when issued, and things outside of the scope of the warrant tend to be inadmissible unless certain circumstances would apply(Plain View/Open Fields doctrines for example). It's really not that hard to believe that there are protections which could apply with the existence of a national gun registry.
Additionally, the existence of a database is not the same as your person/possessions/residence being searched. They would have to acquire some kind of evidence implicating you to search your home or person.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Kanluwen wrote:
Do you really think that they'd just look up who owns a Glock .40 caliber pistol?
No, but they'd certainly search by caliber, and if you owned a Glock .40, guess what? you'd be there.
Warrants are very narrow in scope when issued, and things outside of the scope of the warrant tend to be inadmissible unless certain circumstances would apply(Plain View/Open Fields doctrines for example). It's really not that hard to believe that there are protections which could apply with the existence of a national gun registry.
Additionally, the existence of a database is not the same as your person/possessions/residence being searched. They would have to acquire some kind of evidence implicating you to search your home or person.
And again, if there's a national registry that you put your name to ownership of a firearm, and a law enforcement agency searches it, they now have "evidence" to implicate you: possession of a firearm potentially used in a crime.
You may think my example is fething stupid, but I believe it's already been mentioned that the NY concealed carry license that was put out in a newspaper had negative consequences, as well people who end up on the Sex Offender list end up being targeted as well because of the nature of such a list. I really don't think it's that hard to see these problems applying to law abiding firearm owners as well, if they were made to register.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Kanluwen wrote: Do you really think that they'd just look up who owns a Glock .40 caliber pistol?
No, but they'd certainly search by caliber, and if you owned a Glock .40, guess what? you'd be there.
And? They would cross reference that information with people who knew the victim or had motive to see if there were any hits. This gives them a quick route to identifying potential suspects and doesn't rely on the suspect telling the truth about whether or not they own a firearm. If you had no connection to the victim, beyond owning the same calibre gun as the murderer, then they won't come knocking unless there is other evidence putting you at the scene and if you did have a connection then they'd probably come to interview you anyway, even without there being a registry, and one of the questions which would be asked is "Do you own a .40 calibre firearm?"
67730
Post by: stanman
My objection to a federal registry is that the information is more likely to be misused. They've already had issues with the IRS auditing people based on their voter registry, or other party affiliations, the same could easily happen with any administration that decides to have a grudge against gun owners. Have a gun? Here's an audit for you.
This becomes especially problematic if you can't get yourself off said registry.
34390
Post by: whembly
 stanman wrote:My objection to a federal registry is that the information is more likely to be misused. They've already had issues with the IRS auditing people based on their voter registry, or other party affiliations, the same could easily happen with any administration that decides to have a grudge against gun owners. Have a gun? Here's an audit for you.
This becomes especially problematic if you can't get yourself off said registry.
It's not unheard of...
In Missouri, the Highway Patrol gave federal government list of CCW permit holders that violated current state laws.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
whembly wrote: stanman wrote:My objection to a federal registry is that the information is more likely to be misused. They've already had issues with the IRS auditing people based on their voter registry, or other party affiliations, the same could easily happen with any administration that decides to have a grudge against gun owners. Have a gun? Here's an audit for you.
This becomes especially problematic if you can't get yourself off said registry.
It's not unheard of...
In Missouri, the Highway Patrol gave federal government list of CCW permit holders that violated current state laws.
Gov. Jay Nixon’s administration maintains that the releases were legal and done to aid an investigation, but that has done little to calm Republicans’ concerns over what they see as a breach of privacy rights and potential evidence of intrusive gun tactics from the federal government.
Nothing in there was anything beyond a misdemeanor and it really only lines up with a Republican led whinefest. Automatically Appended Next Post: stanman wrote:My objection to a federal registry is that the information is more likely to be misused. They've already had issues with the IRS auditing people based on their voter registry, or other party affiliations, the same could easily happen with any administration that decides to have a grudge against gun owners. Have a gun? Here's an audit for you.
It wasn't PEOPLE being audited. It was political organizations that were breaking political contribution laws.
34390
Post by: whembly
Kanluwen wrote: whembly wrote: stanman wrote:My objection to a federal registry is that the information is more likely to be misused. They've already had issues with the IRS auditing people based on their voter registry, or other party affiliations, the same could easily happen with any administration that decides to have a grudge against gun owners. Have a gun? Here's an audit for you.
This becomes especially problematic if you can't get yourself off said registry.
It's not unheard of...
In Missouri, the Highway Patrol gave federal government list of CCW permit holders that violated current state laws.
Gov. Jay Nixon’s administration maintains that the releases were legal and done to aid an investigation, but that has done little to calm Republicans’ concerns over what they see as a breach of privacy rights and potential evidence of intrusive gun tactics from the federal government.
Nothing in there was anything beyond a misdemeanor and it really only lines up with a Republican led whinefest.
And you *just* labeled me as nothing but a partisan.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
stanman wrote:My objection to a federal registry is that the information is more likely to be misused. They've already had issues with the IRS auditing people based on their voter registry, or other party affiliations, the same could easily happen with any administration that decides to have a grudge against gun owners. Have a gun? Here's an audit for you.
It wasn't PEOPLE being audited. It was political organizations that were breaking political contribution laws.
Incorrect, there were numerous instances that the IRS tried to get named donors as well.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
whembly wrote: Kanluwen wrote: whembly wrote: stanman wrote:My objection to a federal registry is that the information is more likely to be misused. They've already had issues with the IRS auditing people based on their voter registry, or other party affiliations, the same could easily happen with any administration that decides to have a grudge against gun owners. Have a gun? Here's an audit for you.
This becomes especially problematic if you can't get yourself off said registry.
It's not unheard of...
In Missouri, the Highway Patrol gave federal government list of CCW permit holders that violated current state laws.
Gov. Jay Nixon’s administration maintains that the releases were legal and done to aid an investigation, but that has done little to calm Republicans’ concerns over what they see as a breach of privacy rights and potential evidence of intrusive gun tactics from the federal government.
Nothing in there was anything beyond a misdemeanor and it really only lines up with a Republican led whinefest.
And you *just* labeled me as nothing but a partisan.
Yup.
When you post trash articles that include statements like:
“I’m very concerned that this may be a back-door attempt to create the Eric Holder gun registry,” said House Speaker Tim Jones, R-Eureka, referring to the U.S. attorney general. “Missourians are very much opposed to this type of government overreach and intrusion.”
It goes to show that you don't actually read what you post links to. You seem to just find something that ostensibly supports your position and then fire it off into the ether, hoping for the best and someone to not call you out as the partisan hack you are.
By the by? There's a ton more juicy quotes that show that it was nothing but Republicans trying to play fearmongerer in spite of the party claims about wanting to eliminate misuse of government funds(the CCL registry was given over to a Social Security Administration agent who was conducting an investigation into disability fraud regarding mental illness claims) and the timeline of the article (April 11, 2013) lining up with the discussions post-Newtown.
stanman wrote:My objection to a federal registry is that the information is more likely to be misused. They've already had issues with the IRS auditing people based on their voter registry, or other party affiliations, the same could easily happen with any administration that decides to have a grudge against gun owners. Have a gun? Here's an audit for you.
