|
The gun thread
I enjoyed reading some of the thread about guns, in which luddite
called for reasonable regulations for firearms. It convinced me there is little hope for a future for this violent country. You have extremists like Greg who are against any sort of government action/regulation on just about anything, crazy John Birchers like BAR who think we are still living in the 18th-century, semi-blind racists like herring who can't shoot straight but who load up with guns in case they encounter a black man walking on the sidewalk, whiners like Wayne who think the world exists just for them, and crackpots like psychoscotty who should not be allowed within 50 feet of rubber band. bang bang, boys...it is your future. Please forgive my lousy typing which in reality is lousy dictation. Can't use my right hand to type for a while, a circumstance that provides a wonderful excuse to not spend much time in this cesspool of self centered right wing extremism. As always, have nice day. -- “There’s more idleness and abuse of government favors among the economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged.” - Norman Mailer |
The gun thread
On 11/3/2014 6:14 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
Please forgive my lousy typing which in reality is lousy dictation. Can't use my right hand to type for a while, a circumstance that provides a wonderful excuse to not spend much time in this cesspool of self centered right wing extremism. As always, have nice day. -- “There’s more idleness and abuse of government favors among the economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged.” - Norman Mailer One of your gangsta buddies take a baseball bat to your hand? What did you do to **** them off? Oh nevermind. You were probably just being you. ;-) |
The gun thread
On 11/3/2014 6:14 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
I enjoyed reading some of the thread about guns, in which luddite called for reasonable regulations for firearms. It convinced me there is little hope for a future for this violent country. You have extremists like Greg who are against any sort of government action/regulation on just about anything, crazy John Birchers like BAR who think we are still living in the 18th-century, semi-blind racists like herring who can't shoot straight but who load up with guns in case they encounter a black man walking on the sidewalk, whiners like Wayne who think the world exists just for them, and crackpots like psychoscotty who should not be allowed within 50 feet of rubber band. bang bang, boys...it is your future. Please forgive my lousy typing which in reality is lousy dictation. Can't use my right hand to type for a while, a circumstance that provides a wonderful excuse to not spend much time in this cesspool of self centered right wing extremism. As always, have nice day. The recent discussions regarding gun background checks and gun registration was interesting to me. It made me aware of some of the different views that exist, regional cultural differences and most importantly they made me realize that I really didn't know or understand what the current laws and status of each are. So, I did some research on the subjects. It seems that background checks and gun registration exists for all firearms purchased through a FFL. The current federal laws governing dealer transactions were established by The National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. Among other specific items, these Acts require a background check for reported federal or state restrictions that may exist in a purchaser's record and requires the completion of a registry form with details of the transaction that must be retained for 20 years by the dealer. By the way, the NRA supported both of these Acts. Background checks conducted by licensed dealers include data based on court records (federal and state) and other federally mandated restrictions. Individual state inputs to the background data base varies by state but they contain data from police records, medical institutions and even input by family members. Domestic violence that results in restraining orders, known substance abuse (drugs and/or alcohol) and other records are examples. Not all are reported however, so it's a leaky filter and it needs to be worked on and resolved. The debate today is on private sales, transfers, Internet sales and gun show sales that do not involve a federally licensed dealer. Estimates vary but it is thought that 20 to 40 percent of firearms are acquired through these means, not involving a FFL and therefore not requiring any form of background check, registration or even a simple record of the transaction. I remain of the opinion that background checks and documentation of current ownership (registration) should be extended to include *all* purchases and/or transfers. We don't live in the 1700 or 1800 hundreds. It won't cover all transfers, I realize, but it makes undocumented transfers illegal which may, over time, help reduce the number of firearms used in violent crimes. Law abiding citizens/gun owners have nothing to lose in terms of their "Rights". To those who simply cling to their "rights" under the 2nd Amendment I suggest the following: With "Rights" come responsibilities. To claim your "Rights" but ignore your responsibilities to society means you have haven't earned or deserve them. |
The gun thread
