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.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
He's saying it's bad that a felon on bail had a gun he should not have had. What's wrong with that?

More gun control regulations won't fix that.

Harsher punishments for criminals with illegal firearms will.

Or making it so they can't buy them.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
He's saying it's bad that a felon on bail had a gun he should not have had. What's wrong with that?

Read the second to last sentence.

He wants to stop criminals getting handguns?

 cincydooley wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
He's saying it's bad that a felon on bail had a gun he should not have had. What's wrong with that?

More gun control regulations won't fix that.

Harsher punishments for criminals with illegal firearms will.

That actually probably won't fix the problem either, with the possible exception of beginning to enforce laws that haven't been being enforced. But just adding harsher punishments alone probably won't do much.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Or making it so they can't buy them.

Yup, all your Felons are totes walking down to Cabela's to get their firearms




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:


That actually probably won't fix the problem either, with the possible exception of beginning to enforce laws that haven't been being enforced. But just adding harsher punishments alone probably won't do much.

Good point. They don't even enforce the ones we have in place. Not enforcing harsher ones won't make a difference.

Awesome.....now we went from a Titan fight, to a knife fight to a gun debate.....you all make me smile a lot.....

 cincydooley wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Or making it so they can't buy them.

Yup, all your Felons are totes walking down to Cabela's to get their firearms

As in going after the illegal sales. It's rather obvious, the best way to stop felons from getting the guns in the first place, is to stop it at the source. Track large gun sales, stuff like that.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Or making it so they can't buy them.

Yup, all your Felons are totes walking down to Cabela's to get their firearms

As in going after the illegal sales. It's rather obvious, the best way to stop felons from getting the guns in the first place, is to stop it at the source. Track large gun sales, stuff like that.

Like fast and furious

 cincydooley wrote:

Like fast and furious

"OMG! Like, you guys are STILL caught up on that?" - Eric Holder

 daedalus wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Like fast and furious

"OMG! Like, you guys are STILL caught up on that?" - Eric Holder

"Dude, that was like... two years ago." - Vietor

Whembly: That clip, Wow...

I don't think felons should be allowed to openly carry a sandwich either. What we need is more sandwich control in this country. Oh, I know what you'll say then, but plenty of people get full on wraps or gyros too! Not nearly as easy as a sandwich. A wrap or gyro takes more time to load and get ready to eat. A sandwich is just bread, meat, bread BOOM!

Think of the children! (Or at least of-age teenagers with records whose only available pictures are from when they were twelve)

 cincydooley wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Or making it so they can't buy them.

Yup, all your Felons are totes walking down to Cabela's to get their firearms

As in going after the illegal sales. It's rather obvious, the best way to stop felons from getting the guns in the first place, is to stop it at the source. Track large gun sales, stuff like that.

Like fast and furious

No, not like F&F. Actually doing the job well. Not suppliing the guns, but having gun manufactures and vendors report when thy receive a large order for guns and ammuntion. If that doesn't work, than try something else. Just keep trying until you can severely damage the illegal suppliers. And this should be something we could all agree on, keeping guns away from gangs and illegal weapons dealers.

When gun manufacturers and vendors receive large orders? I'm confused. Are you saying the Latin Kings are calling Glock and ordering in bulk?

I'm saying that if an individual orders large amounts of gun and/or ammo, that should be labeled under suspicious, no?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm saying that if an individual orders large amounts of gun and/or ammo, that should be labeled under suspicious, no?

What's is consider a large amount of ammo? I brought 1K in one transaction.

 Jihadin wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm saying that if an individual orders large amounts of gun and/or ammo, that should be labeled under suspicious, no?

What's is consider a large amount of ammo? I brought 1K in one transaction.

I have no idea, that would be a question for the experts. I have no real idea f how this would work, just the idea that we should go after the suppliers.

 Jihadin wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm saying that if an individual orders large amounts of gun and/or ammo, that should be labeled under suspicious, no?

What's is consider a large amount of ammo? I brought 1K in one transaction.

And it is not the Fed's business either.

 CptJake wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm saying that if an individual orders large amounts of gun and/or ammo, that should be labeled under suspicious, no?

What's is consider a large amount of ammo? I brought 1K in one transaction.

And it is not the Fed's business either.

Why not?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm saying that if an individual orders large amounts of gun and/or ammo, that should be labeled under suspicious, no?

What's is consider a large amount of ammo? I brought 1K in one transaction.

I have no idea, that would be a question for the experts. I have no real idea f how this would work, just the idea that we should go after the suppliers.

You may want to define 'suppliers'. Gang members tend to not use the same suppliers legal purchasers do. Further restricting legal suppliers in the guise of Doing Something tends to be a waste fo tax payer money and leads to infringement of rights.

 CptJake wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm saying that if an individual orders large amounts of gun and/or ammo, that should be labeled under suspicious, no?

What's is consider a large amount of ammo? I brought 1K in one transaction.

I have no idea, that would be a question for the experts. I have no real idea f how this would work, just the idea that we should go after the suppliers.