It wasn't PEOPLE being audited. It was political organizations that were breaking political contribution laws.
Incorrect, there were numerous instances that the IRS tried to get named donors as well.
Yes, they were trying to get named donors from the political organizations that were being audited.
34390
Post by: whembly
Kanluwen wrote: whembly wrote: Kanluwen wrote: whembly wrote: stanman wrote:My objection to a federal registry is that the information is more likely to be misused. They've already had issues with the IRS auditing people based on their voter registry, or other party affiliations, the same could easily happen with any administration that decides to have a grudge against gun owners. Have a gun? Here's an audit for you.
This becomes especially problematic if you can't get yourself off said registry.
It's not unheard of...
In Missouri, the Highway Patrol gave federal government list of CCW permit holders that violated current state laws.
Gov. Jay Nixon’s administration maintains that the releases were legal and done to aid an investigation, but that has done little to calm Republicans’ concerns over what they see as a breach of privacy rights and potential evidence of intrusive gun tactics from the federal government.
Nothing in there was anything beyond a misdemeanor and it really only lines up with a Republican led whinefest.
And you *just* labeled me as nothing but a partisan.
Yup.
When you post trash articles that include statements like:
“I’m very concerned that this may be a back-door attempt to create the Eric Holder gun registry,” said House Speaker Tim Jones, R-Eureka, referring to the U.S. attorney general. “Missourians are very much opposed to this type of government overreach and intrusion.”
It goes to show that you don't actually read what you post links to. You seem to just find something that ostensibly supports your position and then fire it off into the ether, hoping for the best and someone to not call you out as the partisan hack you are.
By the by? There's a ton more juicy quotes that show that it was nothing but Republicans trying to play fearmongerer in spite of the party claims about wanting to eliminate misuse of government funds(the CCL registry was given over to a Social Security Administration agent who was conducting an investigation into disability fraud regarding mental illness claims) and the timeline of the article (April 11, 2013) lining up with the discussions post-Newtown.
Dude... I read it and live here. It was an absolute gak storm that Gov. Nixon (D) had to weasel his way around this issue.
It's one example of a registry being used for other purposes, against the law.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:
stanman wrote:My objection to a federal registry is that the information is more likely to be misused. They've already had issues with the IRS auditing people based on their voter registry, or other party affiliations, the same could easily happen with any administration that decides to have a grudge against gun owners. Have a gun? Here's an audit for you.
It wasn't PEOPLE being audited. It was political organizations that were breaking political contribution laws.
Incorrect, there were numerous instances that the IRS tried to get named donors as well.
Yes, they were trying to get named donors from the political organizations that were being audited.
National Organization for Marriage won a suit regarding the IRS improperly disclosing their donors...
67730
Post by: stanman
Once a list of any sort is established then it can easily become a political weapon regardless of party. All the privacy laws in the world won't mean squat if somebody wants to abuse their access to it and by the time that breach is addressed it's likely too late to repair the damage that the breach is likely to cause.
People on lists can be excluded from jobs or barred access to all sorts of aide or just about any government or private program simply because their name pops up on a list (which may or may not be accurate). Lists can be a devistatingly powerful tool should it be misused. It's happened many times before and it'll certainly continue to happen in the future.
One of the first efforts of fascist, dictatorships, and oppression usually begins with list building under the guise of "for the good of the people" I certainly don't think the US is there, but it's something we need to be vigilant in watching for because once the cat is out of the bag its very hard to change the course of action.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
whembly wrote:
Dude... I read it and live here. It was an absolute gak storm that Gov. Nixon (D) had to weasel his way around this issue.
You "living" somewhere isn't automatically going to mean you know everything about the situation.
At least that's the kind of trash you threw my way when I was discussing the voter ID laws in my state.
It's one example of a registry being used for other purposes, against the law.
Find me something other than a Concealed Carry Permit which requires some kind of psychological evaluation or competency test.
The whole point of the investigation was to look into claims of mental illness being fraudulently used as a disability claim for social security.
Which is not the same as the IRS investigating the donors because of the lists, now is it?
91290
Post by: Kap'n Krump
I might be misunderstanding your statement, but to my (limited) knowledge, CCPs don't require psych evals. At least the ones in Oklahoma and Colorado don't, because I went through the process for both. The only competency test was being able to hit a target from like 10 feet.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
 Kap'n Krump wrote:
I might be misunderstanding your statement, but to my (limited) knowledge, CCPs don't require psych evals. At least the ones in Oklahoma and Colorado don't, because I went through the process for both. The only competency test was being able to hit a target from like 10 feet.
You're right in that they don't require a psychological evaluation in the normal sense, but generally CCPs aren't issued to those with mental illnesses--would you agree or disagree?
91290
Post by: Kap'n Krump
I agree they shouldn't, and I certainly hope they aren't, and now that I think about it, there was a background check as part of the process.
I assume that mental illness history would be a red flag for the CCP issuance, but I honestly have no idea - I think it was more for checking for felonies.
Any rate, my point was only that there wasn't any active screening for mental illness (just checking against past records), least my in two states.
37231
Post by: d-usa
I know it doesn't really fit in the topic, but we are pretty far off the topic anyway and I didn't want to start another gun thread, so:
Oklahoma foster parents sue DHS over firearms policy
Two foster parents are suing the state Department of Human Services in Oklahoma City federal court over an agency rule they claim is unconstitutional because it prohibits foster and adoptive parents from legally possessing firearms for self-defense.
The married couple, Stephen and Krista Pursley, of Moore, state in the lawsuit that they "are prohibited by the OKDHS policy ... from possessing or carrying firearms in their vehicles or while their foster/adopted children are present."
The Pursleys, along with the Second Amendment Foundation, filed the lawsuit against DHS Director Ed Lake. The Pursleys belong to the foundation.
The Pursleys claim the rule violates the right to bear arms found in the Second Amendment and the equal protection provisions in the 14th Amendment. They also state in the suit that it violates the Oklahoma Constitution.
"The Plaintiffs only seek to be treated the same as other law-abiding Oklahoma residents," the lawsuit states.
"This mandate for foster parents is not just restrictive, it's ridiculous," said Alan M. Gottlieb, the foundation's founder and executive vice president. "Why should a foster parent be stripped of his or her right to self-defense, or ... ability to defend their foster child simply to appease some bureaucrat's anti-gun philosophy? ... How would it look for Oklahoma if foster children came to some harm because (DHS) regulations disarmed their foster parents?
"We're asking for an injunction against this requirement because it puts foster families at serious risk while denying parents their constitutional rights."
The lawsuit states that since early 2014, DHS has distributed a "Weapons Safety Agreement" form to prospective foster and adoptive parents that requires them to agree to keep their weapons in their homes in locked storage when not in use, to not carry their weapons if a child is present unless they are required by their employer to do so, and to keep any weapons in an automobile unloaded, disabled and stored in a locked container.
"Our agency policy does not prohibit gun ownership by foster parents," said Sheree Powell, the DHS communications director. "It does, however, require reasonable safety measures to protect the children in DHS care, many of whom come from traumatic and tragic circumstances.