On 11/3/14 7:27 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/3/2014 6:14 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: I enjoyed reading some of the thread about guns, in which luddite called for reasonable regulations for firearms. It convinced me there is little hope for a future for this violent country. You have extremists like Greg who are against any sort of government action/regulation on just about anything, crazy John Birchers like BAR who think we are still living in the 18th-century, semi-blind racists like herring who can't shoot straight but who load up with guns in case they encounter a black man walking on the sidewalk, whiners like Wayne who think the world exists just for them, and crackpots like psychoscotty who should not be allowed within 50 feet of rubber band. bang bang, boys...it is your future. Please forgive my lousy typing which in reality is lousy dictation. Can't use my right hand to type for a while, a circumstance that provides a wonderful excuse to not spend much time in this cesspool of self centered right wing extremism. As always, have nice day. The recent discussions regarding gun background checks and gun registration was interesting to me. It made me aware of some of the different views that exist, regional cultural differences and most importantly they made me realize that I really didn't know or understand what the current laws and status of each are. So, I did some research on the subjects. It seems that background checks and gun registration exists for all firearms purchased through a FFL. The current federal laws governing dealer transactions were established by The National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. Among other specific items, these Acts require a background check for reported federal or state restrictions that may exist in a purchaser's record and requires the completion of a registry form with details of the transaction that must be retained for 20 years by the dealer. By the way, the NRA supported both of these Acts. Background checks conducted by licensed dealers include data based on court records (federal and state) and other federally mandated restrictions. Individual state inputs to the background data base varies by state but they contain data from police records, medical institutions and even input by family members. Domestic violence that results in restraining orders, known substance abuse (drugs and/or alcohol) and other records are examples. Not all are reported however, so it's a leaky filter and it needs to be worked on and resolved. The debate today is on private sales, transfers, Internet sales and gun show sales that do not involve a federally licensed dealer. Estimates vary but it is thought that 20 to 40 percent of firearms are acquired through these means, not involving a FFL and therefore not requiring any form of background check, registration or even a simple record of the transaction. I remain of the opinion that background checks and documentation of current ownership (registration) should be extended to include *all* purchases and/or transfers. We don't live in the 1700 or 1800 hundreds. It won't cover all transfers, I realize, but it makes undocumented transfers illegal which may, over time, help reduce the number of firearms used in violent crimes. Law abiding citizens/gun owners have nothing to lose in terms of their "Rights". To those who simply cling to their "rights" under the 2nd Amendment I suggest the following: With "Rights" come responsibilities. To claim your "Rights" but ignore your responsibilities to society means you have haven't earned or deserve them. I live in Maryland a state many consider restrictive as to gun rights. In the 11 years I've lived here I've never found maryland's gun regulations prevented me from buying any firearm i wanted. -- “There’s more idleness and abuse of government favors among the economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged.” - Norman Mailer |
The gun thread
|
The gun thread
On 11/3/2014 6:25 AM, Harrold wrote:
On 11/3/2014 6:14 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: Please forgive my lousy typing which in reality is lousy dictation. Can't use my right hand to type for a while, a circumstance that provides a wonderful excuse to not spend much time in this cesspool of self centered right wing extremism. As always, have nice day. -- “There’s more idleness and abuse of government favors among the economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged.” - Norman Mailer One of your gangsta buddies take a baseball bat to your hand? What did you do to **** them off? Oh nevermind. You were probably just being you. ;-) Oh no, he's even got a better story than the burgler busting Toyota! He's a hero now. Can't believe he didn't get a plate and call the cops himself, as there were several crimes comitted, but we know krause would never call the cops at the drop of a hat, or over words on a computer screen, oh wait!! ROTFLMAO! |
The gun thread
|
The gun thread
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 07:27:35 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 11/3/2014 6:14 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: I enjoyed reading some of the thread about guns, in which luddite called for reasonable regulations for firearms. It convinced me there is little hope for a future for this violent country. You have extremists like Greg who are against any sort of government action/regulation on just about anything, crazy John Birchers like BAR who think we are still living in the 18th-century, semi-blind racists like herring who can't shoot straight but who load up with guns in case they encounter a black man walking on the sidewalk, whiners like Wayne who think the world exists just for them, and crackpots like psychoscotty who should not be allowed within 50 feet of rubber band. bang