Author Topic: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days  (Read 87072 times)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11348
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #900 on: March 29, 2018, 10:01:24 AM »
Having no law to enforce in this case is bad.

Having a law, and choosing not to enforce it, which is mostly the case in leftists states being discussed, is just as bad if not worse.

That's not what we were talking about though.

The leftist state (Maryland) being discussed enforced their law (but not aggressively enough for those in this thread), the right state (Texas) doesn't bother to enforce the law because they've made it impossible to do so through lax gun laws.



But in IL, home of Chicago and the cases in question...

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/private-sales-in-illinois/

Quote
Any private (unlicensed) seller of a firearm who seeks to transfer a firearm to any unlicensed purchaser must, prior to transfer, contact the Department of State Police (DSP) with the transferee’s Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) Card number to determine the validity of the transferee’s FOID Card.1 The seller must await approval by DSP before transferring the firearm. Approvals issued by DSP for the purchase of a firearm are valid for 30 days.2

...

Illinois law prohibits any person from knowingly selling firearms or ammunition to individuals who are ineligible to possess a firearm or who do not hold a Firearm Owner’s Identification (“FOID”) card. It is a Class 3 felony, for example, for any person to knowingly sell or give any firearm to any person who has been convicted of a felony.8 See the Licensing of Gun Owners & Purchasers section for information about FOID cards.
Any person who transfers a firearm must keep records of all such transfers for a period of 10 years.9 See the Retention of Sales & Background Checks Records section for more information.
All firearms sellers must abide by statutory waiting periods.10 See the Waiting Periods section for more details.

Yep.  In the case brought up, that's how the state took away the right of the straw purchaser to buy a gun again from anyone.  It's currently impossible for Texas to take away this right from a straw purchaser.

Why is Texas the gold standard?  Does Texas have an abnormally high amount of gun violence with illicitly acquired firearms?

Nope, Texas doesn’t even crack the top 20 for states on gun violence rates. So why are you so hung up on Texas given that it isn’t a significant problem there?

 https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/death-by-gun-top-20-states-with-highest-rates/21/

I picked Texas because it's a right leaning state that doesn't have particularly high gun crime so that I couldn't be accused of comparing with the worst right leaning state.  If you would prefer to use Alaska (ranked most deadly in your list) we can do that.  It's similar to Texas but even more permissive:

Alaska does not:
- Penalize a firearms dealer for failing to conduct the federally required background check on a purchaser;
- Prohibit any person from giving false information or offering false evidence of his or her identity in purchasing or otherwise securing delivery of a firearm;
- Prohibit obtaining a firearm with the intent to provide it to someone the person knows is ineligible to possess a firearm; or
Have any other laws aimed at firearms trafficking.
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/firearms-trafficking-in-alaska/

The point still applies of course.  It's not possible to prosecute straw purchasers in these states.  Which means they care less, not more about the problem of straw purchasers.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1099
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #901 on: March 29, 2018, 10:09:46 AM »
Having no law to enforce in this case is bad.

Having a law, and choosing not to enforce it, which is mostly the case in leftists states being discussed, is just as bad if not worse.

That's not what we were talking about though.

The leftist state (Maryland) being discussed enforced their law (but not aggressively enough for those in this thread), the right state (Texas) doesn't bother to enforce the law because they've made it impossible to do so through lax gun laws.

If it's not what you're talking about it's because you've moved the goal post:



No, the best way to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers is to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers.  Straw purchasers aren't prosecuted out of political convenience and/or laziness, not because the ownership of the gun can't be traced. 

Certainly if straw purchasers were already aggressively prosecuted and punished, a gun registry would make it easier to identify and prosecute more straw purchasers, but since politicians and elected prosecutors aren't willing to treat straw purchasing as the serious crime it is, that's a pretty iron clad tip off that the gun registry, if it does anything, is just going to hassle law abiding gunowners. 

If the left would start treating straw purchasing as a serious crime, it would be pretty manageable to pass a law requiring that any sale of a gun within 12 or 24 months of purchase has to be through a federally licensed fire arm dealer.  Then you cut out the true straw purchasers with a pretty minimal impact to law abiding gun owners.

Again, leftists want to hassle law abiding gun owners, but they don't want to treat straw purchasing as a serious crime.  I'm not sure how many anti-registry people would change their mind, if any, but it's an easy argument for them now.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11348
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #902 on: March 29, 2018, 10:13:39 AM »
Having no law to enforce in this case is bad.

Having a law, and choosing not to enforce it, which is mostly the case in leftists states being discussed, is just as bad if not worse.

That's not what we were talking about though.

The leftist state (Maryland) being discussed enforced their law (but not aggressively enough for those in this thread), the right state (Texas) doesn't bother to enforce the law because they've made it impossible to do so through lax gun laws.

If it's not what you're talking about it's because you've moved the goal post:



No, the best way to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers is to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers.  Straw purchasers aren't prosecuted out of political convenience and/or laziness, not because the ownership of the gun can't be traced. 

Certainly if straw purchasers were already aggressively prosecuted and punished, a gun registry would make it easier to identify and prosecute more straw purchasers, but since politicians and elected prosecutors aren't willing to treat straw purchasing as the serious crime it is, that's a pretty iron clad tip off that the gun registry, if it does anything, is just going to hassle law abiding gunowners. 

If the left would start treating straw purchasing as a serious crime, it would be pretty manageable to pass a law requiring that any sale of a gun within 12 or 24 months of purchase has to be through a federally licensed fire arm dealer.  Then you cut out the true straw purchasers with a pretty minimal impact to law abiding gun owners.

Again, leftists want to hassle law abiding gun owners, but they don't want to treat straw purchasing as a serious crime.  I'm not sure how many anti-registry people would change their mind, if any, but it's an easy argument for them now.

You don't consider losing the right to own a firearm ever again a punishment?  Cool.  Let's talk gun control then.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 277
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #903 on: March 29, 2018, 10:49:21 AM »
Having no law to enforce in this case is bad.

Having a law, and choosing not to enforce it, which is mostly the case in leftists states being discussed, is just as bad if not worse.

That's not what we were talking about though.

The leftist state (Maryland) being discussed enforced their law (but not aggressively enough for those in this thread), the right state (Texas) doesn't bother to enforce the law because they've made it impossible to do so through lax gun laws.

If it's not what you're talking about it's because you've moved the goal post:



No, the best way to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers is to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers.  Straw purchasers aren't prosecuted out of political convenience and/or laziness, not because the ownership of the gun can't be traced. 

Certainly if straw purchasers were already aggressively prosecuted and punished, a gun registry would make it easier to identify and prosecute more straw purchasers, but since politicians and elected prosecutors aren't willing to treat straw purchasing as the serious crime it is, that's a pretty iron clad tip off that the gun registry, if it does anything, is just going to hassle law abiding gunowners. 

If the left would start treating straw purchasing as a serious crime, it would be pretty manageable to pass a law requiring that any sale of a gun within 12 or 24 months of purchase has to be through a federally licensed fire arm dealer.  Then you cut out the true straw purchasers with a pretty minimal impact to law abiding gun owners.

Again, leftists want to hassle law abiding gun owners, but they don't want to treat straw purchasing as a serious crime.  I'm not sure how many anti-registry people would change their mind, if any, but it's an easy argument for them now.

You don't consider losing the right to own a firearm ever again a punishment?  Cool.  Let's talk gun control then.

I'm going to have to agree with GuitarStv here.  I think stripping someone of their constitutionally guaranteed right is a pretty serious punishment, with or without jail time.  I know locking people up is our go to solution here, but it doesn't always solve the problem.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1099
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #904 on: March 29, 2018, 10:51:31 AM »
Having no law to enforce in this case is bad.

Having a law, and choosing not to enforce it, which is mostly the case in leftists states being discussed, is just as bad if not worse.

That's not what we were talking about though.

The leftist state (Maryland) being discussed enforced their law (but not aggressively enough for those in this thread), the right state (Texas) doesn't bother to enforce the law because they've made it impossible to do so through lax gun laws.

If it's not what you're talking about it's because you've moved the goal post:



No, the best way to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers is to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers.  Straw purchasers aren't prosecuted out of political convenience and/or laziness, not because the ownership of the gun can't be traced. 

Certainly if straw purchasers were already aggressively prosecuted and punished, a gun registry would make it easier to identify and prosecute more straw purchasers, but since politicians and elected prosecutors aren't willing to treat straw purchasing as the serious crime it is, that's a pretty iron clad tip off that the gun registry, if it does anything, is just going to hassle law abiding gunowners. 

If the left would start treating straw purchasing as a serious crime, it would be pretty manageable to pass a law requiring that any sale of a gun within 12 or 24 months of purchase has to be through a federally licensed fire arm dealer.  Then you cut out the true straw purchasers with a pretty minimal impact to law abiding gun owners.

Again, leftists want to hassle law abiding gun owners, but they don't want to treat straw purchasing as a serious crime.  I'm not sure how many anti-registry people would change their mind, if any, but it's an easy argument for them now.

You don't consider losing the right to own a firearm ever again a punishment?  Cool.  Let's talk gun control then.

You are attempting to move the goal posts again.  Noboby was talking about whether or not barring somebody from owning a firearm is a punishment.  It's clearly a punishment.  But it's not a punishment handed out as the primary or sole punishment for a serious crime. 

It's hard to credibly claim that an appropriate punishment for helping a violent criminal bypass restrictions on his ability to procure a gun is a bar from purchasing future guns, and also claim that straw purchasing is so serious we need to mandate all gun transfers be subject to a background check. 


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11348
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #905 on: March 29, 2018, 10:56:11 AM »
Having no law to enforce in this case is bad.

Having a law, and choosing not to enforce it, which is mostly the case in leftists states being discussed, is just as bad if not worse.

That's not what we were talking about though.

The leftist state (Maryland) being discussed enforced their law (but not aggressively enough for those in this thread), the right state (Texas) doesn't bother to enforce the law because they've made it impossible to do so through lax gun laws.

If it's not what you're talking about it's because you've moved the goal post:



No, the best way to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers is to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers.  Straw purchasers aren't prosecuted out of political convenience and/or laziness, not because the ownership of the gun can't be traced. 

Certainly if straw purchasers were already aggressively prosecuted and punished, a gun registry would make it easier to identify and prosecute more straw purchasers, but since politicians and elected prosecutors aren't willing to treat straw purchasing as the serious crime it is, that's a pretty iron clad tip off that the gun registry, if it does anything, is just going to hassle law abiding gunowners. 

If the left would start treating straw purchasing as a serious crime, it would be pretty manageable to pass a law requiring that any sale of a gun within 12 or 24 months of purchase has to be through a federally licensed fire arm dealer.  Then you cut out the true straw purchasers with a pretty minimal impact to law abiding gun owners.

Again, leftists want to hassle law abiding gun owners, but they don't want to treat straw purchasing as a serious crime.  I'm not sure how many anti-registry people would change their mind, if any, but it's an easy argument for them now.

You don't consider losing the right to own a firearm ever again a punishment?  Cool.  Let's talk gun control then.

You are attempting to move the goal posts again.  Noboby was talking about whether or not barring somebody from owning a firearm is a punishment.  It's clearly a punishment.  But it's not a punishment handed out as the primary or sole punishment for a serious crime. 

It's hard to credibly claim that an appropriate punishment for helping a violent criminal bypass restrictions on his ability to procure a gun is a bar from purchasing future guns, and also claim that straw purchasing is so serious we need to mandate all gun transfers be subject to a background check. 

I'm not moving goalposts at all.  You said the crime was not being treated as serious, but it is.  It's just not getting the maximum possible jail time.

I'm not entirely sure that jail time is the best option anyway.  At least not for all cases.

If it's a girlfriend or an elderly mother who is being coerced to buy the weapon in the first place and is afraid to go to the police about it, does it really make sense to send them to jail?  By removing their right to buy a gun, you fix the problem without unjustly punishing people who may be caught up in something they don't necessarily want to be.