"Agency leadership has, in fact, been diligently working in recent weeks to review and, if necessary, revise its foster care weapons policy in order to address the interests of foster parents who are appropriately permitted to possess firearms. Any revisions to agency policy, however, will always make the safety of children its first and foremost priority."
Powell said Friday that DHS has reviewed the lawsuit but has not been served.
The Pursleys have been and are foster parents to 34 children in Oklahoma. "They have adopted one of the foster children and are in the process of adopting a second foster child, plus having one other foster infant and a natural child in their home," the lawsuit notes.
Stephen Pursley is a graphic designer and Krista Pursley is an administrative assistant for the Moore school district.
Stephen Pursley has had a concealed carry permit for 15 years. The lawsuit states the couple "would possess and carry loaded and functional firearms for self-defense and defense of family, but refrain from doing so because they (are afraid of) their foster and adoptive children being taken away."
They allege the weapons agreement has no exceptions for foster parents with a concealed carry permit.
"It is completely unconstitutional and unfair that those persons who are providing a better life and environment for children through the State's DHS foster care and adoption process would have to give up the fundamental rights of self-defense and defense of family in order to do so," said Illinois attorney David G. Sigale, who is representing the parents and foundation.
"DHS's policy that severely restricts the firearm possession of these good people must be struck down," Sigale said.
The Second Amendment Foundation is a Washington state non-profit membership organization with more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide. The foundation promotes a better understanding about the Constitutional heritage to privately own and possess firearms, according to the organization's mission statement.
The foundation's website states it performs many educational and legal action programs designed to better inform the public about the gun control debate. The website shows numerous lawsuits filed nationwide over the years regarding gun rights.
The foundation also launched a media campaign last week against President Barack Obama's recent executive action on gun control. The foundation was founded in 1974.
The Second Amendment reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I don't know about the adoption part of this, but I don't think they are going to have much luck with the foster side of things.
You don't have any right to foster a child, and I think that the State of Oklahoma actually retains legal custody of children that are placed with foster families. So I would think that Oklahoma is able to make rules about where they will place children.
34390
Post by: whembly
Kanluwen wrote: whembly wrote: Dude... I read it and live here. It was an absolute gak storm that Gov. Nixon (D) had to weasel his way around this issue.
You "living" somewhere isn't automatically going to mean you know everything about the situation. At least that's the kind of trash you threw my way when I was discussing the voter ID laws in my state.
Oh, so it's tit for tat then? Is that how it's going to be from now on?
It's one example of a registry being used for other purposes, against the law.
Find me something other than a Concealed Carry Permit which requires some kind of psychological evaluation or competency test. The whole point of the investigation was to look into claims of mental illness being fraudulently used as a disability claim for social security.
I'm going to be brief: Its. Against. The. Law. Here. In. Missouri. To. Disclose. That. List. What you're arguing is essentially justifying "a means to an end". Which is not the same as the IRS investigating the donors because of the lists, now is it?
21720
Post by: LordofHats
d-usa wrote:
I don't know about the adoption part of this, but I don't think they are going to have much luck with the foster side of things.
You don't have any right to foster a child, and I think that the State of Oklahoma actually retains legal custody of children that are placed with foster families. So I would think that Oklahoma is able to make rules about where they will place children.
I think the state can set whatever standard they want for both scenarios honestly. It's about the kids, not the potential parents.
That said, I think telling potential parents "no kids for you if you have guns" is unreasonable. A more reasonable policy would be "no kids for you if you don't have locks on your guns and keep them where kids won't get to them easily." There's a reasonable standard that can be set here.
It is hilarious though to see a gun advocate say "What will happen if someone breaks into the house and there's no guns?! Think of the children!"
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
d-usa wrote:I don't know about the adoption part of this, but I don't think they are going to have much luck with the foster side of things.
You don't have any right to foster a child, and I think that the State of Oklahoma actually retains legal custody of children that are placed with foster families. So I would think that Oklahoma is able to make rules about where they will place children.
I think that while the state may retain custody, wouldn't the temporary guardianship grant certain levels of "custody" over the children placed in the home? I kind of agree with you that the rather temporary nature of foster care goes with what you're saying, but at the same time, I think that the family does have something of a case here.
Isn't Oklahoma the deepest, darkest shade of red imaginable? I would think that state of politics would lend things to favor the foster family's chances.
37231
Post by: d-usa
LordofHats wrote:
That said, I think telling potential parents "no kids for you if you have guns" is unreasonable. A more reasonable policy would be "no kids for you if you don't have locks on your guns and keep them where kids won't get to them easily." There's a reasonable standard that can be set here.
And it sounds like that is what they were doing:
"The lawsuit states that since early 2014, DHS has distributed a "Weapons Safety Agreement" form to prospective foster and adoptive parents that requires them to agree to keep their weapons in their homes in locked storage when not in use, to not carry their weapons if a child is present unless they are required by their employer to do so, and to keep any weapons in an automobile unloaded, disabled and stored in a locked container. "
34390
Post by: whembly
d-usa wrote: LordofHats wrote:
That said, I think telling potential parents "no kids for you if you have guns" is unreasonable. A more reasonable policy would be "no kids for you if you don't have locks on your guns and keep them where kids won't get to them easily." There's a reasonable standard that can be set here.
And it sounds like that is what they were doing:
"The lawsuit states that since early 2014, DHS has distributed a "Weapons Safety Agreement" form to prospective foster and adoptive parents that requires them to agree to keep their weapons in their homes in locked storage when not in use, to not carry their weapons if a child is present unless they are required by their employer to do so, and to keep any weapons in an automobile unloaded, disabled and stored in a locked container. "
You may not know this... but why is even the DHS involved in this?
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Why wouldn't the Department of Human Services be involved in foster kids? That's kind of what they do. EDIT: DHS isn't the federal agency. The Department of Health and Human Services is abbreviated as HHS, not DHS. DHS is usually used to refer to state level agencies.
Or is this just a sly joke about Daemonhunters
37231
Post by: d-usa
"Department of Human Services", so they are the folks in charge of removing kids and fostering them if needed.
34390
Post by: whembly
LordofHats wrote:Why wouldn't the Department of Human Services be involved in foster kids? That's kind of what they do. EDIT: DHS isn't the federal agency. The Department of Health and Human Services is abbreviated as HHS, not DHS.
Nevermind. Carry on... Automatically Appended Next Post: d-usa wrote:"Department of Human Services", so they are the folks in charge of removing kids and fostering them if needed.
Cool... I thought it was referring to Dept of Homeland Security. Seems like every state has it's own abbreviation nuances. I just didn't connect Dept of HUman services to DHS in the original article.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
Kap'n Krump wrote:I agree they shouldn't, and I certainly hope they aren't, and now that I think about it, there was a background check as part of the process.
I assume that mental illness history would be a red flag for the CCP issuance, but I honestly have no idea - I think it was more for checking for felonies.
Any rate, my point was only that there wasn't any active screening for mental illness (just checking against past records), least my in two states.
