Guns got sold

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.

**azazel the cat**

Seaward wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
Right, and remember when I used my apt analogy of saying that you can still get to work by rolling blind after you lose your arms, legs and eyes?

Yes, but I don't think it's an apt analogy. Most of the "NRA restrictions" have been on reporting to entities not immediately connected to an ongoing investigation, such as academic institutions for the purposes of research, etc. They've actually worked to strengthen systems like NICS.

There are no laws (to my knowledge) that have been made unenforcable in theory. However, in practice almost all of them have been made as such.

That's...a really bold claim. I doubt you'd be able to find any evidence that practically all federal firearms statues have become unenforceable. I doubt you even mean it, as you seem to be focusing on a very narrow selection of firearm statues related to dealers.

You're likely correct here; I am being somewhat hyperbolic. Notwithstanding, the shortage of funding in the ATF, combined with the low number of agents, and the increased protections gun dealers have been given, in practice makes for a business that is almost immune to prosection. While anecdotal, there are instances of dealers with hundreds of violations who were able to operate uninfringed year after year due to the difficulty in obtaining court-admissible records of their infringements.

Off the top of my head, I recall reading a report once (a stellar citation, I know) that something like 4% of dealers were responsible for more than half of illegal firearm sales. Now, I don't know if that was meant to apply to directly illegal sales (such as to felons) or to potentially illegal sales (such as otherwise legal sales but for the purpose of inter-state trafficking). But as an extremely general principle, that sounds about right: in most criminology surveys, a small percentage makes up for the bulk of the problems.

**Seaward**

azazel the cat wrote:
You're likely correct here; I am being somewhat hyperbolic. Notwithstanding, the shortage of funding in the ATF, combined with the low number of agents, and the increased protections gun dealers have been given, in practice makes for a business that is almost immune to prosection. While anecdotal, there are instances of dealers with hundreds of violations who were able to operate uninfringed year after year due to the difficulty in obtaining court-admissible records of their infringements.

Off the top of my head, I recall reading a report once (a stellar citation, I know) that something like 4% of dealers were responsible for more than half of illegal firearm sales. Now, I don't know if that was meant to apply to directly illegal sales (such as to felons) or to potentially illegal sales (such as otherwise legal sales but for the purpose of inter-state trafficking). But as an extremely general principle, that sounds about right: in most criminology surveys, a small percentage makes up for the bulk of the problems.

That I actually have no trouble believing. Most gun dealers are strongly anti-crime, so it doesn't surprise me that it's a small subset responsible for deciding to urinate in their own pond, for lack of a better expression.

The ATF's underfunded and understaffed, but it should be. It's a clownshoes agency that should be rolled back into the FBI, which is much better equipped to handle its mandate. It's DHS levels of redundant, unnecessary bureaucracy.

**azazel the cat**

Seaward wrote:The ATF's ... should be rolled back into the FBI, which is much better equipped to handle its mandate. It's DHS levels of redundant, unnecessary bureaucracy.

Now this I can agree with. But it won't happen, because the NRA lobby needs the ATF to be there, powerless but visible. (this will start a big tirade that'll venture wildly off-topic though)

**Ensis Ferrae**

whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Hordini wrote:
d-usa wrote:

Pretty much a proposal that I could 100% get behind.

A lot of that does seem like decent stuff to me, especially with his proposed improvements. I continue to be somewhat confused about a couple things though: As far as I can tell, background checks are already required to purchase guns at gun shows, and background checks are required for internet sales, as you're not allowed to just ship a firearm to someone without an FFL. The firearm would have to be shipped to a licensed dealer, who would conduct the background check there. So what are they talking about when they're talking about instituting background checks at gun shows and from internet sales?

On the gun show front:

Here is how it works (at least in Oklahoma from what I know): Gun shows are basically like big fancy flea markets. They have both dealers (local stores, traveling dealers, etc) and private people that pay for a booth. Dealers that sell at the gun show are treated just like regular dealers selling at their regular place of business. They conduct the same background checks that they would perform if somebody walked into their store. The private people renting a booth and selling guns are treated no differently than me coming over to your house to buy a gun. I give you cash, you give me the gun, no checks, we are both on our way.