All gun transfers should absolutely be subject to a background check, nothing to do with straw purchasers.  Otherwise as a good guy selling a gun there's no way of knowing that you're selling your gun to another good guy.  It could be a bad guy or a crazy guy.  As a responsible gun owner, I don't understand how you could argue against that.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #906 on: March 29, 2018, 11:06:04 AM »
So can we put to rest the whole “no one’s trying to take your guns away” tripe?


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

Yes, the total failure of gun enthusiasts to do anything about the problem has caused many of us to no longer care about your right.

I no longer agree that it is important, and I support a wholesale ban of all firearms and the uncompensated confiscation of all firearms.

To change my mind, all you have to do is literally anything to take responsibility for the potential harm caused by misuse of the right you hold so dear.  Make any move in the direction of giving the slightest shit that mass shootings occur.  Self-police as manufacturers, as sellers, as enthusiasts.

Protect your right if it means that much to you.  Because you've done literally nothing to address the problem in two decades.  This isn't a case of tried and failed, looking for new solutions.

You just don't give even one fuck.

And as is pointed out, non gun-enthusiasts lack the knowledge to fix it and protect your rights.  I'm ceding that argument.  You are correct.  We can't fix it and protect your rights.  You won't fix it.  So fuck your rights.
+1

It really does come down to the fact that it portrays an attitude of not wanting to do anything to fix the problem and playing hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil and pretending the only problem is that non gun enthusiasts just are making it all up.

Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1989
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #907 on: March 29, 2018, 11:58:15 AM »
So could the straw purchaser relocate out of state and regain the ability to buy guns again?

Dabnasty

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 989
  • Age: 29
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #908 on: March 29, 2018, 12:04:32 PM »
Having no law to enforce in this case is bad.

Having a law, and choosing not to enforce it, which is mostly the case in leftists states being discussed, is just as bad if not worse.

That's not what we were talking about though.

The leftist state (Maryland) being discussed enforced their law (but not aggressively enough for those in this thread), the right state (Texas) doesn't bother to enforce the law because they've made it impossible to do so through lax gun laws.

If it's not what you're talking about it's because you've moved the goal post:



No, the best way to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers is to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers.  Straw purchasers aren't prosecuted out of political convenience and/or laziness, not because the ownership of the gun can't be traced. 

Certainly if straw purchasers were already aggressively prosecuted and punished, a gun registry would make it easier to identify and prosecute more straw purchasers, but since politicians and elected prosecutors aren't willing to treat straw purchasing as the serious crime it is, that's a pretty iron clad tip off that the gun registry, if it does anything, is just going to hassle law abiding gunowners. 

If the left would start treating straw purchasing as a serious crime, it would be pretty manageable to pass a law requiring that any sale of a gun within 12 or 24 months of purchase has to be through a federally licensed fire arm dealer.  Then you cut out the true straw purchasers with a pretty minimal impact to law abiding gun owners.

Again, leftists want to hassle law abiding gun owners, but they don't want to treat straw purchasing as a serious crime.  I'm not sure how many anti-registry people would change their mind, if any, but it's an easy argument for them now.

You don't consider losing the right to own a firearm ever again a punishment?  Cool.  Let's talk gun control then.

You are attempting to move the goal posts again.  Noboby was talking about whether or not barring somebody from owning a firearm is a punishment.  It's clearly a punishment.  But it's not a punishment handed out as the primary or sole punishment for a serious crime. 

It's hard to credibly claim that an appropriate punishment for helping a violent criminal bypass restrictions on his ability to procure a gun is a bar from purchasing future guns, and also claim that straw purchasing is so serious we need to mandate all gun transfers be subject to a background check.

Since this discussion of catching and prosecuting straw purchasers began you've claimed:

1) A registry doesn't make catching straw purchasers that much easier - but it does
2) Straw purchasers in states like Texas can be caught if we just put in the effort - but often they can't
3) Those found guilty of straw purchases in states with some form of registry are not prosecuted - they are
4) Those found guilty of straw purchases in states with some form of registry are not prosecuted harshly enough based on the fact that they do not receive jail time - GuitarStv makes a good argument for why that may be a bad idea anyway.

Who is moving the goalposts?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11348
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #909 on: March 29, 2018, 12:11:55 PM »
So could the straw purchaser relocate out of state and regain the ability to buy guns again?

In most lax gun law states anyone can buy a gun privately without verification of ID or doing a background check.  So yeah, absolutely.  You can also buy a gun if you're a criminal, or have mental health issues.




For anyone still interested in straw purchasers in Baltimore in particular, there was actually a study done about the impact on crime:

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/677236

Quote
Research demonstrates that laws designed to prevent such diversion by increasing the accountability of gun sellers and buyers are associated with lower levels of guns diverted to prohibited persons in cross-sectional studies. These laws include permit-to-purchase (PTP) laws for handguns, the extension of background check requirements to gun transfers between private parties, mandatory reporting of lost or stolen guns by owners, and strong regulation and oversight of licensed gun dealers

Quote
the FSA was associated with an 82 percent reduction in the risk of a handgun being recovered from a criminal possessor who was not the retail purchaser less than twelve months after its retail sale in Maryland. The data suggest that the new legislation, most probably the licensing requirement for handgun purchasers, may have also contributed to a reduction in the number of legal purchasers subsequently involved in a crime with the gun. In further support of the theory that the FSA reduced diversion of handguns into the underground gun market, Maryland saw a 30 percent reduction in in-state handguns recovered in crime less than a year after retail sale. Pennsylvania and Virginia, neighboring states that did not change their laws, did not see a similar decline.

Quote
Forty percent of the survey respondents, who were prohibited under Maryland law from legally purchasing or possessing guns, reported that the new law made it more difficult to get guns. More than 30 percent indicated that the law affected the willingness of other individuals to purchase guns on behalf of the respondents. Additionally, 25 percent reported that the law affected the ease of finding a trusted source who would sell guns to the respondents.


The goal of having a legal system is to minimize or prevent bad stuff from happening.  That appears to be exactly what these gun regulations are doing.  You can certainly make the argument that you believe the improvement would be even better if straw purchasers were sentenced to jail time.  You can't argue that a state that doesn't implement any way to catch straw purchasers is somehow better or tougher on them than a state that is having success in preventing the crime from happening through prosecution and gun control.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2018, 12:43:34 PM by GuitarStv »

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1099
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #910 on: March 29, 2018, 01:41:33 PM »
Having no law to enforce in this case is bad.

Having a law, and choosing not to enforce it, which is mostly the case in leftists states being discussed, is just as bad if not worse.

That's not what we were talking about though.

The leftist state (Maryland) being discussed enforced their law (but not aggressively enough for those in this thread), the right state (Texas) doesn't bother to enforce the law because they've made it impossible to do so through lax gun laws.

If it's not what you're talking about it's because you've moved the goal post:



No, the best way to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers is to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers.  Straw purchasers aren't prosecuted out of political convenience and/or laziness, not because the ownership of the gun can't be traced. 

Certainly if straw purchasers were already aggressively prosecuted and punished, a gun registry would make it easier to identify and prosecute more straw purchasers, but since politicians and elected prosecutors aren't willing to treat straw purchasing as the serious crime it is, that's a pretty iron clad tip off that the gun registry, if it does anything, is just going to hassle law abiding gunowners. 

If the left would start treating straw purchasing as a serious crime, it would be pretty manageable to pass a law requiring that any sale of a gun within 12 or 24 months of purchase has to be through a federally licensed fire arm dealer.  Then you cut out the true straw purchasers with a pretty minimal impact to law abiding gun owners.

Again, leftists want to hassle law abiding gun owners, but they don't want to treat straw purchasing as a serious crime.  I'm not sure how many anti-registry people would change their mind, if any, but it's an easy argument for them now.

You don't consider losing the right to own a firearm ever again a punishment?  Cool.  Let's talk gun control then.

You are attempting to move the goal posts again.  Noboby was talking about whether or not barring somebody from owning a firearm is a punishment.  It's clearly a punishment.  But it's not a punishment handed out as the primary or sole punishment for a serious crime. 

It's hard to credibly claim that an appropriate punishment for helping a violent criminal bypass restrictions on his ability to procure a gun is a bar from purchasing future guns, and also claim that straw purchasing is so serious we need to mandate all gun transfers be subject to a background check.

Since this discussion of catching and prosecuting straw purchasers began you've claimed:

1) A registry doesn't make catching straw purchasers that much easier - but it does
2) Straw purchasers in states like Texas can be caught if we just put in the effort - but often they can't
3) Those found guilty of straw purchases in states with some form of registry are not prosecuted - they are
4) Those found guilty of straw purchases in states with some form of registry are not prosecuted harshly enough based on the fact that they do not receive jail time - GuitarStv makes a good argument for why that may be a bad idea anyway.

Who is moving the goalposts?

Why don't you provide quotes of those statements.  I'm certainly as guilty as the next person of speaking (or typing) imprecisely, but I explicitly acknowledged that a registry does make catching some straw purchaser easier.  I'm pretty sure I've never made any representation regarding Texas other than I doubt that there's no law making straw purchases for ineligible buyers illegal.   I'm pretty sure I never said those found guilty of straw purchases are not prosecuted (as you can't be found guilty without being prosecuted). 

I have stated that straw purchasers are not punished harshly enough.  Pretty sure I haven't ever claimed anything different, so of course I'm not moving the goal post.  If you don't think straw purchasers deserve jail time, that's fine.  But don't act like it's sooooo important to have a registry if you don't think providing guns to violent criminals is a big deal. 


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11348
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #911 on: March 29, 2018, 02:24:47 PM »
But don't act like it's sooooo important to have a registry if you don't think providing guns to violent criminals is a big deal.

Nobody in this thread said that.

It's important to have a registry to prevent straw purchasers.  Preventing guns getting to violent criminals is a big deal.  The registry in Baltimore is working pretty well to prevent guns from getting to violent criminals.  In states with lax gun control laws (which tend to be right wing), there's no way to do this.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #912 on: March 29, 2018, 02:33:41 PM »
But don't act like it's sooooo important to have a registry if you don't think providing guns to violent criminals is a big deal.

Nobody in this thread said that.

It's important to have a registry to prevent straw purchasers.  Preventing guns getting to violent criminals is a big deal.  The registry in Baltimore is working pretty well to prevent guns from getting to violent criminals.  In states with lax gun control laws (which tend to be right wing), there's no way to do this.

You don't need a registry to require background checks on all sales.  Open up the NICS to private transfers and set a numerical limit on the number of private sales per year and enforce it. 
« Last Edit: March 29, 2018, 02:38:44 PM by Midwest »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11348
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #913 on: March 29, 2018, 02:43:44 PM »
But don't act like it's sooooo important to have a registry if you don't think providing guns to violent criminals is a big deal.

Nobody in this thread said that.

It's important to have a registry to prevent straw purchasers.  Preventing guns getting to violent criminals is a big deal.  The registry in Baltimore is working pretty well to prevent guns from getting to violent criminals.  In states with lax gun control laws (which tend to be right wing), there's no way to do this.

You don't need a registry to regulate background checks on all sales.  Open up the NICS to private transfers and set a numerical limit on the number of private sales per year and enforce it.

I agree that you don't need a registry to create a regulation requiring background checks on all sales.

Without a record of what background check was done (along with when, and who was involved), anyone can still claim that they privately sold a gun and then forgot the name of the person they sold to and the date it was sold . . . so you would still be unable to prevent straw purchases.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #914 on: March 29, 2018, 03:03:14 PM »
But don't act like it's sooooo important to have a registry if you don't think providing guns to violent criminals is a big deal.

Nobody in this thread said that.

It's important to have a registry to prevent straw purchasers.  Preventing guns getting to violent criminals is a big deal.  The registry in Baltimore is working pretty well to prevent guns from getting to violent criminals.  In states with lax gun control laws (which tend to be right wing), there's no way to do this.

You don't need a registry to regulate background checks on all sales.  Open up the NICS to private transfers and set a numerical limit on the number of private sales per year and enforce it.