Reporting laws vary by state. Having some form of mental illness doesn't make a person a criminal and wouldn't necessarily be entered in the NICS system if the only people aware of the mental illness are the patient and medical professionals due to HIPAA. Stripping rights away from people as a condition for getting help doesn't help combat the stigmatization of mental health issues or improve mental health care. The bill of rights isn't limited to only covering "healthy" people. Automatically Appended Next Post: CptJake wrote: A Town Called Malus wrote: CptJake wrote:Why would you need a national registry to 'make it an offense to not report a theft or transfer'?
How does the existence of this registry prevent the straw purchaser from claiming the weapon was stolen or sold privately? Are you intending to couple this registry with universal background checks? That may stop the 'sold privately' portion, but not the 'it was stolen' portion' (which would probably go way up).
I'm honestly having trouble understanding how a national registry does anything you say it would, let alone actually prevent a single act of 'gun violence' from happening.
Well, if someone is very regularly reporting their weapons as being stolen and those same weapons keep ending up in the hands of criminals then it would allow you to identify a possible source of illegal firearms.
Again, the question is, how does a national registry enable what you are after?
You can levy a reporting requirement just fine without one.
A weapon ends up in the hands of a criminal every time a weapon is stolen due to the fact that stealing is a crime. There are already reporting laws in the books and the authorities have been successfully tracing lost and stolen guns for several decades thanks to the fact that all guns have serial numbers and all shipments from manufacturers and all sales by dealers are recorded. Are you under the impression that police can't trace guns because there's no national registry?
42342
Post by: Smacks
Prestor Jon wrote:the authorities have been successfully tracing lost and stolen guns for several decades thanks to the fact that all guns have serial numbers and all shipments from manufacturers and all sales by dealers are recorded. Are you under the impression that police can't trace guns because there's no national registry?
So lets say: Jane buys a gun as a present for her husband Rob. Rob doesn't like the gun, so he sells it to his friend Tim, who wants a gun for his wife Sue. Sue doesn't really like guns, so she gives it to her niece Kim, who works the night shift in a bad part of town. Kim ends up moving to Europe, and leaves the gun with her boyfriend Jason. Their relationship ends badly, and Jason sells the gun to his buddy Tony. Tony gets evicted, and the gun passes into the position of his dodgy landlord Larry. Larry gives the gun to Rizzo to sell, but Rizzo ends up giving it away to Omar (a gang member), to settle a debt. Omar loses the gun in a game of pool to Jaxx (another gang member), who gives the gun to his cousin H-Dogg (a convicted felon), who gives the gun to Mikey (a 15 year old kid). Mikey then uses the gun to knock over a liqueur store, killing the clerk, and is subsequently gunned down by police. Who do the police trace the gun back to? Jane? Who explains that it was sold to one of Rob's friends, sadly Rob has passed away so feth knows who it was... Even if they did find Tim, eventually the trail goes cold because none of the people in the chain were forced to take any responsibility for what happened next to the gun.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Smacks wrote:Prestor Jon wrote:the authorities have been successfully tracing lost and stolen guns for several decades thanks to the fact that all guns have serial numbers and all shipments from manufacturers and all sales by dealers are recorded. Are you under the impression that police can't trace guns because there's no national registry?
So lets say: Jane buys a gun as a present for her husband Rob. Rob doesn't like the gun so he sells it to his friend Tim who wants a gun for his wife Sue. Sue doesn't really like guns, so she gives it to her niece Kim who works the night shift in a bad part of town. Kim ends up moving to Europe, and leaves the gun with he boyfriend Jason. Their relationship ends badly and Jason sells the gun to his buddy Tony. Tony gets evicted and the gun passes into the position of his dodgy landlord Larry. Larry gives the gun to Rizzo to sell, but Rizzo ends up giving it away to Omar (a gang member) to settle a debt. Omar looses the gun in a game of pool to Jaxx, who gives the gun to his cousin H-Dogg, how gives the gun to Mikey. Mikey uses the gun to knock over a liqueur store, killing the clerk, and is subsequently gunned down by police. Who do the police trace the gun back to? Jane? Who explains that it was sold to one of Rob's friends, sadly Rob has passed away so feth knows who it was...
Even if they did find Tim, eventually the trail goes cold because none of the people in the chain were forced to take any responsibility for what happened next to the gun.
This sounds like the plot to an NRA sponsored children's film called "The Brave Little Pistol." It's all about a Glock that just wants to get back home
42342
Post by: Smacks
LordofHats wrote:This sounds like the plot to an NRA sponsored children's film called "The Brave Little Pistol." It's all about a Glock that just wants to get back home
That's not a bad idea, maybe I should pitch it to them...
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Smacks wrote:Prestor Jon wrote:the authorities have been successfully tracing lost and stolen guns for several decades thanks to the fact that all guns have serial numbers and all shipments from manufacturers and all sales by dealers are recorded. Are you under the impression that police can't trace guns because there's no national registry?
So lets say: Jane buys a gun as a present for her husband Rob. Rob doesn't like the gun, so he sells it to his friend Tim, who wants a gun for his wife Sue. Sue doesn't really like guns, so she gives it to her niece Kim, who works the night shift in a bad part of town. Kim ends up moving to Europe, and leaves the gun with her boyfriend Jason. Their relationship ends badly, and Jason sells the gun to his buddy Tony. Tony gets evicted, and the gun passes into the position of his dodgy landlord Larry. Larry gives the gun to Rizzo to sell, but Rizzo ends up giving it away to Omar (a gang member), to settle a debt. Omar loses the gun in a game of pool to Jaxx (another gang member), who gives the gun to his cousin H-Dogg (a convicted felon), who gives the gun to Mikey (a 15 year old kid). Mikey then uses the gun to knock over a liqueur store, killing the clerk, and is subsequently gunned down by police. Who do the police trace the gun back to? Jane? Who explains that it was sold to one of Rob's friends, sadly Rob has passed away so feth knows who it was...
Even if they did find Tim, eventually the trail goes cold because none of the people in the chain were forced to take any responsibility for what happened next to the gun.
Given the registries that exist already for certain items and in certain places (e.g. assault weapons in CA & NY, NFA items on a Federal Level), I would posit that they couldn't follow a chain as complex as yours even *with* the registry.
There are gun registries in the US, the number of crimes they help solve is practically nonexistent.
42342
Post by: Smacks
 Vaktathi wrote:Given the registries that exist already for certain items and in certain places (e.g. assault weapons in CA & NY, NFA items on a Federal Level), I would posit that they couldn't follow a chain as complex as yours even *with* the registry.
The point is, they wouldn't need to. If the people involved were criminally liable for for the gun then the chain would be unlikely to get so complex in the first place. Tim and Sue and Kim, should have been aware that there was an issue with the gun when she moved to Europe. Had they reported it lost/stolen then it would probably have been recovered. Or if ownership were transferred to Jason, then Tony it should also have reported it lost/stolen, or transferred it to Larry. Larry is a shady character, but he isn't stupid enough to give a gun with his name on it to a fethup like Rizzo. And if he did, he would have reported it stolen right away when it went missing. Police would have then been able to speak to Rizzo, and possibly Omar and recover the gun yet again. (they're probably looking for something to bust Omar on anyway). EDIT: Also I might posit that the chain isn't that complex. How long does a gun last? Maybe 100 years? It could easily change hands ~10 times over a century, that might not be unusual.
