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.

At least somewhat related. Illegal guns here in Finland are usually either stolen legal guns or old military hardware - you'd be surprised how many WW2 guns are still lying around in forgotten caches or as souvenirs in the home of some veteran's family. The rest is pretty rare, things like smuggled Russian weapons or a stolen modern military gun. As in the US criminals do favor handguns for easy conceilability, ofc.

It would be interesting to know if there's any info on how many illegal guns in the USA are actually smuggled in as opposed to being stolen or otherwise obtained domestically through fraud etc. I do remember seeing some list of popular guns for crimes with some talk about "time-to-crime" for some, ie the time it will take on average before a legally bought gun of that make is used in a crime. And as mentioned private sales don't require a background check - what's to prevent a criminal from having someone lacking a criminal record buy him a gun?

Spetulhu wrote:
what's to prevent a criminal from having someone lacking a criminal record buy him a gun?

This is called a Straw Purchase, and it is VERY VERY VERY illegal.

Now there isn't really anything to prevent someone from having a friend with no criminal record buy them a gun. But you'll get in a lot of trouble if caught, and by definition become a criminal yourself if you do this.

Fully automatic firearms are actually legal, and the main obstacle to getting one is merely the cost of the firearm, a few hundred dollars in tax stamps and fees, and 6 months to a year of waiting for paperwork to process. I've seen statistics that estimate there are hundreds of thousands of legally owned fully automatic weapons in private hands. Of those, in the past hundred years there has been I believe a grand total of oneviolent crime committed with a legally owned automatic firearm, at least as of a few years ago.

Yeah, but IMO we shouldn't have to go through all that crap. The government shouldn't know what I own.

Its just not enough people care to raise a stink about it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, but IMO we shouldn't have to go through all that crap. The government shouldn't know what I own.

Its just not enough people care to raise a stink about it.

The government doesn't need to know what you own. Unless it's a gun. I would be very pissed if gun's here weren't registered.

When the original purpose was so the Government wouldn't be allowed to confiscate firearms, it seems giving them a list of names is counter productive and against the entire point of the amendment.

 Grey Templar wrote:
When the original purpose was so the Government wouldn't be allowed to confiscate firearms, it seems giving them a list of names is counter productive and against the entire point of the amendment.

Yeah, because times haven't changed since then have they?

 Soladrin wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
When the original purpose was so the Government wouldn't be allowed to confiscate firearms, it seems giving them a list of names is counter productive and against the entire point of the amendment.

Yeah, because times haven't changed since then have they?

Some things have changed yes. Not all things.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, but IMO we shouldn't have to go through all that crap. The government shouldn't know what I own.

Its just not enough people care to raise a stink about it.

We register things other than guns though. Cars being the easiest example.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, but IMO we shouldn't have to go through all that crap. The government shouldn't know what I own.

Its just not enough people care to raise a stink about it.

We register things other than guns though. Cars being the easiest example.

Yes, but Cars aren't a Constitutional Right. They are a privilege. This is a huge difference.

We don't have to register our right to Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, etc...

You can't speak or believe someone to death.

 -Shrike- wrote:
You can't speak or believe someone to death.

Well, one can very much use speech to cause or incite the death of others, and the 1st amendment doesn't cover that, just as you can't use the 2nd as a defense against a murder charge with a weapon.

 -Shrike- wrote:
You can't speak or believe someone to death.

Irrelevant. All Constitutional Rights are equally important and the same standards should apply.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, but IMO we shouldn't have to go through all that crap. The government shouldn't know what I own.

Its just not enough people care to raise a stink about it.

To be fair there is no national firearm registry and only a few states have something like a statewide registry. Outside of Class 3 items the govt doesn't know what the vast majority of gun owners own. There are records of who's been issued concealed carry permits and there are 4473 forms from purchases but there's no database of them. I agree that there really isn't enough of a substantial difference between class 3 items and everything we're allowed to own without a tax stamp to warrant the federal involvement but intruding into our lives is what the leviathan does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:
You can't speak or believe someone to death.

Irrelevant. All Constitutional Rights are equally important and the same standards should apply.

Exactly. The perceived danger of the misuse of a right doesn't make that right less important. Ideas and ideology can be incredibly dangerous but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a right to free speech and the freedom to practice the religion of our choice. Individual liberty and free will are inherently dangerous, they're also incredibly valuable, important inalienable parts of our humanity.

At most, it should be a Class 3 license that lets you own things from a list, but nothing is kept as to what you actually own or where you keep it.

I could have 1 M2, I could have 10,000 M2s. They should never know.