I agree that you don't need a registry to create a regulation requiring background checks on all sales.

Without a record of what background check was done (along with when, and who was involved), anyone can still claim that they privately sold a gun and then forgot the name of the person they sold to and the date it was sold . . . so you would still be unable to prevent straw purchases.

Require a 4473 for each sale be submitted to the ATF just like any other transfer , require sale to go through a dealer, or require record keeping on the part of the seller.    Gifts, inheritances, and loans are exempted.  Require stolen guns to be reported and if guns associated with you keep turning up with criminals, you have some explaining to do.

Related to this and on punishment of straw purchasers.  If you are willing to intentionally purchase a gun for a prohibited person, I doubt having your gun rights taken away is that much of a deterrent.  Make an announcement, going forward we catch you, you will do time.  When you catch violent felons with guns, serious time.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 733
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #915 on: March 29, 2018, 03:16:50 PM »
But don't act like it's sooooo important to have a registry if you don't think providing guns to violent criminals is a big deal.

Nobody in this thread said that.

It's important to have a registry to prevent straw purchasers.  Preventing guns getting to violent criminals is a big deal.  The registry in Baltimore is working pretty well to prevent guns from getting to violent criminals.  In states with lax gun control laws (which tend to be right wing), there's no way to do this.

You don't need a registry to regulate background checks on all sales.  Open up the NICS to private transfers and set a numerical limit on the number of private sales per year and enforce it.

I agree that you don't need a registry to create a regulation requiring background checks on all sales.

Without a record of what background check was done (along with when, and who was involved), anyone can still claim that they privately sold a gun and then forgot the name of the person they sold to and the date it was sold . . . so you would still be unable to prevent straw purchases.

I'm gonna jump back in here because I actually strongly agree with both points made above...

"Open up the NICS to private transfers and set a numerical limit on the number of private sales per year and enforce it. "

Agreed.  And have both parties keep a receipt stating the Seller's name and ID, the Buyer's name and ID and the date and time of the BG check.  Do not include the firearm or serial number.  Both parties keep "proof" that they followed through with the law.

Also, in order to verify the sale, the bg check record will have to be stored BUT should require a signed warrant from a judge, and it should be explicitly illegal to issue a warrant for more than (2) individuals at any one time (no "whole data release" warrants).

Also, make it illegal to not report the loss of a weapon, lets say within (7) days of the loss or theft.  If there is a theft, the expectation is a police report should accompany the report.

The prosecution now has an offensive plan as to why a straw purchaser either (1) didn't report it stolen, (2) illegally sold the firearm without a BG check or (3) acted as a straw purchaser.

I am also strongly in agreement that a straw purchase should be a low-punishment felony, but one that bars the purchase of a firearm for a non-insignificant amount of time...  I would say 20 years or so.  That means they lose the 'straw purchase' capabilities for a significant enough time that (hopefully) they won't ever want to make that decision again.

Also, it should be illegal and punishable for a know felon to attempt to pressure a straw purchase.  GF's or relatives or friends (with evidence) should be able to find legal recourse against attempted straw purchase 'pushing'.  Right now, they are on their own entirely and the DA's hands are tied as there is no actual offense for trying it.

Dabnasty

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 989
  • Age: 29
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #916 on: March 29, 2018, 03:28:27 PM »
Having no law to enforce in this case is bad.

Having a law, and choosing not to enforce it, which is mostly the case in leftists states being discussed, is just as bad if not worse.

That's not what we were talking about though.

The leftist state (Maryland) being discussed enforced their law (but not aggressively enough for those in this thread), the right state (Texas) doesn't bother to enforce the law because they've made it impossible to do so through lax gun laws.

If it's not what you're talking about it's because you've moved the goal post:



No, the best way to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers is to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers.  Straw purchasers aren't prosecuted out of political convenience and/or laziness, not because the ownership of the gun can't be traced. 

Certainly if straw purchasers were already aggressively prosecuted and punished, a gun registry would make it easier to identify and prosecute more straw purchasers, but since politicians and elected prosecutors aren't willing to treat straw purchasing as the serious crime it is, that's a pretty iron clad tip off that the gun registry, if it does anything, is just going to hassle law abiding gunowners. 

If the left would start treating straw purchasing as a serious crime, it would be pretty manageable to pass a law requiring that any sale of a gun within 12 or 24 months of purchase has to be through a federally licensed fire arm dealer.  Then you cut out the true straw purchasers with a pretty minimal impact to law abiding gun owners.

Again, leftists want to hassle law abiding gun owners, but they don't want to treat straw purchasing as a serious crime.  I'm not sure how many anti-registry people would change their mind, if any, but it's an easy argument for them now.

You don't consider losing the right to own a firearm ever again a punishment?  Cool.  Let's talk gun control then.

You are attempting to move the goal posts again.  Noboby was talking about whether or not barring somebody from owning a firearm is a punishment.  It's clearly a punishment.  But it's not a punishment handed out as the primary or sole punishment for a serious crime. 

It's hard to credibly claim that an appropriate punishment for helping a violent criminal bypass restrictions on his ability to procure a gun is a bar from purchasing future guns, and also claim that straw purchasing is so serious we need to mandate all gun transfers be subject to a background check.

Since this discussion of catching and prosecuting straw purchasers began you've claimed:

1) A registry doesn't make catching straw purchasers that much easier - but it does
2) Straw purchasers in states like Texas can be caught if we just put in the effort - but often they can't
3) Those found guilty of straw purchases in states with some form of registry are not prosecuted - they are
4) Those found guilty of straw purchases in states with some form of registry are not prosecuted harshly enough based on the fact that they do not receive jail time - GuitarStv makes a good argument for why that may be a bad idea anyway.

Who is moving the goalposts?

Why don't you provide quotes of those statements.  I'm certainly as guilty as the next person of speaking (or typing) imprecisely, but I explicitly acknowledged that a registry does make catching some straw purchaser easier.  I'm pretty sure I've never made any representation regarding Texas other than I doubt that there's no law making straw purchases for ineligible buyers illegal.   I'm pretty sure I never said those found guilty of straw purchases are not prosecuted (as you can't be found guilty without being prosecuted). 

I have stated that straw purchasers are not punished harshly enough.  Pretty sure I haven't ever claimed anything different, so of course I'm not moving the goal post.  If you don't think straw purchasers deserve jail time, that's fine.  But don't act like it's sooooo important to have a registry if you don't think providing guns to violent criminals is a big deal.

1) You said it's often easy to prove a straw purchase. I guess it depends on your definition of 'often' but since I think it's closer to never I would disagree. You did say a registry would make catching them easier but you also explained how simple it would be without one on several occasions. Your 'simple' arguments were thorougly refuted.
2)
Quote
"It's not that there is no way to prove the charge.  That's such a stupid talking point.  If it's not "worth the effort" to prove the charge...
implies that they can be caught but there is a lack of effort.
3) I guess this one makes me 'the next person' you were referring to :) I read
Quote
if you're not actually putting people in jail for straw purchasers, then you're not really in favor of treating straw purchasing as a serious crime.
as "not actually prosecuting people."
4) My point was that this is where we stand now, the most recent goal post.

I absolutely think providing guns to criminals is a big deal. Why does the fact that I don't think jail time is always the answer imply that I do not? I'm more worried about stopping straw purchasers from doing what they're doing than making them suffer and paying for it with taxes. Unfortunately jailtime is not an effective way to reform most people and if they were just  someone who was pressured to buy guns for a relation, then I definately don't think jail is the answer; the efficacy of prison to reform criminals is a whole other argument.

In fact, I never even said they shouldn't go to jail, maybe they should. Maybe these states need to do a better job of enforcing the laws. Maybe they need to use tougher punishments. I don't know enough about the current situation to be certain, but I do know that throwing your hands up and saying "what's the point of a registry, no one going to jail when they get caught?" isn't a great argument against a reliable way to catch criminals.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2018, 03:30:17 PM by Dabnasty »

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 277
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #917 on: March 29, 2018, 04:07:35 PM »
Having no law to enforce in this case is bad.

Having a law, and choosing not to enforce it, which is mostly the case in leftists states being discussed, is just as bad if not worse.

That's not what we were talking about though.

The leftist state (Maryland) being discussed enforced their law (but not aggressively enough for those in this thread), the right state (Texas) doesn't bother to enforce the law because they've made it impossible to do so through lax gun laws.

If it's not what you're talking about it's because you've moved the goal post:



No, the best way to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers is to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers.  Straw purchasers aren't prosecuted out of political convenience and/or laziness, not because the ownership of the gun can't be traced. 

Certainly if straw purchasers were already aggressively prosecuted and punished, a gun registry would make it easier to identify and prosecute more straw purchasers, but since politicians and elected prosecutors aren't willing to treat straw purchasing as the serious crime it is, that's a pretty iron clad tip off that the gun registry, if it does anything, is just going to hassle law abiding gunowners. 

If the left would start treating straw purchasing as a serious crime, it would be pretty manageable to pass a law requiring that any sale of a gun within 12 or 24 months of purchase has to be through a federally licensed fire arm dealer.  Then you cut out the true straw purchasers with a pretty minimal impact to law abiding gun owners.

Again, leftists want to hassle law abiding gun owners, but they don't want to treat straw purchasing as a serious crime.  I'm not sure how many anti-registry people would change their mind, if any, but it's an easy argument for them now.

You don't consider losing the right to own a firearm ever again a punishment?  Cool.  Let's talk gun control then.

You are attempting to move the goal posts again.  Noboby was talking about whether or not barring somebody from owning a firearm is a punishment.  It's clearly a punishment.  But it's not a punishment handed out as the primary or sole punishment for a serious crime. 

It's hard to credibly claim that an appropriate punishment for helping a violent criminal bypass restrictions on his ability to procure a gun is a bar from purchasing future guns, and also claim that straw purchasing is so serious we need to mandate all gun transfers be subject to a background check.

Since this discussion of catching and prosecuting straw purchasers began you've claimed:

1) A registry doesn't make catching straw purchasers that much easier - but it does
2) Straw purchasers in states like Texas can be caught if we just put in the effort - but often they can't
3) Those found guilty of straw purchases in states with some form of registry are not prosecuted - they are
4) Those found guilty of straw purchases in states with some form of registry are not prosecuted harshly enough based on the fact that they do not receive jail time - GuitarStv makes a good argument for why that may be a bad idea anyway.

Who is moving the goalposts?

Why don't you provide quotes of those statements.  I'm certainly as guilty as the next person of speaking (or typing) imprecisely, but I explicitly acknowledged that a registry does make catching some straw purchaser easier.  I'm pretty sure I've never made any representation regarding Texas other than I doubt that there's no law making straw purchases for ineligible buyers illegal.   I'm pretty sure I never said those found guilty of straw purchases are not prosecuted (as you can't be found guilty without being prosecuted). 

I have stated that straw purchasers are not punished harshly enough.  Pretty sure I haven't ever claimed anything different, so of course I'm not moving the goal post.  If you don't think straw purchasers deserve jail time, that's fine.  But don't act like it's sooooo important to have a registry if you don't think providing guns to violent criminals is a big deal.

The problem here is that you can think that providing guns to violent criminals is a big deal and also think that straw purchasers don't necessarily need to be given jail time (regardless of what they "deserve").

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1099
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #918 on: March 29, 2018, 04:09:13 PM »
I really am glad that this is a law abiding community, because if a lot of you engaged in crime, I think you'd be shocked to find that criminal prosecution doesn't work on the honor system, where they let anybody go that denies the crime. 

But, just so you know, one simple way would be:
ask the gun purchaser where their gun is. 
- if they say it was stolen, you ask if they reported it; if they did, you immediately charge the gun user with larceny (which will often be another felony with real jail time to tack on) if it was actually reported.  If it wasn't reported, you get them to issue an affidavit saying it was stolen, when they were aware it was stolen, etc.  If they swear out the affidavit, again, you charge the gun user with larceny.  If they won't swear out the affidavit, you can use that in impeaching them, either directly (if they take the stand) or indirectly, if you have the investigator testify to the fact that they wouldn't swear it was stolen.
- If they say they sold it to somebody else, you get them to identify them.  If they identify them, you start the process over with that person (if they deny purchasing the gun, then you use them to impeach the strawpurchaser at trial) go to them.  If they don't identify them, again, you have a case to present with strong circumstantial evidence.