121
Post by: Relapse
LordofHats wrote: Smacks wrote:Prestor Jon wrote:the authorities have been successfully tracing lost and stolen guns for several decades thanks to the fact that all guns have serial numbers and all shipments from manufacturers and all sales by dealers are recorded. Are you under the impression that police can't trace guns because there's no national registry?
So lets say: Jane buys a gun as a present for her husband Rob. Rob doesn't like the gun so he sells it to his friend Tim who wants a gun for his wife Sue. Sue doesn't really like guns, so she gives it to her niece Kim who works the night shift in a bad part of town. Kim ends up moving to Europe, and leaves the gun with he boyfriend Jason. Their relationship ends badly and Jason sells the gun to his buddy Tony. Tony gets evicted and the gun passes into the position of his dodgy landlord Larry. Larry gives the gun to Rizzo to sell, but Rizzo ends up giving it away to Omar (a gang member) to settle a debt. Omar looses the gun in a game of pool to Jaxx, who gives the gun to his cousin H-Dogg, how gives the gun to Mikey. Mikey uses the gun to knock over a liqueur store, killing the clerk, and is subsequently gunned down by police. Who do the police trace the gun back to? Jane? Who explains that it was sold to one of Rob's friends, sadly Rob has passed away so feth knows who it was...
Even if they did find Tim, eventually the trail goes cold because none of the people in the chain were forced to take any responsibility for what happened next to the gun.
This sounds like the plot to an NRA sponsored children's film called "The Brave Little Pistol." It's all about a Glock that just wants to get back home
There was actually an old movie called "The Gun", if I remember correctly, a long time ago that traced a gun from it's manufacture through a series of owners to when a kid accidently shot himself with it at the end.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Smacks wrote: Vaktathi wrote:Given the registries that exist already for certain items and in certain places (e.g. assault weapons in CA & NY, NFA items on a Federal Level), I would posit that they couldn't follow a chain as complex as yours even *with* the registry.
The point is, they wouldn't need to. If the people involved were criminally liable for for the gun then the chain would be unlikely to get so complex in the first place.
Why should I be held responsible for a crime I didn't commit?
If I sell knives, should I be held responsible if a dude buys one of my knives and murders someone with it? Of course not. Why should it be true for guns? Or indeed any other potentially harmful object.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Grey Templar wrote: Smacks wrote: Vaktathi wrote:Given the registries that exist already for certain items and in certain places (e.g. assault weapons in CA & NY, NFA items on a Federal Level), I would posit that they couldn't follow a chain as complex as yours even *with* the registry.
The point is, they wouldn't need to. If the people involved were criminally liable for for the gun then the chain would be unlikely to get so complex in the first place.
Why should I be held responsible for a crime I didn't commit?
If I sell knives, should I be held responsible if a dude buys one of my knives and murders someone with it? Of course not. Why should it be true for guns? Or indeed any other potentially harmful object.
By Smacks "logic" bartenders should be forced to pay the same DUI fine as a drunk driver... Or, perhaps it's the auto dealership who sold the car's responsibility?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Grey Templar wrote: Smacks wrote: Vaktathi wrote:Given the registries that exist already for certain items and in certain places (e.g. assault weapons in CA & NY, NFA items on a Federal Level), I would posit that they couldn't follow a chain as complex as yours even *with* the registry.
The point is, they wouldn't need to. If the people involved were criminally liable for for the gun then the chain would be unlikely to get so complex in the first place.
Why should I be held responsible for a crime I didn't commit?
If I sell knives, should I be held responsible if a dude buys one of my knives and murders someone with it? Of course not. Why should it be true for guns? Or indeed any other potentially harmful object.
By Smacks "logic" bartenders should be forced to pay the same DUI fine as a drunk driver... Or, perhaps it's the auto dealership who sold the car's responsibility?
It would be both of course.
42342
Post by: Smacks
Lots of people are responsible for crimes they don't personally commit. If I pay someone to kill my wife, saying "waaah why am I responsible" wouldn't get me very far. If you sell a knife to a child and something terrible happens, would you also claim you weren't responsible? If you don't want to be responsible for what other people do with the gun, then all you have to do is send the form back and say that you aren't responsible for the gun any more, and provide the name of the person who is. Then it's not your problem any more.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Smacks wrote:If I pay someone to kill my wife, saying "waaah why am I responsible" wouldn't get me very far.
That's true, but it's true because you've engaged in a criminal conspiracy.
If I sell someone my old weedwhacker and they use it to kill their neighbor, I'm not liable unless they told me, at or before the time of sale, "I'm going to use this weedwhacker I'm buying from you to kill my neighbor."
Selling someone a gun is not a de facto participation in a criminal conspiracy.
42342
Post by: Smacks
Ensis Ferrae wrote:By Smacks "logic" bartenders should be forced to pay the same DUI fine as a drunk driver... Or, perhaps it's the auto dealership who sold the car's responsibility?
That's funny, I posted something similar in a thread a few days ago... Well done for not understanding my post, while also being a sad predictable cliché. Seaward wrote:If I sell someone my old weedwhacker and they use it to kill their neighbor, I'm not liable unless they told me, at or before the time of sale, "I'm going to use this weedwhacker I'm buying from you to kill my neighbor." Selling someone a gun is not a de facto participation in a criminal conspiracy.
The crime is not selling the gun, the crime is failing to notify the registry. Grey Templar wrote:If I sell knives, should I be held responsible if a dude buys one of my knives and murders someone with it? Of course not. Why should it be true for guns? Or indeed any other potentially harmful object.
Your argument hinges on conflating all "harmful objects". Would you also argue that nuclear warheads shouldn't be tracked? Hopefully not, because they are completely different to knives a weedwackers. A gun is not a knife, it is its own thing with its own unique talking points. Saying it is a knife, or the same as a knife is a fallacy. If you really think they are the same, then just use knives for self defence and stop complaining about gun control. Problem solved.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Smacks wrote: Vaktathi wrote:Given the registries that exist already for certain items and in certain places (e.g. assault weapons in CA & NY, NFA items on a Federal Level), I would posit that they couldn't follow a chain as complex as yours even *with* the registry.
The point is, they wouldn't need to. If the people involved were criminally liable for for the gun then the chain would be unlikely to get so complex in the first place. Tim and Sue and Kim, should have been aware that there was an issue with the gun when she moved to Europe. Had they reported it lost/stolen then it would probably have been recovered.
Where is the basis for the expectation of recovery from? Guns *are* frequently reported stolen, but only ever rarely recovered, (and even more rarely are they recovered quickly).
Or if ownership were transferred to Jason, then Tony it should also have reported it lost/stolen
It sounds like it would be abandoned, not lost or stolen in this case. If he got evicted and didn't retrieve a firearm, it would appear he didn't care to, and if Larry just kept it, then you'd think he'd already have incentive to report it stolen between wanting it back and wanting to get back at the landlord,
Larry is a shady character, but he isn't stupid enough to give a gun with his name on it to a fethup like Rizzo.
Larry was dumb enough to rent to Tony and then to take an abandoned/stolen handgun already, how much faith are we putting in this guy?