You may want to define 'suppliers'. Gang members tend to not use the same suppliers legal purchasers do. Further restricting legal suppliers in the guise of Doing Something tends to be a waste fo tax payer money and leads to infringement of rights.

The people who buy the guns ti sell them to gangs.

Also, how could that infringe on any rights? The 2nd is definitely not involved.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm saying that if an individual orders large amounts of gun and/or ammo, that should be labeled under suspicious, no?

What's is consider a large amount of ammo? I brought 1K in one transaction.

I have no idea, that would be a question for the experts. I have no real idea f how this would work, just the idea that we should go after the suppliers.

You may want to define 'suppliers'. Gang members tend to not use the same suppliers legal purchasers do. Further restricting legal suppliers in the guise of Doing Something tends to be a waste fo tax payer money and leads to infringement of rights.

The people who buy the guns ti sell them to gangs.

Also, how could that infringe on any rights? The 2nd is definitely not involved.

The only people who buy guns in bulk are gun shop owners, who tend to have the feds up their tail ends enough to not do something stupid like sell to gang members. Either this was a straw purchase, the kid stole it from someone, or he knew where to buy it illegally. Around here you can buy an assortment of handguns out of people's trucks at flea markets. Tracking orders from the manufacturer would only impede legal business

EDIT: Lern to Spellz

Co'tor, I think that maybe you don't realize that nearly all guns that are used in crimes are either bought on the "black market" (illegal) or through straw man purchases (illegal), or they're stolen.

The kind of problem you're trying to address doesnt really happen.

 Jihadin wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm saying that if an individual orders large amounts of gun and/or ammo, that should be labeled under suspicious, no?

What's is consider a large amount of ammo? I brought 1K in one transaction.

I hate to play devils advocate here with the other's guys idea because I don't really agree with it - after all, I also buy thousand round cases semi-regularly - but how much diesel fuel and fertilizer can you buy before the government gets involved? How much Sudafed?

The "it's legal in x amount, so it's never the governments business no matter what the amount is" doesn't seem to hold up well in the real world.

 Ouze wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm saying that if an individual orders large amounts of gun and/or ammo, that should be labeled under suspicious, no?

What's is consider a large amount of ammo? I brought 1K in one transaction.

I hate to play devils advocate here with the other's guys idea because I don't really agree with it - after all, I also buy thousand round cases semi-regularly - but how much diesel fuel and fertilizer can you buy before the government gets involved? How much Sudafed?

The "it's legal in x amount, so it's never the governments business no matter what the amount is" doesn't seem to hold up well in the real world.

The majority of criminals aren't buying mass amounts of ammunition from legal sources though. I'd guess, for the most part, the people who buy large amounts of ammunition in one go are people who like to shoot often.

I think one of the problems here is that there is a misconception that some criminal elements - Mexican narcotics groups, for example - get their weaponry from the "legal" market, and this misconception is furthered by politicians who wish to use it to drive their own purposes. If you start from there, as perhaps Co'Tor did, then the idea of tracking seems reasonable.

The problem with that is twofold:

A.) Why would you buy a $600 AR-15 that you'd have to smuggle into the country, convert to select fire, etc etc when you can just buy an actual select-fire M4 from the Mexican Army, or from Guatemala or wherever down south?

B.) When they have these big weapon seizures and show the guns on the table, there is always tons of stuff you can't get on the US civilian market. I saw one on some site talking about how the "gun show loophole" allows the Mexican cartels to get stuff like what was pictured, and the stuff in the picture included, like, hand grenades, M203's, stuff like that. Laughable.

So, rather than argue about whether or not the government could track large purchases of ammunition, firearms, etc - an idea that I feel they probably legally could, but why argue about it? - we should put the horse before the cart instead and point out there is no point in doing this anyway, as has been argued in this thread by more than one person - most criminals are not buying from conventional sources anyway.

 Hordini wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Oprah didnt loose her mind. She just knew what Symone said was going to stire up a storm

Which is too bad, because nothing she said should really be that controversial.

It is really controversial. And here is understanding why.
White people are the default. We do not have a "Race Identity" Our race specificall does not shape our experiances inn the way black people do. We do not go around questioning is EVERY thing that happened to us is is because of our race. It creates this identity

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Oprah didnt loose her mind. She just knew what Symone said was going to stire up a storm

Which is too bad, because nothing she said should really be that controversial.

It is really controversial. And here is understanding why.
White people are the default. We do not have a "Race Identity" Our race specificall does not shape our experiances inn the way black people do. We do not go around questioning is EVERY thing that happened to us is is because of our race. It creates this identity

That's cool. I actually went to college too, by the way. And if you don't believe being white doesn't shape your experiences then I don't know what to tell you. To me the claim that "white people are the default" is personally incredibly more offensive than an African-American saying she identifies as American. Maybe they're the default for you, but that doesn't mean they're the default for me or anyone else. A lot of this can vary incredibly depending on where you live and where you grew up.

That is my reason as to why. White people quite often dont see rae as big as a deal as the the races do

Last night I watched a bit of the protests. They were screaming "We are memorizing your faces, you can't hide. How about we come pay you and your wife a visit."
"We support Hamas 100%"

...and other gems. Real classy protest.