Certainly not a slam dunk, but you should generally either get (1) additional time for the violent criminal (a win), (2) jail time for the straw purchaser, which should greatly deter future strawpurchaser (a win), or (3) a huge hassle for the straw purchaser (not a win, but not bad either, especially if it involves them spending a few days in jail, as again, the straw purchasers will be people with clean records and who spending any time in jail is less palatable than it might be for the typical criminal, although granted some of the straw purchasers may already be fairly enmeshed in criminal life and just not been caught yet, in which case that probably wouldn't be a big deterrent)

You're not required to know the name of the person you sell a gun to, or to verify their identity.  So, I'm a straw purchaser and I say 'I sold the gun to a guy with dark hair'.  Not only not a slam dunk, but your investigation is now over.

- No additional time for the violent criminal
- No jail time for the straw purchaser
- No hassle for the straw purchaser

Again, that's not the way investigations or prosecutions work (at least with good ones).  They don't say, wow, it sure is a coincidence that you sold a gun to somebody you can't identify, and the gun just happened to end up with your brother.  Nothing we can do about that, enjoy your day.  Again, these are people that can pass a background check.  They are mostly not hardened criminals. 

Michael in ABQ

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 427
    • Military Saints
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #919 on: March 29, 2018, 05:17:54 PM »
Quote
Other countries have people who own guns and they do not have it in their documents.  They just have a set of rules that their society agreed to about how to handle that.

I think this quote is quite informative, especially when viewing the issue of gun violence through the lense of public health as NoStacheOhio mentioned. While I think it’s a good idea to try to design guns with safety in mind as  we do cars, the issue is not one without solid answers and evidence, which leads me to the conclusion that all this talk about the definition of assault rifles and the like is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Every other developed nation does not have a gun violence problem. They have the solutions. We can just adapt what they do to our own legal environment and likely see the mass reductions in gun deaths that everyone wants, balanced against respecting ownership rights. Rates may still be higher than in other countries, but I imagine they would be far lower than currently.

The problem is, pretty much every other developed country in the world has stricter gun control rules.  Gun advocates don't believe that guns are a problem because they like guns.  To them, the deaths and injury caused by guns are the price of freedom to use whatever toys you want, whenever you want . . . and no amount of death is worth the slightest inconvenience on that front.  I don't believe you'll ever get them on board.

You will not get me on board with banning the type of weapons that would be effective in resisting a tyrannical government, i.e. semi-automatic rifles. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to enshrine the right of Americans to keep and bear arms to resist a tyrannical government.

If you look at countries where masses of citizens were killed by their own government (Germany, Russia, China, Cambodia, Rwanda, etc.) you will see a correlation with low rates of gun ownership and in many cases outright bans and confiscations in the years before most of the killing. That is not to say that gun control causes mass killing by governments, but it is usually one of the steps. After all, it's pretty hard to go round up people for internment, reeducation, execution, etc. when many of them might be armed. Gun control, whether in the form of limitations on who can possess guns, or what kind of guns they can possess, or registering those guns, is a slippery slope towards confiscation.

zoltani

  • Guest
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #920 on: March 29, 2018, 05:48:24 PM »
Quote
Other countries have people who own guns and they do not have it in their documents.  They just have a set of rules that their society agreed to about how to handle that.

I think this quote is quite informative, especially when viewing the issue of gun violence through the lense of public health as NoStacheOhio mentioned. While I think it’s a good idea to try to design guns with safety in mind as  we do cars, the issue is not one without solid answers and evidence, which leads me to the conclusion that all this talk about the definition of assault rifles and the like is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Every other developed nation does not have a gun violence problem. They have the solutions. We can just adapt what they do to our own legal environment and likely see the mass reductions in gun deaths that everyone wants, balanced against respecting ownership rights. Rates may still be higher than in other countries, but I imagine they would be far lower than currently.

The problem is, pretty much every other developed country in the world has stricter gun control rules.  Gun advocates don't believe that guns are a problem because they like guns.  To them, the deaths and injury caused by guns are the price of freedom to use whatever toys you want, whenever you want . . . and no amount of death is worth the slightest inconvenience on that front.  I don't believe you'll ever get them on board.

You will not get me on board with banning the type of weapons that would be effective in resisting a tyrannical government, i.e. semi-automatic rifles. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to enshrine the right of Americans to keep and bear arms to resist a tyrannical government.

If you look at countries where masses of citizens were killed by their own government (Germany, Russia, China, Cambodia, Rwanda, etc.) you will see a correlation with low rates of gun ownership and in many cases outright bans and confiscations in the years before most of the killing. That is not to say that gun control causes mass killing by governments, but it is usually one of the steps. After all, it's pretty hard to go round up people for internment, reeducation, execution, etc. when many of them might be armed. Gun control, whether in the form of limitations on who can possess guns, or what kind of guns they can possess, or registering those guns, is a slippery slope towards confiscation.

I doubt your puny little semi auto will be effective over the types of weapons the government and elite posses. Your nervous system can be manipulated through the screen you are reading this thread through. 

"Physiological effects have been observed in a human subject in response to stimulation of the skin with weak electromagnetic fields that are pulsed with certain frequencies near ½ Hz or 2.4 Hz, such as to excite a sensory resonance.Many computer monitors and TV tubes, when displaying pulsed images, emit pulsed electromagnetic fields of sufficient amplitudes to cause such excitation. It is therefore possible to manipulate the nervous system of a subject by pulsing images displayed on a nearby computer monitor or TV set. For the latter, the image pulsing may be imbedded in the program material, or it may be overlaid by modulating a video stream, either as an RF signal or as a video signal. The image displayed on a computer monitor may be pulsed effectively by a simple computer program. For certain monitors, pulsed electromagnetic fields capable of exciting sensory resonances in nearby subjects may be generated even as the displayed images are pulsed with subliminal intensity."

"Certain monitors can emit electromagnetic field pulses that excite a sensory resonance in a nearby subject, through image pulses that are so weak as to be subliminal. This is unfortunate since it opens a way for mischievous application of the invention, whereby people are exposed unknowingly to manipulation of their nervous systems for someone else's purposes. Such application would be unethical and is of course not advocated. It is mentioned here in order to alert the public to the possibility of covert abuse that may occur while being online, or while watching TV, a video, or a DVD."

https://patents.google.com/patent/US6506148B2/en


Terrifying isn't it?

I guess if we want to travel down this rabbit hole then we could assume that this technology is being used and has been used to manipulate people into doing things that they normally wouldn't do. If that is the case how do we know that these technologies aren't being used to drive people mad and coerce them into committing atrocities?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11348
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #921 on: March 29, 2018, 07:08:30 PM »
You will not get me on board with banning the type of weapons that would be effective in resisting a tyrannical government, i.e. semi-automatic rifles.

Sigh.  The types of weapons effective in resisting a tyrannical government have already been banned for private use.  Nukes, rockets, land mines, bioweapons, tanks, bombers (and the munitions to load 'em up).

Just for the heck of it let's pretend that all you need against the most powerful modern military in the world are a few rifles, whatever.  We'll ignore the fact that a true tyrant can wipe you out by isolating you, releasing some bio-weapons, letting you all die horribly, then doing some minor cleanup a year later . . .

Can you point to a single instance in the last hundred and fifty years where a tyrant has been overthrown by a band of hardy guerrillas and not immediately been replaced with another tyrant?  I'll give you some time.  No?  Yeah, that's because the people who are most effective at leading effective guerrilla forces are assholes like Osama.  They don't tend to want to give power back to the people once they've finally seized it.



The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to enshrine the right of Americans to keep and bear arms to resist a tyrannical government.

Yes, it was.  And it made sense at the time it was written.



If you look at countries where masses of citizens were killed by their own government (Germany, Russia, China, Cambodia, Rwanda, etc.) you will see a correlation with low rates of gun ownership and in many cases outright bans and confiscations in the years before most of the killing. That is not to say that gun control causes mass killing by governments, but it is usually one of the steps. After all, it's pretty hard to go round up people for internment, reeducation, execution, etc. when many of them might be armed. Gun control, whether in the form of limitations on who can possess guns, or what kind of guns they can possess, or registering those guns, is a slippery slope towards confiscation.

Cambodia was actually an armed revolution by a group of people who thought the government was tyrannical.  Rwanda was an armed revolution by a group of people who thought the government was tyrannical.  China was an armed revolution by a group of people who thought the government was tyrannical.  Russia?  Yeah, same story.  This is your blueprint to 'fix' the US and save it from tyranny.


As far as your Germany argument, I've got a whole wikipedia page for you:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument

Quote
The Nazi gun control argument is counterfactual history argument claiming that gun regulations in the Third Reich rendered victims of the Holocaust weaker to such an extent that they could have more effectively resisted oppression if they had been armed or better armed.[1][2] Various mainstream sources describe the argument as historically "dubious",[3] "questionable",[4] "preposterous,"[5] "tendentious",[2] and "problematic".[1]

This argument is prevalent and primarily used within U.S. gun politics. Questions about its validity, and about the motives behind its inception, have been raised by scholars. Proponents in the United States have used it as part of a "security against tyranny" argument, while opponents have referred to it as a form of Reductio ad Hitlerum.[6]

PKFFW

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #922 on: March 29, 2018, 10:26:34 PM »
Again, that's not the way investigations or prosecutions work (at least with good ones).  They don't say, wow, it sure is a coincidence that you sold a gun to somebody you can't identify, and the gun just happened to end up with your brother.  Nothing we can do about that, enjoy your day.  Again, these are people that can pass a background check.  They are mostly not hardened criminals.
I don't think you really understand how the legal system works.

There's this pesky thing called presumption of innocence.  Along with that are the protections in place so that citizens do not have to incriminate themselves by signing affidavits and such like.

Combined that means the Prosecution actually has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed and if they can't do that they don't just get to force citizens to incriminate themselves so they can charge them with other crimes instead.

Michael in ABQ

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 427
    • Military Saints
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #923 on: March 30, 2018, 02:02:47 AM »
It's too late to try and format this with the embedded quotes so my responses are in Bold

You will not get me on board with banning the type of weapons that would be effective in resisting a tyrannical government, i.e. semi-automatic rifles.

Sigh.  The types of weapons effective in resisting a tyrannical government have already been banned for private use.  Nukes, rockets, land mines, bioweapons, tanks, bombers (and the munitions to load 'em up).

Just for the heck of it let's pretend that all you need against the most powerful modern military in the world are a few rifles, whatever.  We'll ignore the fact that a true tyrant can wipe you out by isolating you, releasing some bio-weapons, letting you all die horribly, then doing some minor cleanup a year later . . .

The civil war in Syria and Libya both showed that a tyrant was not able to easily wipe out an armed resistance.

Can you point to a single instance in the last hundred and fifty years where a tyrant has been overthrown by a band of hardy guerrillas and not immediately been replaced with another tyrant?  I'll give you some time.  No?  Yeah, that's because the people who are most effective at leading effective guerrilla forces are assholes like Osama.  They don't tend to want to give power back to the people once they've finally seized it.

Well if we go back 250 years you would have the American Revolution, the slave revolt in Haiti, and the Spanish guerillas in the peninsular campaign against Napoleon. However, my point was that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to prevent a tyrannical government from coming to power because of the threat of having an armed populace that would outnumber the government's military forces. There are tens of millions of gun owners in the US in comparison to a total active and reserve military of about two million. Many of which (myself included) would be more likely to resist a tyrannical government than fire upon US citizens. My oath is to the Constitution of the United States, not the president.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to enshrine the right of Americans to keep and bear arms to resist a tyrannical government.

Yes, it was.  And it made sense at the time it was written.