Implementing gun-show background checks would be pretty easy and could follow the same system as any regular art show. Most art shows here have booths and if you want to buy a particular piece of art you get a ticket from the vendor. You take that ticket to the people running the show, they process your payment, give you an all clear that you take to the dealer to pick up your art. No reason why the same system wouldn't work for gun shows. Have the organizer run the background checks and take the "all clear" back to the dealer.

Internet sales: No idea.

Yup... that's how it is in MO.

The problem is that this "Gunshow Loophole" isn't adequately explained. What folks hear is this: "We're going to make it harder for you get buy/trade guns at the trade shows", when it should really be said " let's advocate that the GUN SHOW operators perform the same background checks". I think in some states, you can do that when you buy your admission ticket... or, just like you said in your art show (wall ball?) thing, when the art (weapon) is purchased, take it to a processing area where not only they process your transactions (cash or credit), but perform that check.

Just an idea here, but why let a criminal or generally a person who shouldnt own firearms get that far??? Why not make it so that you get the NICS right at the door, on the way in... This way, no one who shouldn't have a gun will even get in the door (minus the tiny minority who won't come up in the system because they haven't done anything yet)

**djones520**

Gun shows don't just sell guns though. If your going to stop a guy at the door there, then you should do it at Cabela's, or Gander Mountain, or other places that sell guns.

There is no reason felons shouldn't be allowed into gunshows. We just don't want them buying guns, so do the check while doing the purchase.

**Ensis Ferrae**

djones520 wrote:
Gun shows don't just sell guns though. If your going to stop a guy at the door there, then you should do it at Cabela's, or Gander Mountain, or other places that sell guns.

There is no reason felons shouldn't be allowed into gunshows. We just don't want them buying guns, so do the check while doing the purchase.

It was pointed out in this thread, or another of the recent gun threads that the standard dealers at Shows do actually do the checks at their table, but by having them at the door you'd enable the private folks the "security" of knowing that they aren't selling to those who shouldnt own firearms.

On top of that, most places that I know have statutes that say that a person who is released from prison after being their for crimes that would prohibit their ownership of firearms, that they are not allowed within a certain radius of any firearms.... Which often means that they can no longer even step foot into Cabela's legally... again, enforcement of these laws is probably fairly loose, as places like that obviously have a crapload more things in there than just their firearms.

**Seaward**

djones520 wrote:
Gun shows don't just sell guns though. If your going to stop a guy at the door there, then you should do it at Cabela's, or Gander Mountain, or other places that sell guns.

There is no reason felons shouldn't be allowed into gunshows. We just don't want them buying guns, so do the check while doing the purchase.

I actually have no problem with some felons buying guns.

You went to jail for tax fraud? I don't care if you get a gun when you get out.

**whembly**

Here's an interesting look why the redstate Democrats voted against/for Gun Control... it's smart politics.

EDIT: yeah, yeah... correlation doesn't necessarily equate causation... but, it's interesting.

**azazel the cat**

whembly wrote:Here's an interesting look why the redstate Democrats voted against/for Gun Control... it's smart politics.

EDIT: yeah, yeah... correlation doesn't necessarily equate causation... but, it's interesting.

I know, it's almost like the major cities have higher rates of gun violence, and Democratic voters typically come from major cities, as opposed to rural areas.

No, Whembly, it is not interesting. You are very clearly trying to imply something ridiculous without overtly saying it, and should feel bad for trying to pass off bs like that.

So either stop the offensive implications right now, or else I'm going to start posting some graphics about a possible correlation between voting history and rates of hate crimes. After all, "Correlation doesn't necessarily equate causation... but, it's interesting. "

Crap like you just posted has absolutely zero value in contributing anything to this thread other than flamebait.

So please. Just. Stop.

**Frazzled**

He's not implying anything. he's stating it. The red states don't like gun control because: 1) they are bigger-thus less police coverage; and 2) they have less crime.