 Grey Templar wrote:
At most, it should be a Class 3 license that lets you own things from a list, but nothing is kept as to what you actually own or where you keep it.

I could have 1 M2, I could have 10,000 M2s. They should never know.

The whole tax stamp and NFA Act is a farcical arbitrary govt intrusion. A minor difference in barrel length and/or the addition of a suppressor really doesn't alter the performance of rifle to the point that it become a completely different and more dangerous weapon. Suppressor are great, they help protect people's hearing and minimize the disturbance to neighbors and other people and citizens used to be able to order them through the mail for a few dollars with no discernible detriment to public safety.

Yeah, I've never understood the restrictions on suppressors, they certainly don't make guns silent, they just make it so the sound doesn't carry for miles and someone fifty feet away won't need hearing protection.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah, I've never understood the restrictions on suppressors, they certainly don't make guns silent, they just make it so the sound doesn't carry for miles and someone fifty feet away won't need hearing protection.

Yeah, I've never understood the disconnect between the biggest complaint against ranges and shooting being the noise yet we deliberately make suppressor extra difficult to obtain.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah, I've never understood the restrictions on suppressors, they certainly don't make guns silent, they just make it so the sound doesn't carry for miles and someone fifty feet away won't need hearing protection.

Yeah, I've never understood the disconnect between the biggest complaint against ranges and shooting being the noise yet we deliberately make suppressor extra difficult to obtain.

You mean you don't know? Suppressors turn a loud bang into a soft pfft-like sound such as when a small kitten is tossed onto a fluffy pillow. Everyone knows that - just watch any television show.

What if is a Tactical Assault kitten?

 Grey Templar wrote:
What if is a Tactical Assault kitten?

I'm pretty sure Tactical Assault Kittens are still illegal in all 50 states.

 Grey Templar wrote:
What if is a Tactical Assault kitten?

Military issue only;

 Grey Templar wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:
what's to prevent a criminal from having someone lacking a criminal record buy him a gun?

This is called a Straw Purchase, and it is VERY VERY VERY illegal.

Now there isn't really anything to prevent someone from having a friend with no criminal record buy them a gun. But you'll get in a lot of trouble if caught, and by definition become a criminal yourself if you do this.

Yup, to clarify when a person with a clean background intentionally buys firearms for prohibited persons... that's what is illegal.

You can, however, purchase a gun for your wife or kids (just as long as they're not prohibited by background check).

 Smacks wrote:
I think the only legitimate difference is one of persuasive language. It's like the difference between the ministry of defence and the ministry of war... It's exactly the same ministry. If you go into a shop and buy a gun for "home defense", the implication is that you are preparing and willing to shoot someone, who you have determined is a threat. You are making yourself ready to meet that threat with deadly force. That doesn't sound like the behaviour of someone who is earnestly planning to avoid and retreat.

Duty to retreat as you put it does not exist in the same form as you understand it in every jurisdiction. As an aside if I am within my own home why should I be expected to retreat? The "ready to blow someone away" just read like hyperbole, and perhaps I misread your intentions as most people who oppose private gun ownership, and the use of guns for self-defense, often attempt to paint their opponents as itching for a chance to shoot someone.

 LordofHats wrote:
Gun control shouldn't just be a discussion about how many people are killed using guns, or about some silly notion of tradition or abstract necessity, but about the effects that having so many guns and such easy access to them has on society at large, how those guns interact with other social issues like drugs, law enforcement, and economics, and what would happen were serious steps taken to curtail that. it's an important discussion and its one that isn't happening.

End the War on Drugs, focus on mental health issues, improve the social situations in deprived areas and I would dare say that a lot of crime would decrease

 Henry wrote:
I personally would like to see some citations for Dreadclaw's claims.

https://ukshootingnews.wordpress.com/2015/09/05/ban-semi-autos-ban-50-cals-ban-free-1-4-1-variations-ban-magazines/

 Smacks wrote:
Well lets not forget that Carey Gabay was exercising his right to free assembly when he got shot in head. Which no doubt inhibited him in what he was doing. While you can draw parallels between gun rights and other rights, each right comes with its own unique benefits and dangers, and limitations. Which aught to be considered on their own merits, not because you can draw parallels with other rights. I have the right to a fair trial, but I don't get to pick the date, and have no record of it happening. You've got to work within the system.

Are you trying to compare the lawful exercising of the right to peaceably assemble with a criminal gang gun battle? We already have a system for gun ownership. It's the Second Amendment, and there are many restrictions on it already.