If you look at countries where masses of citizens were killed by their own government (Germany, Russia, China, Cambodia, Rwanda, etc.) you will see a correlation with low rates of gun ownership and in many cases outright bans and confiscations in the years before most of the killing. That is not to say that gun control causes mass killing by governments, but it is usually one of the steps. After all, it's pretty hard to go round up people for internment, reeducation, execution, etc. when many of them might be armed. Gun control, whether in the form of limitations on who can possess guns, or what kind of guns they can possess, or registering those guns, is a slippery slope towards confiscation.

Cambodia was actually an armed revolution by a group of people who thought the government was tyrannical.  Rwanda was an armed revolution by a group of people who thought the government was tyrannical.  China was an armed revolution by a group of people who thought the government was tyrannical.  Russia?  Yeah, same story.  This is your blueprint to 'fix' the US and save it from tyranny.

Yes, Pol Pot overthrew the existing government and was a dictator who killed many of his own people after seizing power.

Rwanda was genocide committed by the majority ethnic group (which was in power) against a minority ethnic group, primarily with machetes. It ranks near dead last in the world for the rate of gun ownership. I'll be there's a lot of Tutsis who wished they had a gun when a mob of machete armed Hutu neighbors showed up and hacked them to death.

Most of the deaths in China occurred after the communists seized power during the cultural revolution. That was when they rounded up and killed the professors, business owners, intellectuals, and generally what would be considered societal elites. Same with Russia. Lenin took over in 1917 but majority of killings by the communist government occurred in the 1930s and 1940s when, just like in China, dissidents and intellectuals were rounded up and either killed outright or indirectly in labor/reeducation camps.


As far as your Germany argument, I've got a whole wikipedia page for you:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument

Quote
The Nazi gun control argument is counterfactual history argument claiming that gun regulations in the Third Reich rendered victims of the Holocaust weaker to such an extent that they could have more effectively resisted oppression if they had been armed or better armed.[1][2] Various mainstream sources describe the argument as historically "dubious",[3] "questionable",[4] "preposterous,"[5] "tendentious",[2] and "problematic".[1]

This argument is prevalent and primarily used within U.S. gun politics. Questions about its validity, and about the motives behind its inception, have been raised by scholars. Proponents in the United States have used it as part of a "security against tyranny" argument, while opponents have referred to it as a form of Reductio ad Hitlerum.[6]

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/little-gun-history/

Quote
Gun ownership was banned outright for all German citizens in 1919. A 1928 revision of the law lifted the ban, while still requiring individuals to obtain permits to own, sell, carry, or manufacture firearms. According to Stephen Halbrook, author of Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and ‘Enemies of the State’ (Independence Institute, 2013), the Nazis used the extant law when they came to power in 1933 to revoke the permits of communists, Jews, and other “undesirables,” and disarm them. The first gun law actually enacted under Nazi rule, the German Weapons Act of 1938, eased some of the permit requirements (those on rifles and ammunition, though not on handguns), and lowered the legal age for the possession of firearms, but also forbade Jews, specifically, from manufacturing or selling arms.

The Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons, enacted later that year, prohibited Jews from possessing or carrying any kind of weapon at all.
So, while the Nazis ultimately favored loosening gun restrictions on the German population as a whole, the disarmament of Jews and other targeted minority populations was an essential feature of Hitler’s genocidal program, which included the murder of six million Jews (and millions of others deemed unworthy to live under the Third Reich) between 1938 and the end of World War II.

Quote
The Khmer Rouge regime eliminated the previous elite, and in the process effectively ended private gun ownership. Memoirs of the time provide accounts of how Khmer Rouge cadres confiscated firearms along with watches, motorbikes, and foreign currencies during the first days of the takeover of power in Phnom Penh (Simkin and Rice, 1994, supra note 2, p. 306; referred to in Kopel,1995).

During the rule of the Khmer Rouge, all private firearms were moved from private ownership into the stockpiles of the regime.

Quote
WHAT'S TRUE
Mass killings of civilians by military dictatorships in the 1900s were more often than not preceded by the confiscation of firearms from targeted populations, a task made easier by laws requiring the registration and/or licensing of privately-owned weapons.

Quote
Claim: “Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.”
This simply isn’t true, and not just because historians still quibble over the exact numbers of those killed. Tens of millions of people became victims of genocide in the twentieth century because they were members of groups targeted for eradication for reasons of ethnicity, religion, or ideology by ruthless military dictatorships. More often than not, these massacres were preceded by (or concurrent with) concerted efforts to disarm the targeted populations, a task obviously made easier by the existence of gun registration requirements. But to say those millions died because of gun control is an abuse of the facts and logic.



As you can see there is a long history of government trying to disarm their citizens before killing them. It is not a causal relationship however. I don't expect the Australian government to erect concentration camps anytime soon. However, I prefer to live in a country where the right to resist a tyrannical government by force of arms exists, rather than just counting on the goodwill of the government to not use their monopoly on force to someday decide to target me.

TrudgingAlong

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 170
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #924 on: March 30, 2018, 09:15:37 AM »
China's cultural revolution happened after the country was solidly Communist.

Really, SYRIA?! Have you spent any time reading what has happened there? I actually know a few refugees (of the current war) and the general consensus is things weren't great before, but life was decent. Now, well, everyone's dying so they fled to save their lives.

Maybe some of you might want to start "resisting" some of the tyranny in America today. I mean, what's your threshhold for pulling out a gun? The only time I see gun owners stand up en masse is when the NRA starts freaking out about gun control. How about showing up for a BLM rally and standing against police violence? That's some pretty clear "tyranny" right there.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2018, 10:20:28 AM by TrudgingAlong »

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #925 on: March 30, 2018, 09:57:46 AM »
So I will introduce a new question here.

My wife, who is a teacher, finds it very odd in all the news reports she sees on how gun background checks work.  When she was given a background check for her teaching job the process took nearly a week because of the checks with the FBI and others, but a gun purchaser can have a check done in a matter of minutes?  Her question is how good can this background check really be?  When a teacher is checked through multiple agencies but someone buying a deadly weapon is only checked through one database that everyone agrees is not well maintained (and what database ever is?), that seems to be a big problem.  So pardon me if I'm not comfortable that passing the gun background check actually does anything worthwhile other than a check a box on a form.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 733
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #926 on: March 30, 2018, 11:06:07 AM »
So I will introduce a new question here.

My wife, who is a teacher, finds it very odd in all the news reports she sees on how gun background checks work.  When she was given a background check for her teaching job the process took nearly a week because of the checks with the FBI and others, but a gun purchaser can have a check done in a matter of minutes?  Her question is how good can this background check really be?  When a teacher is checked through multiple agencies but someone buying a deadly weapon is only checked through one database that everyone agrees is not well maintained (and what database ever is?), that seems to be a big problem.  So pardon me if I'm not comfortable that passing the gun background check actually does anything worthwhile other than a check a box on a form.

It has to do with the NCIS database's system of checks.

Some background here:
-I have had several standard NCIS checks done, and they are **typically** quick so I get the confusion.
- I have had a full federal BG check (of which I received a copy) in order to become a teacher.  I ultimately didn't pursue that degree path but I started it and had the BG check done.
- I have had a two-tier state and federal BG check done for my License to Carry (Texas CCW). 
- (And lets not even get into ATF's 4-8 month BG check for Class III items...)

Let me outline the differences:

NCIS's program works on a name/date of birth methodology with the SSN as a verifying factor.  It runs "Texas P Runner" DOB: "01/01/1990" against the listed names in the database.  If a social is not provided, it also runs a DL# check against the state system to verify no one lied about the name or DOB.  If a social is provided, it verified name and DOB against the social.  This process is fast because, essentially, its just a list of names.  If you are unlucky and named Brian J Smith (or some other common name), you almost always get a 'hit' and the approval turns into hours or days.  If you are lucky and there is no criminal out there with your name and date of birth, the check is really quick.

Federal Background Checks for teachers (from what I recall) have several tiers.  First, they verify your name and any aliases against where you were born and everywhere you have ever lived.  This includes that typo you made in 11th grade when applying for your drivers license (ask me how I know lol).  After verifying names, that BG check runs all names and aliases against criminal records in a CRAPTON of countries and sub databases, including every state and federal listings.  It takes a while and is quite in depth.  Considering it uses other countries databases, there are probably more 'false hits' that must be resolved.

Texas' LTC BG check is similar to the teacher's, that it runs all federal checks and every state check, but seems to concern itself more with a verified date of birth (hence the requirement to list the hospital in the application) and aliases, and doesn't work of names/aliases alone.  Pretty sure it runs through the NCIS database as well, just because its the easiest 'first check'.

ATF BG checks apparently go all the way into social media, school records, criminal checks and (if needed) a remote psych profile.  Hence, it take 6 months to get back because of the waiting list / time required.


All of this is to say, the "FIX NICS" bill is set up to require those names and DOBs to be put in from any source that can disallow ownership... Including all states, municipalities and the armed forces.  (The Navy didn't put in the Sutherland shooter's info).

Hopefully that helps you understand.  It isn't a background check as much as a computerized listing check that has to be investigated when there is a positive or a false positive.  There is no guarantee to get a result in under 5 minutes, it can take up to three days.  Also, there is process that if you have a common name, you can keep a 'pin' that allows the background check agent to look up your old NCIS pull and verify you are not the criminal "Brian J Smith" but the never-done-anything-illegal "Brian J Smith".

Good question.

:)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11348
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #927 on: March 30, 2018, 01:53:36 PM »
You will not get me on board with banning the type of weapons that would be effective in resisting a tyrannical government, i.e. semi-automatic rifles.

Sigh.  The types of weapons effective in resisting a tyrannical government have already been banned for private use.  Nukes, rockets, land mines, bioweapons, tanks, bombers (and the munitions to load 'em up).

Just for the heck of it let's pretend that all you need against the most powerful modern military in the world are a few rifles, whatever.  We'll ignore the fact that a true tyrant can wipe you out by isolating you, releasing some bio-weapons, letting you all die horribly, then doing some minor cleanup a year later . . .

The civil war in Syria and Libya both showed that a tyrant was not able to easily wipe out an armed resistance.

An armed resistance, yes.  With small arms?  Lol.


Libya:

T55 battle tanks
Type 63 107mm Multi-barrel rocket launchers
DShK 12.7mm heavy machine guns
ZPU-2/ZPU-4 Anti-aircraft guns
106mm M40A1
84mm Swedish Carl Gustav
 . . . etc.
  - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-12692068


Syria:
- Anti-air provided by Qatar and Russia
- Anti-tank provided by Russia and the US
- Field artillery provided by Russia
- Heavy machine guns provided by Russia, Saudi Arabia
- Rockets provided by Saudi Arabia
. . . etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_equipment_used_by_Syrian_opposition_forces

You will be disturbed to find out that the very weapons used by the Libyan and Syrian rebels as part of their armed resistance have already been restricted in the US . . . and that both they Syrian and Libyan armies required the use of much more than small arms.  Of course, both armies are also exponentially weaker than the US army that you're planning to stand against.

You'll be interested to know that during Qaddafi's reign there was gun control.  The Libyan revolution wasn't won by some guys who could go to the local store and buy a semi-auto AR-15.  That would have been suicide.  It was won when real arms were supplied by other countries.

In Syria it also took foreign heavy duty military weapons (the kind currently prohibited from private ownership in the US) for them to get going.  Because attempting to


Can you point to a single instance in the last hundred and fifty years where a tyrant has been overthrown by a band of hardy guerrillas and not immediately been replaced with another tyrant?  I'll give you some time.  No?  Yeah, that's because the people who are most effective at leading effective guerrilla forces are assholes like Osama.  They don't tend to want to give power back to the people once they've finally seized it.

Well if we go back 250 years you would have the American Revolution, the slave revolt in Haiti, and the Spanish guerillas in the peninsular campaign against Napoleon. However, my point was that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to prevent a tyrannical government from coming to power because of the threat of having an armed populace that would outnumber the government's military forces. There are tens of millions of gun owners in the US in comparison to a total active and reserve military of about two million. Many of which (myself included) would be more likely to resist a tyrannical government than fire upon US citizens. My oath is to the Constitution of the United States, not the president.

