Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091007/ap_on_re_us/us_nyc_gun_sting

Comments?

Who would argue the point in your topic? I personally support greater freedom concerning gun rights, but I would never presume to argue that things like this don't make it easier on criminals. To argue such a thing would be plain ignorant...

It's not really the "gun show" that's selling things, is it?

It sounds like it's more of a meeting place.

True, it's not the gun show itself... but it never has been. Instead, it's the sellers who use them to avoid incovenient rules, like the ones intended to keep weapons out of the hands of known felons or suspected domestic terrorists. You know, the bad guys?

There is no doubt that felons can get guns at gun shows but I think it's a little far fetched to assume tighter gun control laws would curb this. Tighter gun laws might stymie gun shows or the very least stymie small and no-name dealers that just want to make a quick dollar and don't care who they sell to.

Not sure where the OP is going with this but I'm opposed to stricter gun laws so if it's supposed to support his/her view of tighter gun control I don't exactly see how tighter gun control would improve the situation. If a felon cannot buy a gun at a gun show he'll steal one or buy one from the trunk of some guys car.

So, every car has a gun in the trunk? Because every gun show has guns at it; a little more dependable source. It's also against the ESTABLISHED law, no need for more laws when the current ones, properly enforced, suffice.

lord_sutekh wrote:no need for more laws when the current ones, properly enforced, suffice.

That's about right...

Way to miss the point.

Yeah, stricter gun control wouldn't help much IMO. Hell, you could outright oulaw guns, then guess whos got access to em? Outlaws. Although people selling guns should take greater care in who they're selling them too. Thats a matter of personal responsibility though.

I don't see how you can really go about enforcing "the guy should have known he couldn't pass a background check", though.

I mean, if criminals are telling the people they buy guns from that they couldn't pass a background check, they're dumber than most. The law as it currently exists in the states mentioned doesn't have much of a reason to exist, in my opinion; it seems decorative.

I've said in a lot of these threads that properly enforcing the laws you've got would do a lot more good than introducing new laws. I guess proper enforcement includes closing technicalities like the gun show loophole.

Pretty much everything that needs to be said has been. Lets review shall we folks?

* More Laws = Bad/Pointless
* Proper Enforcement of current laws is what is needed. Nothing more.
* Its not the Gun Shows fault that someone is breaking the law. Thats like saying Ford is responsible for every death caused by every drunk behind the wheel of a Ford.
* No matter what one does, the "bad guys" are still going to get firearms. When you enact more stupid restrictions the only person you hurt is the law abideing citizen.
* BRING BACK CLASS 3 IMPORTS!!!!!

Gun shows themselves are the loophole. Close them, problem solved.

Cue Frazzled's commentary on gun control.....

or, rather than close Gun Shows, only allow day of Gun Show sales to registered shooters?

You need insurance before you can buy a car, simply only allow people with a hunting permit/Concealed carry/etc to buy day of. Everybody else has to have it shipped after the check.

jp400 wrote:* More Laws = Bad/Pointless
* Proper Enforcement of current laws is what is needed. Nothing more.

Sort of. What occurred is legal in 41 states. It's clearly against the intent of the law, and the loophole should be closed. Why that hasn't happened is an exercise left up to the reader.

* No matter what one does, the "bad guys" are still going to get firearms. When you enact more stupid restrictions the only person you hurt is the law abideing citizen.

Limiting legal access will never stop all illegal access, but it would be very bloody minded to argue that restricting general supply won't impact black market supply at all.

I mean pot is pretty generally available, but it costs a lot more than it should for being easily cultivated anywhere in the United States.

A lot of potentially dangerous people are finally arrested and convicted of gun crimes, and making it harder for people that are dangerous to buy guns makes it easier to lock them up when they do.

lord_sutekh wrote:Gun shows themselves are the loophole. Close them, problem solved.

While we are at it, lets ban drugs... that will solve all our drug pro.........oh right.

sebster wrote:Limiting legal access will never stop all illegal access, but it would be very bloody minded to argue that restricting general supply won't impact black market supply at all.

It wont. Iraq is proof of this failed train of thought. I should know... ive spent alot of time takeing away peoples guns. And yet, magically they somehow kept getting ahold of them.

Funny how that works.