And if he did, he would have reported it stolen right away when it went missing.
Which he can do now, I mean, it's still possible the that the gun could be traced to him and have incentive to report it. Especially if he wanted to distance himself from the guy he gave it to.
Police would have then been able to speak to Rizzo
Speak with or have probably cause to search and actually recover the firearm?
EDIT: Also I might posit that the chain isn't that complex. How long does a gun last? Maybe 100 years? It could easily change hands ~10 times over a century, that might not be unusual.
Entirely true,however, existing systems have proven repeatedly incapable of adequately tracking such things. To reference an earlier post of mine, my father had to register guns for the CA assault weapon ban, he did, but even more than a decade after selling them he could never get off the list (and thus the list never knew the guns had properly changed hands). The ATF has been somewhat notorious in its poor NFA record keeping. No existing system has proven successful at any such tracking.
42342
Post by: Smacks
Vaktathi wrote:Where is the basis for the expectation of recovery from? Guns *are* frequently reported stolen, but only ever rarely recovered, (and even more rarely are they recovered quickly).
In both cases (Kim vs Jason, and Tony vs Larry). The gun would have been easy to recover because everyone knew where it was. In my story the owners don't make a fuss over the gun because they are on bad terms with the person who has it. Kim is away in Europe, Tony owes Larry money etc... So they just shrug and cut their losses. If it was actually registered to them, and they could be penalized for not taking care of it properly, then they might have been more responsible, and keen to disassociate themselves from it.
Vaktathi wrote:Police would have then been able to speak to Rizzo
Speak with or have probable cause to search and actually recover the firearm?
Well Rizzo stole the gun in the more traditional sense. If Tony or Larry reported the gun missing then it would lead straight to him, and then I guess the police would have probable cause (that would be true regardless of the registry). The trick is encouraging people to report when a gun is no longer in their possession, by making it about more than just the price of a gun.
It's like driving without insurance, it's not just about the money, you can actually lose your licence and stuff. It encourages the vast majority of people keep their insurance up to date.
EDIT: Also I might posit that the chain isn't that complex. How long does a gun last? Maybe 100 years? It could easily change hands ~10 times over a century, that might not be unusual.
Entirely true,however, existing systems have proven repeatedly incapable of adequately tracking such things. To reference an earlier post of mine, my father had to register guns for the CA assault weapon ban, he did, but even more than a decade after selling them he could never get off the list (and thus the list never knew the guns had properly changed hands). The ATF has been somewhat notorious in its poor NFA record keeping. No existing system has proven successful at any such tracking.
Well that is indeed unfortunate and annoying. Of course a system that is implemented poorly, and doesn't function how it is supposed to, is not something I support. OTOH the vehicle registration system in the UK works very well, and can be used to identify drivers who are not insured and such. Much more impressive organisational systems have been implanted for businesses and logistics, so I don't think implementation is a serious argument against it, though I agree it's a legitimate concern.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Smacks wrote:Seaward wrote:If I sell someone my old weedwhacker and they use it to kill their neighbor, I'm not liable unless they told me, at or before the time of sale, "I'm going to use this weedwhacker I'm buying from you to kill my neighbor."
Selling someone a gun is not a de facto participation in a criminal conspiracy.
The crime is not selling the gun, the crime is failing to notify the registry.
There is no registry, and the argument you just made is one of many reasons there never will be one.
42342
Post by: Smacks
Seaward wrote:The crime is not selling the gun, the crime is failing to notify the registry.
There is no registry
You replied to me, and I was talking about how a hypothetical registry would work. Please try to pay attention. the argument you just made is one of many reasons there never will be one.
You mean the argument that registering weapons will help to prevent straw purchasing, detect black market sellers, and encourage people to report when someone else (of unknown character) might be using their firearm? They are all good reasons to support a registry, and would have virtually no impact on law abiding gun owners. What are the arguments against? "Smacks is a stupid, and 'ridiculous DUI analogy' again", "guns are basically knives, except in situations where I don't want to use knives, then they are guns", That's all pretty damning stuff I agree. The reason there would likely never be a registry (if that really is the case), is because there is a certain portion of society that will oppose any and all legislation on guns because they are paranoid that it is a slippery slope towards their guns being taken away. Even if that means blocking legislation that would save lives, and doesn't actually inconvenience them at all.
40024
Post by: SOFDC
You mean the argument that registering weapons will help to prevent straw purchasing, detect black market sellers, and encourage people to report when someone else (of unknown character) might be using their firearm? They are all good reason to support a registry, and would have virtually no impact on law abiding gun owners.
Which is totally why Canada scrapped theirs. And why the shining beacon of California is so effective at the above. (HA!)
The only people these foolish attempts effect ARE the people trying to follow the rules.
The reason there would likely never be a registry (if that really is the case), is because there is a certain portion of society that will oppose any and all legislation on guns because they are paranoid that it is a slippery slope towards their guns being taken away.
I can only hope. It's not like the pro-control side of the country hasn't stuffed their foot in their mouth enough times to give that idea some credence.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Smacks wrote:You replied to me, and I was talking about how a hypothetical registry would work. Please try to pay attention.
Yes, and I'm explaining why it wouldn't work, and why it wouldn't be enacted in the first place.
You mean the argument that registering weapons will help to prevent straw purchasing, detect black market sellers, and encourage people to report when someone else (of unknown character) might be using their firearm? They are all good reason to support a registry, and would have virtually no impact on law abiding gun owners.
The reason there would likely never be a registry (if that really is the case), is because there is a certain portion of society that will oppose any and all legislation on guns because they are paranoid that it is a slippery slope towards their guns being taken away. Even if that means blocking legislation that would save lives, and doesn't actually inconvenience them at all.
The main reasons there would never be a registry are that there is no support for one, and that there is already a law in place banning the establishment of one. Another really good reason is due to the inevitable overreach that would occur with one in place. California's a great example.
As far as blocking legislation that "would save lives" or "not inconvenience them at all" goes...people say this, and have yet to name one such law. Nor do those people seem to have much experience with American bureaucracy even when it's not being deliberately malicious. If it's anything like registering a car, there's going to be plenty of inconvenience.
And certain states and localities would make sure to be incredibly malicious with a law like you're proposing. I, for example, live in a "shall issue" concealed carry permit state, meaning cities and counties within the state, by law, have to issue a concealed carry permit to anyone who applies for one and is qualified. I live in a very liberal city within the state. This city ensures it makes it as annoying and time-consuming as possible to get through the red tape. The clerk's office only accepts the applications at limited, inconvenient hours. The police only do the required fingerprinting at limited, inconvenient hours. State law requires that they send the permit within 90 days of receiving the application; I do not know anyone in the area who has a permit, myself included, who did not have their actual license issued around the 10th day but not postmarked until the 90th.
My city is legally obligated to issue CCW permits to qualified individuals when they apply, yet manages to make it clear that if such a law didn't exist, they'd never issue a single one. I shudder to imagine how much time I would have to spend in an even worse version of the DMV if a gun registry went into effect in this town.