A simple 'No' is fine.  No, in the last 150 years (the entire history of modern warfare) every rebel group that has ever risen up and replaced a dictator has merely put their own brand of dictatorship into power.  That is the nature of guerrilla revolution in the modern era.  If you actually want to replace a dictator with a democracy, that tends to take decades of small changes.  Changes fought for in political and legal cases rather than with six-shooters and a cowboy hat.



Yes, Pol Pot overthrew the existing government and was a dictator who killed many of his own people after seizing power.

Yep.  Armed revolutionary doing what armed revolutionaries do in modern times - putting a dictator into power.

Rwanda was genocide committed by the majority ethnic group (which was in power) against a minority ethnic group, primarily with machetes.  It ranks near dead last in the world for the rate of gun ownership. I'll be there's a lot of Tutsis who wished they had a gun when a mob of machete armed Hutu neighbors showed up and hacked them to death.


I'll bet that a lot of Tutsis were happy that the machete armed Hutu neighbours didn't have easy access to guns.  Either way, it's yet another example of armed revolutionaries doing what they do in modern times.  Putting a dictator into power.

Most of the deaths in China occurred after the communists seized power during the cultural revolution. That was when they rounded up and killed the professors, business owners, intellectuals, and generally what would be considered societal elites.  Same with Russia. Lenin took over in 1917 but majority of killings by the communist government occurred in the 1930s and 1940s when, just like in China, dissidents and intellectuals were rounded up and either killed outright or indirectly in labor/reeducation camps.


Yep.  That's what happens after an armed revolution.  You institute a dictator.  The pattern happens over and over again.  The revolution is not a solution to the problem (tyrannical government) because it always leads to a new tyrannical government.  That's why your whole argument is kinda silly.

First we have to totally suspend reality and assume that some small arms are really going to do shit against the most powerful and well coordinated military in the world, led by a tyrannical government.  Then we have to pretend that all of modern military history doesn't exist, and that your guerrilla leader who emerges will voluntarily relinquish power to restore a peaceful democratic order.  If you're willing to make those leaps, I've got a bridge to sell you.


As you can see there is a long history of government trying to disarm their citizens before killing them. It is not a causal relationship however. I don't expect the Australian government to erect concentration camps anytime soon. However, I prefer to live in a country where the right to resist a tyrannical government by force of arms exists, rather than just counting on the goodwill of the government to not use their monopoly on force to someday decide to target me.

Actually, on this I completely agree with you.  A tyrant tends to want to consolidate his power and reduce possible losses, so yeah . . . disarmament is pretty normal.  I also agree with you that the first world nations with gun control laws (Canada, Australia, Britain, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Japan, etc.) are not likely to start setting up concentration camps soon.  Why is that?

It's related to the point you're missing here.  They are democracies.  If you don't want a tyrannical government in a democracy, you don't need to stockpile small arms (which aren't useful in a revolution anyway without all the supporting military weapons, and even if your revolution works will ensure that a tyrant becomes your new leader).  You just need to stop voting for Cthulhu.

zolotiyeruki

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2668
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #928 on: March 30, 2018, 09:21:23 PM »
FWIW, in Illinois, if you sell your gun as a private party, you are required to keep a record of the sale for 10 years, and you have to report a stolen firearm as well.  There are penalties applied if you fail to do so and your gun gets used in a crime.
I've read a whole lot of the gun control wishlists out there. Not a one says "ban all guns in the US". Even if all of them were implemented, you could still own a gun to defend yourself from a burglar. You just wouldn't be able to kill him in a giant hail of bullets. (Unless, of course, you're a felon.)

The first Amendment is absolutely curtailed: you can't slander people. You can lose your job by being an ass on social media. The 2nd absolutely should be curtailed in a way that other people's rights are not harmed. I don't want my kids to be terrified at school, something that is happening by asking them to do shooter drills, walk by armed cops every day, or go through metal detectors. These things harm their psyche more than they protect. If you have more hoops to jump through to own your gun so my kids can stop being reminded constantly that guns threaten them, yes, I fully support that.
1) Yes, there are plenty of people arguing for complete abolition of private gun ownership.*
2) You're a bit off-base on the 1st amendment limitations.  The limitation isn't slander per se--it's slander that causes damage to the other person, as I understand it.  The victim has to prove damages in order to be compensated.  In other words, you can say what you want, but you're responsible for the consequences.  The same is true of firearm ownership.  Fire into the air and hit someone?  Yeah, you're gonna be in trouble.

* Besides the Stevens quote mentioned elsewhere in the thread, it's also the very logical conclusion of what we have seen not only in this country, but in others.  If you're only willing to look at gun control as a potential solution to, say, school shootings, then the only way you're going to eliminate every possibility is by elimination of all guns in the country.  The losers who shoot up crowds either are able to pass background checks (Vegas), or are missed in the background check process (FL) or steal guns from others (Sandy Hook).  The fact is that none of the gun control measures that I see being proposed would have a meaningful impact.

Require a 4473 for each sale be submitted to the ATF just like any other transfer , require sale to go through a dealer, or require record keeping on the part of the seller.    Gifts, inheritances, and loans are exempted.  Require stolen guns to be reported and if guns associated with you keep turning up with criminals, you have some explaining to do.
4473's aren't actually submitted to the ATF.  They stay with the dealer.  It's not significantly more inconvenient to the ATF when tracing a gun, but it helps prevent the ATF from compiling a list of everyone who's bought a gun from a specific dealer.  When a dealer goes out of business or whatever, those records *should* get transferred to the ATF, so that traces can still be run.

Quote
See, I don't care if you're afraid all the time and think a gun will solve that just like you don't care about my fears. I don't care if you carry a gun as long as you do so responsibly. As long as lax gun laws don't mean your fear spills into my life. That is what I mean by wanting these shooter drills to stop being necessary. They never were when I was growing up, so I can only conclude our laws have become lax enough that something needs to change. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert and know how best to do that. I can only support those who think they have the answers.
I'm having trouble with the bolded section above.  When I think about changes in gun laws over the last 40 years or so, the following things come to mind:
1) Automatic weapons ban of 1986 (you can't own an automatic weapon that wasn't already registered pre-1986)
2) NICS, enacted 1998
3) "Assault weapons" Ban 1994-2004
4) General increase in states allowing concealed carry

You'll note that none of those really have any effect on mass school shootings, nor *can* they.  Nor do they represent gun laws becoming more lax.  So I'm afraid your premise is misplaced.  We can speculate all day about possible causes for the apparent rise in school shootings, or even if such an increase even exists, but you can't tie it to an increase in the availability of firearms.  Semiautomatic weapons have been in widespread private ownership for a century or more.

Quote
It has already been mentioned in this thread, but 45% of American gun owners with children keep at least one unsecured firearm in the home.  More than half of gun owners in the US store their weapons unsecured so that they can easily be stolen or used by an unauthorized person.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-safe-gun-storage-20180223-story.html

The real reason that suggestions for things like a gun registry strikes terror in the heart of gun owners is that it means they might have to accept responsibility for their actions.
Already discussed and beaten to death.

Quote
Yes, the total failure of gun enthusiasts to do anything about the problem has caused many of us to no longer care about your right.
...
And as is pointed out, non gun-enthusiasts lack the knowledge to fix it and protect your rights.  I'm ceding that argument.  You are correct.  We can't fix it and protect your rights.  You won't fix it.  So fuck your rights.
Thank you for so succinctly explaining why gun owners are reluctant to give even one inch on gun regulation.  Here's why:
--It seems the only measures you're willing to consider are stricter gun control (see democratic opposition to Fix NICS)
--Those measures won't work, for many reasons
--Those measures will infringe on civil rights

What I'm hearing here is "You won't fix it [in the way we want to 'fix' it]."

TheOldestYoungMan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #929 on: April 06, 2018, 01:26:48 PM »
Thank you for so succinctly explaining why gun owners are reluctant to give even one inch on gun regulation.  Here's why:
--It seems the only measures you're willing to consider are stricter gun control (see democratic opposition to Fix NICS)
--Those measures won't work, for many reasons
--Those measures will infringe on civil rights

What I'm hearing here is "You won't fix it [in the way we want to 'fix' it]."

That may be what you're hearing, but what you're actually doing is nothing to fix it.  Literally nothing.  Show me the bill where fixing NICS was introduced, brought to a vote, and failed?  Show me anything at all done to improve the situation in any way in the last twenty years?

Total abdication of responsibility does not lend credence to the "responsible gun ownership is fine."  Like I said, I was 100% a defender of the second amendment until I realized that all of the arguments are so much horseshit.  It's just more important to you to be able to go down to the range and fire off a few rounds than it is to prevent the wholesale slaughter of children.

You've done NOTHING.  You will never support any reasonable measure, because "give 'em an inch."  So fuck it, take all the guns.  Make it illegal to own a gun.  At this point, there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner in this country.  You're all biting your noses off to spite your face.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1099
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #930 on: April 06, 2018, 01:39:26 PM »
Thank you for so succinctly explaining why gun owners are reluctant to give even one inch on gun regulation.  Here's why:
--It seems the only measures you're willing to consider are stricter gun control (see democratic opposition to Fix NICS)
--Those measures won't work, for many reasons
--Those measures will infringe on civil rights

What I'm hearing here is "You won't fix it [in the way we want to 'fix' it]."

That may be what you're hearing, but what you're actually doing is nothing to fix it.  Literally nothing.  Show me the bill where fixing NICS was introduced, brought to a vote, and failed?  Show me anything at all done to improve the situation in any way in the last twenty years?

Total abdication of responsibility does not lend credence to the "responsible gun ownership is fine."  Like I said, I was 100% a defender of the second amendment until I realized that all of the arguments are so much horseshit.  It's just more important to you to be able to go down to the range and fire off a few rounds than it is to prevent the wholesale slaughter of children.

You've done NOTHING.  You will never support any reasonable measure, because "give 'em an inch."  So fuck it, take all the guns.  Make it illegal to own a gun.  At this point, there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner in this country.  You're all biting your noses off to spite your face.

I assume you're one of those people who think it's law abiding Muslim's responsibility to "fix" the problem with islamic terrorism in the U.S., and if they can't, fuck their rights? 

Luckily, that's not how rights work (or at least, are supposed to work; actually upholding the rule of law is of course uncertain and inconsistent). 



Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3098
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #931 on: April 06, 2018, 01:45:47 PM »
Thank you for so succinctly explaining why gun owners are reluctant to give even one inch on gun regulation.  Here's why:
--It seems the only measures you're willing to consider are stricter gun control (see democratic opposition to Fix NICS)
--Those measures won't work, for many reasons
--Those measures will infringe on civil rights

What I'm hearing here is "You won't fix it [in the way we want to 'fix' it]."

That may be what you're hearing, but what you're actually doing is nothing to fix it.  Literally nothing.  Show me the bill where fixing NICS was introduced, brought to a vote, and failed?  Show me anything at all done to improve the situation in any way in the last twenty years?

Total abdication of responsibility does not lend credence to the "responsible gun ownership is fine."  Like I said, I was 100% a defender of the second amendment until I realized that all of the arguments are so much horseshit.  It's just more important to you to be able to go down to the range and fire off a few rounds than it is to prevent the wholesale slaughter of children.

You've done NOTHING.  You will never support any reasonable measure, because "give 'em an inch."  So fuck it, take all the guns.  Make it illegal to own a gun.  At this point, there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner in this country.  You're all biting your noses off to spite your face.

I assume you're one of those people who think it's law abiding Muslim's responsibility to "fix" the problem with islamic terrorism in the U.S., and if they can't, fuck their rights? 

Luckily, that's not how rights work (or at least, are supposed to work; actually upholding the rule of law is of course uncertain and inconsistent).