**whembly**

azazel the cat wrote:

I know, it's almost like the major cities have higher rates of gun violence, and Democratic voters typically come from major cities, as opposed to rural areas.

No, Whembly, it is not interesting.

You are very clearly trying to imply something ridiculous without overtly saying it, and should feel bad for trying to pass off bs like that.

Re-read what I said goofball.

Higher gun violence = politicians are likely in favor of more controls.

Lower gun violence = politicians are less likely.

You do know that in Red States there are some Democrats...right?

**Frazzled**

Evidently this thought has not occurred. In hid defense with Bloomberg now targeting democrats who don't get with the program it may be a reality presently.

Then the split occurs. Texas swallows up all the red states, liberates Canada, Mexico, Cuba, and Central America and renames itself The Lone Star Empire.

Wee ha!

**Jihadin**

Time to move to TX?

**Frazzled**

Jihadin wrote:
Time to move to TX?

When the New Order comes, you won't have to.

**Alfndrate**

Frazzled wrote:
Evidently this thought has not occurred. In hid defense with Bloomberg now targeting democrats who don't get with the program it may be a reality presently.

Then the split occurs. Texas swallows up all the red states, liberates Canada, Mexico, Cuba, and Central America and renames itself The Lone Star Empire.

Wee ha!

Lone Star....

**whembly**

azazel the cat wrote:
[

Crap like you just posted has absolutely zero value in contributing anything to this thread other than flamebait.

So please. Just. Stop.

Wow... you completely missed the point.

**Inquisitor Lord Bane**

Been waiting for a good spot to put this in, but I got tired of waiting

**grrrfranky**

I have a question after reading through the thread. Why are people opposed to registration for firearms? I ask this out of genuine curiosity, as I honestly don't see why it would be a problem.

**djones520**

grrrfranky wrote:
I have a question after reading through the thread. Why are people opposed to registration for firearms? I ask this out of genuine curiosity, as I honestly don't see why it would be a problem.

It's been covered pretty extensively in one of the gun threads rattling around in here the last couple of days. I can't remember which one.

**d-usa**

Because government will steal all our guns as soon as they know we have them.

Or something like that.

**Hordini**

Or the media will get a hold of the information and publish it.

**djones520**

Hordini wrote:
Or the media will get a hold of the information and publish it.

The media would never do that!!!

Oh... wait...

**d-usa**

But lets put everybody who ever had any kind of mental illness on a list....

**djones520**

d-usa wrote:
But lets put everybody who ever had any kind of mental illness on a list....

Whose arguing for that?

**Alfndrate**

djones520 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
But lets put everybody who ever had any kind of mental illness on a list....

Whose arguing for that?

Me? No... that doesn't sound right...

**d-usa**

djones520 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
But lets put everybody who ever had any kind of mental illness on a list....

Whose arguing for that?

The NRA?

People in this thread?

Folks in congress?

People on FoxNews?

**djones520**

d-usa wrote:
djones520 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
But lets put everybody who ever had any kind of mental illness on a list....

Whose arguing for that?

The NRA?

People in this thread?

Folks in congress?

People on FoxNews?

Links please?

There is arguments that finding ways to provide better mental health capabilities would lower things like mass shootings. But I've never seen an argument that we need to keep track of EVERYONE who has mental health issues. Considering that is most of the countries population it seems, that would be an extensive list.

**SOFDC**

But lets put everybody who ever had any kind of mental illness on a list....

Some of us out there don't like that idea any better than registration of all firearms and owners.

Why are people opposed to registration for firearms?

Why wouldn't we be? Would YOU want the united states government knowing what you owned (From beans to books to spare tires) if you had any say in the matter?

Some of us also paid attention during Katrina, and I've been lucky enough to enjoy a lot of natures "upheavals" in my life. You do the math from there on why I might not want my local PD having a grocery list.

**Hordini**

d-usa wrote:
But lets put everybody who ever had any kind of mental illness on a list....

That sounds like an equally bad idea, for a variety of reasons.

**Jihadin**

That be a list of damn near everyone Everyone has some sort of mental illness......