42342
Post by: Smacks
Seaward wrote:The main reasons there would never be a registry are that there is no support for one
From what I can see, about half of Americans do actually support some form of gun control, and most of the opposition to gun control is that legislation won't target criminals. Having a registry that keeps track of weapons, and thus helps to prevent them drifting onto the black market, seems like a good compromise. It's one of those things that I was actually shocked you didn't already have. It's no wonder you guys have problems with gun violence, you don't seem to want to take any precautions at all. My city is legally obligated to issue CCW permits to qualified individuals when they apply, yet manages to make it clear that if such a law didn't exist, they'd never issue a single one. I shudder to imagine how much time I would have to spend in an even worse version of the DMV if a gun registry went into effect in this town.
Since you already have the background checks when you buy a gun, I don't see why it would even come up unless you sold the gun. It's not like you need to keep renewing it. If you sold the gun then the only thing you'd need to do is post the forms back. Or it could even be done online. I agree that bureaucracies might be the fatally weak link in actually implementing it, but that doesn't mean it is an inherently bad idea in theory. Canada had some problems with poor implementation and cost overruns, but the reason Canada scrapped it was because the conservatives always wanted to scrap it from day 1, and they finally got their way. It doesn't really say anything about the effectiveness of a working system. A CAFC survey found that 74% of general duty police officers found it beneficial. Also you have to remember that Canada has a big problem with guns being smuggled in from the US, so it's a bit unfair to dig at their system for failing, when sharing a border with your system contributed to their problems.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Smacks wrote:From what I can see, about half of Americans do actually support some form of gun control, and most of the opposition to gun control is that legislation won't target criminals.
That's an incredibly broad claim to make without providing any support for it at all.
Having a registry that keeps track of weapons, and thus helps to prevent them drifting onto the black market seems like a good compromise. It's one of those things that I was actually shocked you didn't already have. It's no wonder you guys have problems with gun violence, you don't seem to want to take any precautions at all.
We take plenty of precautions, which is probably why gun violence is on the decline.
I agree that bureaucracies with be the fatally weak link in actually implementing it, but that doesn't mean it is an inherently bad idea in theory.
Isn't that the argument I always hear in favor of communism? The theory isn't the problem, it's the implementation?
How about we deal with how such laws would actually be used rather than how they theoretically might play out in a perfect world? Hell, there's nothing theoretically wrong with "may issue" permit laws compared to "shall issue" ones, but in reality "may issue" means "won't issue."
42342
Post by: Smacks
Seaward wrote: Smacks wrote:From what I can see, about half of Americans do actually support some form of gun control, and most of the opposition to gun control is that legislation won't target criminals.
That's an incredibly broad claim to make without providing any support for it at all.
You mean ~half of Americans supporting some form of gun control? That is fairly common knowledge, I didn't think a source was required, but one won't be hard to find. Most opinion polls I have seen look something like this, (which is just the first one I found, I didn't cherry pick it). As for opposition to gun control being about legislation not targeting criminals. It's a commonly spouted argument, it has come up repeatedly in every gun control topic, and has even been used within the last few posts I.e. "The only people these foolish attempts effect ARE the people trying to follow the rules." We take plenty of precautions
Relative to other developed countries, you don't., you are probably the most liberal about guns. which is probably why gun violence is on the decline.
Well now who is making broad claims without providing any support for it at all? Crime has been on the decline in Europe too, might be more to do with a shifting population. I agree that bureaucracies with be the fatally weak link in actually implementing it, but that doesn't mean it is an inherently bad idea in theory.
Isn't that the argument I always hear in favor of communism? The theory isn't the problem, it's the implementation? How about we deal with how such laws would actually be used rather than how they theoretically might play out in a perfect world? Hell, there's nothing theoretically wrong with "may issue" permit laws compared to "shall issue" ones, but in reality "may issue" means "won't issue."
Claiming that something might not be implemented properly, can be used to shoot down any idea. We wouldn't have a civilization at all if people just refused to try anything on the basis that we're probably too incompetent. It isn't only possible in a "perfect world". It's very possible in this one. Most voter registration systems have a similar level of complexity and they run all the time all over the world. Hell, from what I hear the NRA already have a pretty banging database of people who own guns.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Smacks wrote:[You mean ~half of Americans supporting some form of gun control?
That half of all Americans support gun control, and that opposition to gun control is largely based on the notion that proposals don't target criminals.
That is fairly common knowledge, I didn't think a source was required, but one won't be hard to find. Most opinion polls I have seen look something like this, (which is just the first one I found, I didn't cherry pick it). As for opposition to gun control being about legislation not targeting criminals. It's a commonly spouted argument, it has come up repeatedly in every gun control topic, and has even been used within the last few posts I.e. "The only people these foolish attempts effect ARE the people trying to follow the rules."
A lot of self-selection biased polls will look like that, yes. What's relevant is that the devil is in the details - for instance, you wouldn't use that poll to prove that people support background checks (a form of gun control), because the percentage of people who do is actually much higher. You also wouldn't use it to demonstrate that people support banning handguns (another form of gun control), because the percentage of people who want to do that is much lower. Claiming that half of Americans support gun control, therefore there would be support for a national gun registry? No good. No evidence.
Well now who is making broad claims without providing any support for it at all? Crime has been on the decline in Europe too, might be more to do with a shifting population.
To use something someone recently said...the fact that gun violence is massively down in the US is fairly common knowledge. I didn't think a source was required, but one won't be hard to find. Most gun violence articles I have seen look something like this.
Claiming that something might not be implemented properly, can be used to shoot down any idea. We wouldn't have a civilization at all if people just refused to try anything on the basis that we're probably too incompetent. It isn't only possible in a "perfect world". It's very possible in this one. Most voter registration systems have a similar level of complexity and they run all the time all over the world. Hell, from what I hear the NRA already had a pretty banging database of people who have guns.
But we're not claiming that something might not be implemented properly. We're saying it will be, because there's ample evidence that this is true in anti-gun localities. Also, I'm not sure if you were intending to be ironic in bringing up voter registration as an example of well-implemented government bureaucracy that has never been used to strip individuals of their rights, but if not... wow.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Prestor Jon wrote:
CptJake wrote: CptJake wrote:Why would you need a national registry to 'make it an offense to not report a theft or transfer'?
How does the existence of this registry prevent the straw purchaser from claiming the weapon was stolen or sold privately? Are you intending to couple this registry with universal background checks? That may stop the 'sold privately' portion, but not the 'it was stolen' portion' (which would probably go way up).
I'm honestly having trouble understanding how a national registry does anything you say it would, let alone actually prevent a single act of 'gun violence' from happening.
Again, the question is, how does a national registry enable what you are after?
You can levy a reporting requirement just fine without one.
A weapon ends up in the hands of a criminal every time a weapon is stolen due to the fact that stealing is a crime. There are already reporting laws in the books and the authorities have been successfully tracing lost and stolen guns for several decades thanks to the fact that all guns have serial numbers and all shipments from manufacturers and all sales by dealers are recorded. Are you under the impression that police can't trace guns because there's no national registry?
If you look at my other posts in this topic you would see I state a few times 'police already trace guns used in crimes'.