**EDIT**
Also NO what occured is NOT legal in 41 states. It is illegal for a registered dealer to transfer a firearm without a background check or to transfer to anyone who is a convicted felon. The people that did this are at the very least going to lose their dealers permit if not spend some time in jail.

Well, for starters, impacting black market supply doesn't make something impossible to get. You can always buy what you want.

The Us is also different from Iraq. We're not bordered by a nation that sees a big upside in supplying black market weapons. Mexico might be unreliable, but they'd at least help trucks of guns from crossing the border illegally, if only because they don't' want trucks of guns either.

Above, when discussing weed, if the cost of a no strings attached hand gun tripled, that will have an impact on who is carrying one. Guns are also a lot easier to trace than drugs, and unlike drugs, aren't produced and/or imported illegally. Which means we know roughly how many guns are made, how many come into the country, and it's not amazingly difficult to start finding the leaks.

jp400 wrote:
It wont. Iraq is proof of this failed train of thought. I should know... ive spent alot of time takeing away peoples guns. And yet, magically they somehow kept getting ahold of them.

Funny how that works.

Iraq is not the United States. The difference between developed nations, and undeveloped ones is more than a little significant.

Still, are we talking about the same people with different guns, or different people with different guns?

jp400 wrote:It wont. Iraq is proof of this failed train of thought. I should know... ive spent alot of time takeing away peoples guns. And yet, magically they somehow kept getting ahold of them.

Funny how that works.

Two problems. First up, I'd bet if I pointed out that other developed nations had much lower rates of gun deaths than the US, you'd be very quick to point out how comparisons across countries are not valid because there's so many other factors involved. But here you are comparing the US to a wildly dissimilar nation. You can have one... comparisons across countries are valid, or they are not.

Secondly, I said in my previous post that restricting guns aren't going to magically prevent all access to blackmarket firearms. That would be crazy. But it is just as crazy to argue that reducing the legal quantity of a good does not impact its blackmarket supply, otherwise why bother to outlaw anything, ever?

Now, there is a perfectly valid argument to be had that for many pieces of proposed or enacted legislation the increase in inconvenience for legal owners is too great for the increased difficulty of supply. Once that's agreed to, we can go about discussing the relative inconvenience and benefits of individual pieces of legislation. But if you're going to straight up argue that controlling legal supply has no effect on blackmarket access then there's simply no point discussing this, as you're obviously not being willing to be sensible about the issue.

**EDIT**
Also NO what occured is NOT legal in 41 states. It is illegal for a registered dealer to transfer a firearm without a background check or to transfer to anyone who is a convicted felon. The people that did this are at the very least going to lose their dealers permit if not spend some time in jail.

As per the article, at gunshows in 41 states the seller doesn't have to check if someone can legally buy the gun, but is only required to not sell a gun if the buyer somehow decides to declare out of the blue that they wouldn't pass a check. It's a ridiculous piece of law, designed to be ineffectual.

lord_sutekh wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091007/ap_on_re_us/us_nyc_gun_sting

Comments?

Clthomps wrote:Cue Frazzled's commentary on gun control.....

Its a bull t stunt by NYC.
1. Last I saw NYC wasn't in charge of the USA. The rest of us tell NYC to go itself.
2. Its not illegal in the rest of the country. Sorry, we don't have NYC's crime rates.
3. Did I mention it was a scam? Private sales anywehere are not regulated in the states the scam took place.
4. Criminals don't buy guns at gunshows. They buy them elsewhere, like from Mexican drug cartels.
5. They spent millions for this scam. How's their budget looking right now?

I'd stun you all by saying everyone but me should get background checks or have private firearm purchases run through an FFL intermediary, but you'll still call me a rightwing nutjob. If I say the same on other sites I pretty much have to lock and load because I'll be hunted as being a commie pinko, or worse from Hollywood.

Having said that I want to remind the federal government I don't own any firearms and don't have a clue what I'm talking about. I for one welcome our new gun restricting overlords...

HERE WE GO THEN...



DAMMIT... WRONG FOAM!!!

And wrex swoops in to remind us abotu the two mos timportant things in life.

Its a bull t stunt by NYC.
1. Last I saw NYC wasn't in charge of the USA. The rest of us tell NYC to go itself.
2. Its not illegal in the rest of the country. Sorry, we don't have NYC's crime rates.
3. Did I mention it was a scam? Private sales anywehere are not regulated in the states the scam took place.
4. Criminals don't buy guns at gunshows. They buy them elsewhere, like from Mexican drug cartels.
5. They spent millions for this scam. How's their budget looking right now?