Spetulhu wrote:
And as mentioned private sales don't require a background check - what's to prevent a criminal from having someone lacking a criminal record buy him a gun?

Federal law. If you make a purchase for another who you know, or have reason to know, is not a qualified person then you should be prepared to go to Federal prison for a significant period

 Soladrin wrote:
The government doesn't need to know what you own. Unless it's a gun.

Why?

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah, I've never understood the restrictions on suppressors, they certainly don't make guns silent, they just make it so the sound doesn't carry for miles and someone fifty feet away won't need hearing protection.

Yeah, I've never understood the disconnect between the biggest complaint against ranges and shooting being the noise yet we deliberately make suppressor extra difficult to obtain.

Because the complaint is against the existence of the range. The noise is a convenient wrapping to dress it up in




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spetulhu wrote:
It would be interesting to know if there's any info on how many illegal guns in the USA are actually smuggled in as opposed to being stolen or otherwise obtained domestically through fraud etc. I do remember seeing some list of popular guns for crimes with some talk about "time-to-crime" for some, ie the time it will take on average before a legally bought gun of that make is used in a crime.

This was a small study done with inmates in Cook County Illinois (the county where Chicago is located)

https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/276724037

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

2. The Gunshow Loophole you obliquely refer to is a myth. The only time background checks are not mandated is a private sale between individuals. Any FFL dealer must perform a background check

This is only true insofar as a given gun show does not allow private collectors to have a table of guns "for sale". Which, I believe that has been a trend that, in order to protect themselves from litigation, many Show organizers are tightening down on private sellers, or not allowing them in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Duty to retreat as you put it does not exist in the same form as you understand it in every jurisdiction. As an aside if I am within my own home why should I be expected to retreat? The "ready to blow someone away" just read like hyperbole, and perhaps I misread your intentions as most people who oppose private gun ownership, and the use of guns for self-defense, often attempt to paint their opponents as itching for a chance to shoot someone.

I actually really, really like my current state's "castle doctrine". I've talked to a number of folks in the know, and basically if a person here has a legal right to be where they are, they have the legal right to defend where they are. One of the best "cases" where judges upheld this view, a man was in Pioneer square in Seattle, a homeless/deranged man came sprinting across the square screaming "I'm going to kill you!! Im going to fething kill you!!" and tackled the first man, who happened to be legally carrying his pistol. In the ensuing ground scuffle, the first man was able to free an arm and shoot, and kill the deranged/homeless man. There did happen to be a Seattle PD officer just around the corner, who heard the guy screaming his "imma kill you!" thing, but by the time he got close enough, the shot had been fired.


Basically, the state upheld it's "don't back down" or "castle doctrine" or whatever name you want to give it, citing that the person who was concealed carrying, had a legal right to be in Pioneer Square and therefore was not obligated to retreat, leave, deescalate or anything.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

2. The Gunshow Loophole you obliquely refer to is a myth. The only time background checks are not mandated is a private sale between individuals. Any FFL dealer must perform a background check

This is only true insofar as a given gun show does not allow private collectors to have a table of guns "for sale". Which, I believe that has been a trend that, in order to protect themselves from litigation, many Show organizers are tightening down on private sellers, or not allowing them in the first place.

Whether or not gun shows rent tables to private individuals doesn't change the fact that anyone with an FFL has to run a background check and record every sale. I have to record every purchase I make with my C&R FFL whether I buy from a store or individual. Also different states have different purchasing laws. Here in NC you have to have either a pistol purchase permit from your county sheriff's or a concealed carry permit issued by your local county sheriff in order to legally buy a handgun from a store or individual. Even with all the gun owners I've met through classes, our club range, internet forums, gun stores, coworkers and neighbors I've yet to meet or even hear about a gun owner legally buying guns just to turn around and sell them to people who can't buy them legally. I've heard of criminal gangs using members with a clean record to make straw purchases but I think the number of law abiding gun owners selling guns to anyone with no regard for the possibility they could be committing a federal crime is small.

The men I knew that collected firearms, and each had quite a few (meaning 8+), traded and sold at gun shows without any issue, and none of them had a table.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

2. The Gunshow Loophole you obliquely refer to is a myth. The only time background checks are not mandated is a private sale between individuals. Any FFL dealer must perform a background check

This is only true insofar as a given gun show does not allow private collectors to have a table of guns "for sale". Which, I believe that has been a trend that, in order to protect themselves from litigation, many Show organizers are tightening down on private sellers, or not allowing them in the first place.