42342
Post by: Smacks
Seaward wrote:A lot of self-selection biased polls will look like that, yes. What's relevant is that the devil is in the details - for instance, you wouldn't use that poll to prove that people support background checks (a form of gun control), because the percentage of people who do is actually much higher. You also wouldn't use it to demonstrate that people support banning handguns (another form of gun control), because the percentage of people who want to do that is much lower. Claiming that half of Americans support gun control, therefore there would be support for a national gun registry? No good. No evidence.
I was really only speaking in general terms because what you said was unconvincing. There is support for gun control, therefore it is not inconceivable to me that there would be support for a registry if it aimed to reduce gun crime. You were the one who said that there is no support. You didn't provide any evidence for your statement either. To use something someone recently said...the fact that gun violence is massively down in the US is fairly common knowledge. I didn't think a source was required, but one won't be hard to find. Most gun violence articles I have seen look something like this.
The difference being, I linked to a poll that corroborated what I said. You have linked to an article that refutes what you said, and attributes falling violence to things like the economy, and not really any of the precautions you are claiming that you take through gun legislation. But we're not claiming that something might not be implemented properly. We're saying it will be, because there's ample evidence that this is true in anti-gun localities.
Well that's fine, I am perfectly willing to accept that your government is too incompetent to implement my suggestion.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Smacks wrote:I was really only speaking in general terms because what you said was unconvincing. There is support for gun control, therefore it is not inconceivable to me that there would be support for a registry if it aimed to reduce gun crime. You were the one who said that there is no support. You didn't provide any evidence for your statement either.
Probably because I'm not the one claiming there's widespread support for a gun registry.
The difference being, I linked to a poll that corroborated what I said. You have linked to an article that refutes what you said, and attributes falling violence to things like the economy, and not really any of the precautions you are claiming that you take through gun legislation.
You said we don't take precautions. I said we do. I said gun violence is falling. You asked for evidence. I provided evidence. Gun violence is way, way down. It gets even lower if you filter by certain socioeconomic data that makes people really uncomfortable. To claim that we have a growing problem when the opposite is in fact that case takes a special kind of thinking.
Well that's fine, I am perfectly willing to accept that your government is too incompetent to implement my suggestion.
It's incompetent and malicious in equal parts, actually. And I'm perfectly willing to accept it, too, which is why I'm not the one trying to put it in charge of everything.
42342
Post by: Smacks
Seaward wrote: Smacks wrote:I was really only speaking in general terms because what you said was unconvincing. There is support for gun control, therefore it is not inconceivable to me that there would be support for a registry if it aimed to reduce gun crime. You were the one who said that there is no support. You didn't provide any evidence for your statement either.
Probably because I'm not the one claiming there's widespread support for a gun registry.
No, you claimed there is no support for a gun registry, which is exactly the same kind of claim (and you claimed it first). I actually never claimed there was wide spread support for a registry, I only claimed that there was some support for gun control. Because of that I think your claim is highly dubious. Feel free to back it up though. I said gun violence is falling. You asked for evidence. I provided evidence. Gun violence is way, way down.
I am fully aware violent crime is down. What I asked you to provide evidence for it your claim that it is "probably" falling because of the precautions you are taking with firearms. And that statement isn't supported by the article that you linked. In fact, the article suggests other factors are responsible.
33125
Post by: Seaward
 Smacks wrote:No, you claimed there is no support for a gun registry, which is exactly the same kind of claim (and you claimed it first). I actually never claimed there was wide spread support for a registry, I only claimed that there was some support for gun control.
And you're correct in that (and only that), as long as we define "gun control" as "universal background checks." Beyond that, broad consensus ends.
I am fully aware violent crime is down. What I asked you to provide evidence for it your claim that it is "probably" falling because of the precautions you are taking with firearms. And that statement isn't supported by the article that you linked. In fact, the article suggests other factors are responsible.
Factors like more police officers on the beat and making use of modern methods of using comparative statistics to target and fight crime. I said that we take enough precautions when it comes to guns. The gun crime rate in this country is falling as we've loosened (not tightened) gun laws. Not all precautions are going to be European-style bans or even direct gun legislation. I'm fine with that.
Because gun crime is down. The epidemic people are lighting their hair on fire over doesn't exist.
42342
Post by: Smacks
Seaward wrote:Smacks wrote:No, you claimed there is no support for a gun registry, which is exactly the same kind of claim (and you claimed it first). I actually never claimed there was wide spread support for a registry, I only claimed that there was some support for gun control.
And you're correct in that (and only that), as long as we define "gun control" as "universal background checks." Beyond that, broad consensus ends.
Gallup has been conducting polls on the subject since the 1950s, and the most recent one has 26% of Americans in favour of a complete handgun ban. That is quite an extreme position, held by quite a significant number of people (one quarter). We could, if we like, label that quarter "hardliners" It occurs to me that hardliners will very very likely be in favour of any and all gun control, because that's what they are like. There might be some oddballs who don't fit that pattern, but generally it makes sense. So my "guess" would be that at least 25% of Americans would be in favour of registration, especially when there would likely be some support for the idea from non-hardliners. So my hunch is that your claim: "there is no support for a gun registry", is likely wrong. As 25%+ support would be quite significant., and that's a conservative estimate. But why leave it to guesses and hunches, when you can google it? According to this Economist/yougov poll 64% of Americans would be in favour of a "mandatory national gun registry", including 43% of gun owners. I probably don't need to tell you that this makes me feel even more confident that your assertion is wrong. A national gun registry appears to be quite a popular idea.
34390
Post by: whembly
National registry just won't happen.
Just look at Colorado a few years ago... this is a very purple (going blue) state that had Democrats damn new across the board at the state level.
When they actually passed more gun control laws, the natives curb-stompped them in election recalls and the following election in response to that.
85399
Post by: The Home Nuggeteer
Smacks wrote:Seaward wrote:Smacks wrote:No, you claimed there is no support for a gun registry, which is exactly the same kind of claim (and you claimed it first). I actually never claimed there was wide spread support for a registry, I only claimed that there was some support for gun control.
And you're correct in that (and only that), as long as we define "gun control" as "universal background checks." Beyond that, broad consensus ends.
Gallup has been conducting polls on the subject since the 1950s, and the most recent one has 26% of Americans in favour of a complete handgun ban. That is quite an extreme position, held by quite a significant number of people (one quarter). We could, if we like, label that quarter "hardliners"
It occurs to me that hardliners will very very likely be in favour of any and all gun control, because that's what they are like. There might be some oddballs who don't fit that pattern, but generally it makes sense. So my "guess" would be that at least 25% of Americans would be in favour of registration, especially when there would likely be some support for the idea from non-hardliners.
So my hunch is that your claim: "there is no support for a gun registry", is likely wrong. As 25%+ support would be quite significant., and that's a conservative estimate.
But why leave it to guesses and hunches, when you can google it? According to this Economist/yougov poll 64% of Americans would be in favour of a "mandatory national gun registry", including 43% of gun owners.
I probably don't need to tell you that this makes me feel even more confident that your assertion is wrong. A national gun registry appears to be quite a popular idea.
Actually 52% oppose it, I can google studies that support my opinion too!!!!
According to CNN
[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - ALPHARIUS]
|
|