I'd stun you all by saying everyone but me should get background checks or have private firearm purchases run through an FFL intermediary, but you'll still call me a rightwing nutjob. If I say the same on other sites I pretty much have to lock and load because I'll be hunted as being a commie pinko, or worse from Hollywood.

Having said that I want to remind the federal government I don't own any firearms and don't have a clue what I'm talking about. I for one welcome our new gun restricting overlords...

So for once I agree 100% with Frazzled..... You may want to add that to your sig.


We should get rid of gun restrictions completely in this country and issue a handgun, and a rifle to every one no convicted of a violent crime in the entire country. Sure 99% of criminals will have guns, but also 100% of innocent by-standards will have them also! Prison populations will decrease in a dramatic fasion, petty crimes will be almost nil, public politeness will increase tenfold, and no nation in the world ever think about invading a country with 304,059,724 angry gun toting citizens.

Having said that I want to remind the federal government I don't own any firearms and am know for my incoherent ramblings, and I welcome our new gun restricting overlords with open arms....

grizgrin wrote:And wrex swoops in to remind us abotu the two mos timportant things in life.

You know those soap suds look fun. But they quickly get in your eyes. I know. I KNOW!!!!

sebster wrote:
Secondly, I said in my previous post that restricting guns aren't going to magically prevent all access to blackmarket firearms. That would be crazy. But it is just as crazy to argue that reducing the legal quantity of a good does not impact its blackmarket supply, otherwise why bother to outlaw anything, ever?

Read a histroy book sometime for why this section is an epic facepalm.

sebster wrote:Now, there is a perfectly valid argument to be had that for many pieces of proposed or enacted legislation the increase in inconvenience for legal owners is too great for the increased difficulty of supply. Once that's agreed to, we can go about discussing the relative inconvenience and benefits of individual pieces of legislation. But if you're going to straight up argue that controlling legal supply has no effect on blackmarket access then there's simply no point discussing this, as you're obviously not being willing to be sensible about the issue.

I see what you did...

And im more then willing to discuss a point, so long as said point isnt utterly pointless and the people on the other side arnt drones.

sebster wrote:
As per the article, at gunshows in 41 states the seller doesn't have to check if someone can legally buy the gun, but is only required to not sell a gun if the buyer somehow decides to declare out of the blue that they wouldn't pass a check. It's a ridiculous piece of law, designed to be ineffectual.

If you have EVER bought a firearm in the US then you know that what you are saying is wrong. Here let me clear it up for you:
A: It is illegal for a REGISTERED DEALER to sell/transfer a firearm to any person without filling out paperwork and doing a background check unless they have a State issue CC permit.
B: Private sales are a completly different deal and are perfectly legal. If I get a firearm, lets say from my Great Grand Father dying and I dont want it. I can put an add in the Nickles Worth saying "M1A used, shoots good $1100 obo.." and I can sell that firearm without any paperwork. Now pending your state, you have X amount of days to go to your local sheriff department and register said firearm.

Granted alot of people dont register it (which is why you hear on the news that Joe Blow was arrested with an unlicensed firearm) but more laws isnt the answer, proper enforcement of the current laws is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

lord_sutekh wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091007/ap_on_re_us/us_nyc_gun_sting

Comments?

Clthomps wrote:Cue Frazzled's commentary on gun control.....

Its a bull t stunt by NYC.
1. Last I saw NYC wasn't in charge of the USA. The rest of us tell NYC to go itself.
2. Its not illegal in the rest of the country. Sorry, we don't have NYC's crime rates.
3. Did I mention it was a scam? Private sales anywehere are not regulated in the states the scam took place.
4. Criminals don't buy guns at gunshows. They buy them elsewhere, like from Mexican drug cartels.
5. They spent millions for this scam. How's their budget looking right now?

Gah, How did I miss this....

QFT

So, you're saying that there's been no impact on the availability of drugs since they were made illegal? Since the war on drugs?

Sebster isn't saying it would solve the problem, but there is undeniably an impact.

If you or any of your friends buy drugs, you can watch prices go up after major busts. There is still supply and demand.

Its my understanding that the price for cocaine and crack cocaine are at historic lows.