Whether or not gun shows rent tables to private individuals doesn't change the fact that anyone with an FFL has to run a background check and record every sale. I have to record every purchase I make with my C&R FFL whether I buy from a store or individual. Also different states have different purchasing laws. Here in NC you have to have either a pistol purchase permit from your county sheriff's or a concealed carry permit issued by your local county sheriff in order to legally buy a handgun from a store or individual. Even with all the gun owners I've met through classes, our club range, internet forums, gun stores, coworkers and neighbors I've yet to meet or even hear about a gun owner legally buying guns just to turn around and sell them to people who can't buy them legally. I've heard of criminal gangs using members with a clean record to make straw purchases but I think the number of law abiding gun owners selling guns to anyone with no regard for the possibility they could be committing a federal crime is small.

I know about the FFL thing... What I'm saying is that, in the past, there were guys who may have a large collection would show up to a show, rent table space to "display" their firearms, someone would offer cash for one, and they'd make a deal. No FFLs or background checks.

The state I'm in, went extremely heavy handed in "fixing" that problem... They said any transfer of a firearm must have a background check. That in itself wouldn't be so bad, because it would (in theory) be exactly as you describe with your FFL or a regular gun store purchase. The problem is, here in the state they defined transfer in such a way that if you and I are at the range together, I cannot legally allow you to "try out" my pistol or vice versa. A couple museums were forced to return their WW2 and other war collections to the collector, because a museum is not a "person" for transfer purposes, and they must have a legal transfer from the collector to the museum in order to display.

 Smacks wrote:
It also assumes a very black and white view of morality, where "law abiding" citizens never opportunistically break the law, and become criminals, which is pretty silly, and the opposite of what happens all the time. Criminals are not criminals because they are anyone's "antithesis", they are criminals because they broke the law, by definition. Before that, they are law abiding. How many times have we heard some kid, gunned down by police for knocking over a liquor store, described as "a good kid ... on his way to college" etc... I will agree that there are some people who are born or raised, so unhinged, they are almost destined for prison, but they do not necessarily reflect all (or even most) criminals.

You replied to me so I feel like I need to say something, but all I can say is good point, very well made.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I guess the question I'm trying to ask is how many deaths a nation wide firearm ban would prevent and would that decrease justify the rights of citizens being taken away. My problem with gun control people is that they seem to believe that the root cause of violence in the United States is the availability of firearms. While that may be a contributing factor it is short sighted to think that is the biggest factor. I would argue bigger factors to our high homicide rates are poverty and a failing mental health care system.

Poverty is certainly the major factor.

Mental health not so much. It isn't the major factor in mass shootings (only 23% off mass shooters in the US had any history of mental health problems), and so among all murders it's a tiny factor.

But here's the thing - the rest of the developed world has poverty as well, and our mental health systems are just as underfunded. And yet we've all got murder rates around 1 per 100,000, and the US stands alone among developed countries with a rate 4 or 5 times that. The one thing the US has that stands out is the guns.

That doesn't mean that gun bans or restrictions are necessarily the answer. There's been a good argument that with the number of guns already out there, bans would be impractical and/or ineffective. And there's also a very good argument that lots of hobbies come with strong downsides - alcohol is believed to kill around 80,000 people a year, but banning that is obviously a terrible idea - to some extent you just have to accept there'll be negative consequences to the stuff we like to do.

But having that conversation first relies on accepting the reality that guns really are the reason the US has a much higher rate than the rest of the developed world.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I actually really, really like my current state's "castle doctrine". I've talked to a number of folks in the know, and basically if a person here has a legal right to be where they are, they have the legal right to defend where they are. One of the best "cases" where judges upheld this view, a man was in Pioneer square in Seattle, a homeless/deranged man came sprinting across the square screaming "I'm going to kill you!! Im going to fething kill you!!" and tackled the first man, who happened to be legally carrying his pistol. In the ensuing ground scuffle, the first man was able to free an arm and shoot, and kill the deranged/homeless man. There did happen to be a Seattle PD officer just around the corner, who heard the guy screaming his "imma kill you!" thing, but by the time he got close enough, the shot had been fired.


Basically, the state upheld it's "don't back down" or "castle doctrine" or whatever name you want to give it, citing that the person who was concealed carrying, had a legal right to be in Pioneer Square and therefore was not obligated to retreat, leave, deescalate or anything.

I also like Indiana's castle doctrine law, and the fact that here there is no obligation to retreat "if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.". Being legally compelled to retreat can be very disadvantageous to the victim of an attack as turning your back on an assailant significantly diminishes your ability to protect yourself.