Boy, you wouldn't know it from the things the right-wingers on my FB feed post.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11348
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #932 on: April 06, 2018, 01:48:49 PM »
I'd like to point out that literally nothing about a gun registry violates anybody's rights in any way.  It's just a way to easily prevent straw purchases and to enforce background checks.  Even imposing additional controls and limiting access to certain guns doesn't violate anything in the 2nd amendment . . . as seen by the additional measures and controls regarding ownership of fully automatic weapons.

But, if I were in the position of power that gun owners have in the United States . . . I certainly wouldn't give an inch either.  It's the strategy that has won every time in the past for you.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 733
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #933 on: April 06, 2018, 03:43:53 PM »
Thank you for so succinctly explaining why gun owners are reluctant to give even one inch on gun regulation.  Here's why:
--It seems the only measures you're willing to consider are stricter gun control (see democratic opposition to Fix NICS)
--Those measures won't work, for many reasons
--Those measures will infringe on civil rights

What I'm hearing here is "You won't fix it [in the way we want to 'fix' it]."

That may be what you're hearing, but what you're actually doing is nothing to fix it.  Literally nothing.  Show me the bill where fixing NICS was introduced, brought to a vote, and failed?  Show me anything at all done to improve the situation in any way in the last twenty years?
...

Sure. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/us/politics/gun-vote-senate.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/22/us/politics/washington-congress-gun-control.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/20/the-senate-will-vote-on-4-gun-control-proposals-monday-heres-everything-you-need-to-know/?utm_term=.87042cce4f60
https://www.npr.org/2016/06/20/482783071/here-are-the-4-gun-proposals-the-senate-is-voting-on-monday-again

JUNE 20, 2016 Republicans push a gun control bill to counter the "Extreme" gun control bills pushed by the left.  Democrats block those bills out of spite.  One of the measures probably would have stopped the Sutherland, Tx church shooting. Just one example of many....

Please continue to play partisan politics and listen to only one side of the (biased both ways) news.  I'll be over here pushing for term limits and voting third party...


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11348
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #935 on: April 06, 2018, 03:58:40 PM »
What I'm hearing here is "You won't fix it [in the way we want to 'fix' it]."

Oh, and one more about today's climate. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/28/why-senate-democrats-are-considering-holding-up-a-gun-control-bill-from-one-of-their-own/?utm_term=.ddca4daa77e4

I'm all for punishing that don't submit criminal records for the national background check.  The Democrats are absolutely being assholes to oppose this measure.  That said . . . it's not really important that the national background check records are in order if you can easily buy a gun without a background check.  That's like making sure that there's a seat belt in an automobile built of paper mache.  So, plenty of failure on the side of both parties.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 56
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #936 on: April 06, 2018, 09:48:22 PM »

That may be what you're hearing, but what you're actually doing is nothing to fix it.  Literally nothing.  Show me the bill where fixing NICS was introduced, brought to a vote, and failed?  Show me anything at all done to improve the situation in any way in the last twenty years?

Total abdication of responsibility does not lend credence to the "responsible gun ownership is fine."  Like I said, I was 100% a defender of the second amendment until I realized that all of the arguments are so much horseshit.  It's just more important to you to be able to go down to the range and fire off a few rounds than it is to prevent the wholesale slaughter of children.

You've done NOTHING.  You will never support any reasonable measure, because "give 'em an inch."  So fuck it, take all the guns.  Make it illegal to own a gun.  At this point, there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner in this country.  You're all biting your noses off to spite your face.

I'd like to address these thoughts. As usual, I'll take a step back and write a long winded explanation, so apologies ahead of time :-).

I've been having continued discussions about the topic of gun control with a friend of mine. When we discussed the topic and I was bringing up some of our discussions on here about my frustrations with people saying, I want to ban this or that "blanket statement" without defining what it was, he said, they're getting frustrated because you're concerned about hardware details and they're concerned about people's lives. He was intentionally trying to dig at me a little/he's also legitimately on the other side of this issue than me (not an extremist, but more pro-gun control than I am). What he said got me to thinking, though.

That is what it seems like is being presented on this topic with the narrative of (at least some) gun control people on this issue. I want people talking about this issue to learn about it and define what they want, preferably with logical ties to how it would actually help. The push back I get is evidenced most clearly in this bit of demagoguery in your posts about "F you, I'd take away all of your rights (in regards to self defense with guns) if I could, and blanket statements such as "there's no such thing as a responsible gun owner in this country." Now I'm not saying this extremism is representative of everyone, just that it highlights a thought process that is, I believe, underlying many gun control arguments. The example is the perspective my friend said, "you're caring about nuances, hardware, details - they're caring about lives of people." The unstated feeling behind all of this is, I have the moral high ground if I'm pro-gun control because I care about people's lives and you don't care about people's lives as much as you do your philosophical perspective on rights, so I don't have to be as detail oriented on things, I don't have to come up with solutions, I don't have to etc. etc. Well, the fact of the matter is, most pro-gun people I know do care about lives. The perspective is just caring about protecting the lives of people in their family if something terrible were to happen or of people they see in public if they're carrying concealed and something bad were to happen. They legitimately care about lives too and has been said numerous times, the statistics are not behind any of this. No one is likely to be shot or to shoot someone else in defense. It's just not likely to happen, but it doesn't mean pro gun people don't care about lives. So no, I will not cede to you your moral high ground and condescension of people who are pro guns. You don't get to act (at least unchallenged) like you're on the saintly path, so you can ignore learning about an issue and proposing rational and logically justified ideas because you're just so much better than all the ignorant gun owners/supporters. Because news flash, you don't have the moral high ground. I don't have the moral high ground. There's perspectives on both sides. Both people are wanting lives to be saved, they just see it in different ways. If you're wanting to change the status quo, you need to propose some ideas on how to do it.

To address the other side of things - the accusation of a lack of willingness to do anything. You comment something like "oh, everyone who is pro guns obviously doesn't want to do anything at all" and then act like it's all their fault if nothing gets done that you feel needs to get done. Well, let's get down to the details. What do you want the average gun guy to do? They're not dictator of this country. If they truly support gun rights, should they vote for a person who is for restrictions well beyond what they feel are effective or necessary just so they can "be doing something?" I don't believe anyone on here supporting gun rights has literally proposed nothing be done. Ideas have been brought up by pro-gun people too. Maybe you don't feel they're strong enough or good enough, but they are at least proposed ideas (hopefully) in good faith by the people on the board that you are bluntly deriding. These may not be the "reasonable measures" that you feel should happen, and nothing may actually get passed through congress, but again, you can sit on your high horse and act the martyr that has tried and failed to find any rational sense in any person you've ever talked to in your whole life who supports a person's rights to own even a black powder musket (I mean, hey, you're the one talking everything in absolutes), but that's not going to actually accomplish any exchange of dialogue or ideas.

 

gooki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2314
  • Location: NZ
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #937 on: April 07, 2018, 03:40:09 AM »
Quote
Well, let's get down to the details. What do you want the average gun guy to do?

Engage in the dialog about solutions, present their ideas and listen. Then express their concern, and ideas to their representatives.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 277
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #938 on: April 07, 2018, 11:46:13 AM »
Quote
Well, let's get down to the details. What do you want the average gun guy to do?

Engage in the dialog about solutions, present their ideas and listen. Then express their concern, and ideas to their representatives.

That and stop engaging in the slippery slope arguments.  As it stands you don't want any solutions that place any kind of burden on legal gun owners but you also don't want to do anything else because it may lead to a burden on legal gun owners later.  This stance makes it impossible for you to comprise.

TrudgingAlong

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 170
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #939 on: April 07, 2018, 04:14:15 PM »
I think you don’t understand that these comments come from frustration, not a feeling of having the higher moral ground. It’s years of feeling the gun community is so sure there isn’t a problem that we’re done talking. I get that many of you think you are safer with guns. We feel the opposite. I have no idea how we all can bridge the gap, but complaining about incorrect terminology and that any restriction is worthless is not going to do that. I’m willing to preserve the 2nd amendment, but  I don’t value it or think my life would be less wihtthout it, so if it came down to it, I’d vote to kill it if it’s the only option. If gun owners came to the table with literally ANYTHING (except “arm more people”) I’m down with giving it a go.

Also, I think the definition of “responsible gun owner” is maybe different between both sides (with some variation, obviously, as no one is one general stereotype). I have a pretty high bar when it comes to guns. We don’t own one because we understand to have one is taking on a risk with our kids we consider too high. Many gun owners seem to have a cavalier attitude about risk and gun ownership. Accidents are acceptable in a way I find kind of shocking, actually.

An example: there was a recent town hall in my state with a local House member. An older guy there dropped his hand gun on the floor. He sheepishly picked it up, tucked it into his hat, said he was a CC holder, and made a hasty exit. The comments from gun owners ranged from conspiracy theory (it was a planted irresponsible gun owner!), to “accidents happen, no big deal, to “only criminals with no right to own guns shoot other people” (this one I can’t even sort of wrap my head around - people really believe this garbage?! Someone responded the Parkland and Vegas shooters were both legal gun owners and the guy ignored it).

Accidents are unacceptable to me when you are talking a deadly weapon. It’s the core reason I don’t support arming more people as a solution, especially since there is apparently this cavalier attitude amongst gun owners that accidents are expected and okay.

How am I supposed to trust gun owners are responsible when they don’t seem to consider gun ownership as a serious thing? If that gun had gone off and shot someone, would that still be a shoulder shrugging accident? I am afraid I know the answer to that...

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3131
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #940 on: April 07, 2018, 09:19:46 PM »
Quote
Well, let's get down to the details. What do you want the average gun guy to do?

Engage in the dialog about solutions, present their ideas and listen. Then express their concern, and ideas to their representatives.

That and stop engaging in the slippery slope arguments.  As it stands you don't want any solutions that place any kind of burden on legal gun owners but you also don't want to do anything else because it may lead to a burden on legal gun owners later.  This stance makes it impossible for you to comprise.

Again with the word “compromise”.  I have yet to see a bill or law proposed that represents a give and take for both sides, I.e. a “compromise”.  I’ve only seen where people are trying to take away my rights. Why would I acquiesce to that?

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3131
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #941 on: April 07, 2018, 09:27:55 PM »
I'd like to point out that literally nothing about a gun registry violates anybody's rights in any way.

In and of itself, you’re basically correct. However, if you did want to violate my rights and confiscate, ( see, NOLA post Katrina, etc) you’d have a tool to do that where previously you had none.  So no, I am not ever going to agree to allow a registration. Even in Illinois we have FOIDs but there’s nothing that says what guns I have or even if I have a gun, just that I have the ability and license to buy one.

Besides, those types of things have come to bite us in the ass in the past:

https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html

And, even if you succeeded in getting a registry of all new gun sales, which you won’t, but if you did, how are you going to register the 100M+ guns out there now?  I mean, I was inspired by those YouTube clips of people cutting up their guns after Parkland and did the same, so my guns are long gone, but what are you going to do about the guns my neighbor owns?  How are you going to register those?

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 277
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #942 on: April 07, 2018, 10:40:49 PM »
Quote
Well, let's get down to the details. What do you want the average gun guy to do?

Engage in the dialog about solutions, present their ideas and listen. Then express their concern, and ideas to their representatives.

That and stop engaging in the slippery slope arguments.  As it stands you don't want any solutions that place any kind of burden on legal gun owners but you also don't want to do anything else because it may lead to a burden on legal gun owners later.  This stance makes it impossible for you to comprise.

Again with the word “compromise”.  I have yet to see a bill or law proposed that represents a give and take for both sides, I.e. a “compromise”.  I’ve only seen where people are trying to take away my rights. Why would I acquiesce to that?

So why hasn't your side proposed one?

gooki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2314
  • Location: NZ
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #943 on: April 08, 2018, 02:36:29 AM »
Quote
but what are you going to do about the guns my neighbor owns?  How are you going to register those?

If registration is compulsory, where non compliance results in instant confiscation, that will motivate many neighbors to follow the law.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3131
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #944 on: April 08, 2018, 07:15:13 AM »
Quote
but what are you going to do about the guns my neighbor owns?  How are you going to register those?

If registration is compulsory, where non compliance results in instant confiscation, that will motivate many neighbors to follow the law.

Kind of like how no one will have drugs right?

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3131
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #945 on: April 08, 2018, 07:18:24 AM »
Quote
Well, let's get down to the details. What do you want the average gun guy to do?

Engage in the dialog about solutions, present their ideas and listen. Then express their concern, and ideas to their representatives.

That and stop engaging in the slippery slope arguments.  As it stands you don't want any solutions that place any kind of burden on legal gun owners but you also don't want to do anything else because it may lead to a burden on legal gun owners later.  This stance makes it impossible for you to comprise.

Again with the word “compromise”.  I have yet to see a bill or law proposed that represents a give and take for both sides, I.e. a “compromise”.  I’ve only seen where people are trying to take away my rights. Why would I acquiesce to that?

So why hasn't your side proposed one?

You mean like this?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-26/quick-action-on-gun-background-checks-bill-held-up-in-senate

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 277
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #946 on: April 08, 2018, 10:10:15 AM »
Quote
Well, let's get down to the details. What do you want the average gun guy to do?

Engage in the dialog about solutions, present their ideas and listen. Then express their concern, and ideas to their representatives.

That and stop engaging in the slippery slope arguments.  As it stands you don't want any solutions that place any kind of burden on legal gun owners but you also don't want to do anything else because it may lead to a burden on legal gun owners later.  This stance makes it impossible for you to comprise.

Again with the word “compromise”.  I have yet to see a bill or law proposed that represents a give and take for both sides, I.e. a “compromise”.  I’ve only seen where people are trying to take away my rights. Why would I acquiesce to that?

So why hasn't your side proposed one?

You mean like this?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-26/quick-action-on-gun-background-checks-bill-held-up-in-senate

Yeah, no.  That's not a compromise.  The fix NICS bill would be a bare minimum that everyone already agrees to.  That bill on it's own should pass no problem, all it's doing is attempting to fix the problems with the current background check system. But of course conservatives think they can just add expanded concealed carry without adding anything from the other side like universal background checks because they obviously don't know what the word compromise means.  If you truly want to change my mind how about you show me a gun bill brought up for a vote in the current congress that included a single proposal from the left (universal background checks, a registry, magazine limits, etc)?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11348
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #947 on: April 08, 2018, 02:14:56 PM »
I'd like to point out that literally nothing about a gun registry violates anybody's rights in any way.

In and of itself, you’re basically correct. However, if you did want to violate my rights and confiscate, ( see, NOLA post Katrina, etc) you’d have a tool to do that where previously you had none.  So no, I am not ever going to agree to allow a registration. Even in Illinois we have FOIDs but there’s nothing that says what guns I have or even if I have a gun, just that I have the ability and license to buy one.

If I was a corrupt government and I wanted to violate your rights and confiscate your weapons, I'd release a bioweapon in the upper atmosphere over your state.  Then I'd close the borders, and wait a few weeks until everyone was dead.  Then I'd confiscate your weapons.

No registry needed.

If I'm in a democratically elected government that is held answerable to the people, I can't do that of course.  I also can't use the registry to confiscate all your guns.


Besides, those types of things have come to bite us in the ass in the past:

https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html

That's pretty goofy logic there.

Wikileaks got a hold of an awful lot of secret information written by people in the US government.  Therefore it should be illegal for anyone in government to write anything down.  I mean, that solves the problem of future similar leaks . . . consequences be damned, right?

If someone does something illegal or wrong with information, then sue them.  The legal system exists to enforce the law.  If it's not illegal to do something with information collected, then enact a new law.  The whole political system exists to do this.  Saying that it's possible to do something bad, so we should ignore all the certain good that will come from an action doesn't make much sense.

And, even if you succeeded in getting a registry of all new gun sales, which you won’t, but if you did, how are you going to register the 100M+ guns out there now?  I mean, I was inspired by those YouTube clips of people cutting up their guns after Parkland and did the same, so my guns are long gone, but what are you going to do about the guns my neighbor owns?  How are you going to register those?

It will certainly require some thought, effort, and time. It's hard to be convinced by your argument that because something is difficult it should be given up on.

Make it very easy and free to register a gun that already exists.  Do spot checks at shooting ranges.  Make it standard policy to destroy any unregistered firearm found by police, and to levy a punitive fine upon anyone who is found to fails to register a firearm.  Create a hotline and reward people for reporting unregistered firearms.  There's lots of stuff that can be done.





Quote
Well, let's get down to the details. What do you want the average gun guy to do?

Engage in the dialog about solutions, present their ideas and listen. Then express their concern, and ideas to their representatives.

That and stop engaging in the slippery slope arguments.  As it stands you don't want any solutions that place any kind of burden on legal gun owners but you also don't want to do anything else because it may lead to a burden on legal gun owners later.  This stance makes it impossible for you to comprise.

Again with the word “compromise”.  I have yet to see a bill or law proposed that represents a give and take for both sides, I.e. a “compromise”.  I’ve only seen where people are trying to take away my rights. Why would I acquiesce to that?

So why hasn't your side proposed one?

You mean like this?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-26/quick-action-on-gun-background-checks-bill-held-up-in-senate

Yeah, no.  That's not a compromise.  The fix NICS bill would be a bare minimum that everyone already agrees to.  That bill on it's own should pass no problem, all it's doing is attempting to fix the problems with the current background check system. But of course conservatives think they can just add expanded concealed carry without adding anything from the other side like universal background checks because they obviously don't know what the word compromise means.  If you truly want to change my mind how about you show me a gun bill brought up for a vote in the current congress that included a single proposal from the left (universal background checks, a registry, magazine limits, etc)?

The NRA has won on every front for decades by not compromising.  It's possible to openly carry a firearm in 45 states, to covertly carry a firearm in every state, to own any type of firearm (yes, you have to pay more for machine guns and sawed off shotguns).  It's not necessary to have a background check to buy a firearm from someone.  No record of private sales is kept in most states.  No registry of ownership is kept in most states.  It's illegal to keep usable, searchable records of firearms sales for police use.

The NRA has all the power.  They have purchased most of the Republican party, and get the legislation that they want passed.  They have been able to place supreme court judges in power who have altered interpretation of the US Constitution to be more friendly to their cause.  They have deep pockets, which they use to fuel a vast media and advertising empire.  Best of all, they have a sizable army of gun advocates who value their firearms much more than the lives of other people, and who are perfectly happy with the way things are.

When someone is asking for 'compromise' it's a bit disingenuous.  That's like the Nazis saying they'll negotiate with Jews in the concentration camp, and then leaving the discussion in a huff because they didn't get enough concessions.  "The Jews want food, water, medicine, and to not be gassed to death . . . but they're not willing to offer us anything!  They're obviously not negotiating in good faith.  Maybe they'll come back to the table later when they're serious.  Until then I guess it's best we just carry on with the status quo."

gooki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2314
  • Location: NZ
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #948 on: April 08, 2018, 03:24:32 PM »
Quote
but what are you going to do about the guns my neighbor owns?  How are you going to register those?

If registration is compulsory, where non compliance results in instant confiscation, that will motivate many neighbors to follow the law.

Kind of like how no one will have drugs right?

What drugs are you talking about?

Consumer drugs: caffeine, alcohol and over the counter medication?

Prescription medication?

Recreational drugs?

EricL

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #949 on: April 08, 2018, 05:37:24 PM »
I'd like to point out that literally nothing about a gun registry violates anybody's rights in any way.

In and of itself, you’re basically correct. However, if you did want to violate my rights and confiscate, ( see, NOLA post Katrina, etc) you’d have a tool to do that where previously you had none.  So no, I am not ever going to agree to allow a registration. Even in Illinois we have FOIDs but there’s nothing that says what guns I have or even if I have a gun, just that I have the ability and license to buy one.

If I was a corrupt government and I wanted to violate your rights and confiscate your weapons, I'd release a bioweapon in the upper atmosphere over your state.  Then I'd close the borders, and wait a few weeks until everyone was dead.  Then I'd confiscate your weapons.

No registry needed.

If I'm in a democratically elected government that is held answerable to the people, I can't do that of course.  I also can't use the registry to confiscate all your guns.


Besides, those types of things have come to bite us in the ass in the past:

https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html

That's pretty goofy logic there.

Wikileaks got a hold of an awful lot of secret information written by people in the US government.  Therefore it should be illegal for anyone in government to write anything down.  I mean, that solves the problem of future similar leaks . . . consequences be damned, right?

If someone does something illegal or wrong with information, then sue them.  The legal system exists to enforce the law.  If it's not illegal to do something with information collected, then enact a new law.  The whole political system exists to do this.  Saying that it's possible to do something bad, so we should ignore all the certain good that will come from an action doesn't make much sense.

And, even if you succeeded in getting a registry of all new gun sales, which you won’t, but if you did, how are you going to register the 100M+ guns out there now?  I mean, I was inspired by those YouTube clips of people cutting up their guns after Parkland and did the same, so my guns are long gone, but what are you going to do about the guns my neighbor owns?  How are you going to register those?

It will certainly require some thought, effort, and time. It's hard to be convinced by your argument that because something is difficult it should be given up on.

Make it very easy and free to register a gun that already exists.  Do spot checks at shooting ranges.  Make it standard policy to destroy any unregistered firearm found by police, and to levy a punitive fine upon anyone who is found to fails to register a firearm.  Create a hotline and reward people for reporting unregistered firearms.  There's lots of stuff that can be done.





Quote
Well, let's get down to the details. What do you want the average gun guy to do?

Engage in the dialog about solutions, present their ideas and listen. Then express their concern, and ideas to their representatives.

That and stop engaging in the slippery slope arguments.  As it stands you don't want any solutions that place any kind of burden on legal gun owners but you also don't want to do anything else because it may lead to a burden on legal gun owners later.  This stance makes it impossible for you to comprise.

Again with the word “compromise”.  I have yet to see a bill or law proposed that represents a give and take for both sides, I.e. a “compromise”.  I’ve only seen where people are trying to take away my rights. Why would I acquiesce to that?

So why hasn't your side proposed one?

You mean like this?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-26/quick-action-on-gun-background-checks-bill-held-up-in-senate

Yeah, no.  That's not a compromise.  The fix NICS bill would be a bare minimum that everyone already agrees to.  That bill on it's own should pass no problem, all it's doing is attempting to fix the problems with the current background check system. But of course conservatives think they can just add expanded concealed carry without adding anything from the other side like universal background checks because they obviously don't know what the word compromise means.  If you truly want to change my mind how about you show me a gun bill brought up for a vote in the current congress that included a single proposal from the left (universal background checks, a registry, magazine limits, etc)?

The NRA has won on every front for decades by not compromising.  It's possible to openly carry a firearm in 45 states, to covertly carry a firearm in every state, to own any type of firearm (yes, you have to pay more for machine guns and sawed off shotguns).  It's not necessary to have a background check to buy a firearm from someone.  No record of private sales is kept in most states.  No registry of ownership is kept in most states.  It's illegal to keep usable, searchable records of firearms sales for police use.

The NRA has all the power.  They have purchased most of the Republican party, and get the legislation that they want passed.  They have been able to place supreme court judges in power who have altered interpretation of the US Constitution to be more friendly to their cause.  They have deep pockets, which they use to fuel a vast media and advertising empire.  Best of all, they have a sizable army of gun advocates who value their firearms much more than the lives of other people, and who are perfectly happy with the way things are.

When someone is asking for 'compromise' it's a bit disingenuous.  That's like the Nazis saying they'll negotiate with Jews in the concentration camp, and then leaving the discussion in a huff because they didn't get enough concessions.  "The Jews want food, water, medicine, and to not be gassed to death . . . but they're not willing to offer us anything!  They're obviously not negotiating in good faith.  Maybe they'll come back to the table later when they're serious.  Until then I guess it's best we just carry on with the status quo."

The Nazi's are finally here.  I thought the Nazi gun banning trope would be the other shoe to drop but it's the NRA instead.  We've hit the wall of Godwin's Law.