bang, boys...it is your future. Please forgive my lousy typing which in reality is lousy dictation. Can't use my right hand to type for a while, a circumstance that provides a wonderful excuse to not spend much time in this cesspool of self centered right wing extremism. As always, have nice day. The recent discussions regarding gun background checks and gun registration was interesting to me. It made me aware of some of the different views that exist, regional cultural differences and most importantly they made me realize that I really didn't know or understand what the current laws and status of each are. So, I did some research on the subjects. It seems that background checks and gun registration exists for all firearms purchased through a FFL. The current federal laws governing dealer transactions were established by The National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. Among other specific items, these Acts require a background check for reported federal or state restrictions that may exist in a purchaser's record and requires the completion of a registry form with details of the transaction that must be retained for 20 years by the dealer. By the way, the NRA supported both of these Acts. Background checks conducted by licensed dealers include data based on court records (federal and state) and other federally mandated restrictions. Individual state inputs to the background data base varies by state but they contain data from police records, medical institutions and even input by family members. Domestic violence that results in restraining orders, known substance abuse (drugs and/or alcohol) and other records are examples. Not all are reported however, so it's a leaky filter and it needs to be worked on and resolved. The debate today is on private sales, transfers, Internet sales and gun show sales that do not involve a federally licensed dealer. Estimates vary but it is thought that 20 to 40 percent of firearms are acquired through these means, not involving a FFL and therefore not requiring any form of background check, registration or even a simple record of the transaction. I remain of the opinion that background checks and documentation of current ownership (registration) should be extended to include *all* purchases and/or transfers. We don't live in the 1700 or 1800 hundreds. It won't cover all transfers, I realize, but it makes undocumented transfers illegal which may, over time, help reduce the number of firearms used in violent crimes. Law abiding citizens/gun owners have nothing to lose in terms of their "Rights". To those who simply cling to their "rights" under the 2nd Amendment I suggest the following: With "Rights" come responsibilities. To claim your "Rights" but ignore your responsibilities to society means you have haven't earned or deserve them. My responsibility to society includes storing my guns in a safe manner and operating them responsibly. Filling out paperwork, if I've done the above, does *nothing* for society. |
The gun thread
On 11/3/2014 1:37 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 07:27:35 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/3/2014 6:14 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: I enjoyed reading some of the thread about guns, in which luddite called for reasonable regulations for firearms. It convinced me there is little hope for a future for this violent country. You have extremists like Greg who are against any sort of government action/regulation on just about anything, crazy John Birchers like BAR who think we are still living in the 18th-century, semi-blind racists like herring who can't shoot straight but who load up with guns in case they encounter a black man walking on the sidewalk, whiners like Wayne who think the world exists just for them, and crackpots like psychoscotty who should not be allowed within 50 feet of rubber band. bang bang, boys...it is your future. Please forgive my lousy typing which in reality is lousy dictation. Can't use my right hand to type for a while, a circumstance that provides a wonderful excuse to not spend much time in this cesspool of self centered right wing extremism. As always, have nice day. The recent discussions regarding gun background checks and gun registration was interesting to me. It made me aware of some of the different views that exist, regional cultural differences and most importantly they made me realize that I really didn't know or understand what the current laws and status of each are. So, I did some research on the subjects. It seems that background checks and gun registration exists for all firearms purchased through a FFL. The current federal laws governing dealer transactions were established by The National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. Among other specific items, these Acts require a background check for reported federal or state restrictions that may exist in a purchaser's record and requires the completion of a registry form with details of the transaction that must be retained for 20 years by the dealer. By the way, the NRA supported both of these Acts. Background checks conducted by licensed dealers include data based on court records (federal and state) and other federally mandated restrictions. Individual state inputs to the background data base varies by state but they contain data from police records, medical institutions and even input by family members. Domestic violence that results in restraining orders, known substance abuse (drugs and/or alcohol) and other records are examples. Not all are reported however, so it's a leaky filter and it needs to be worked on and resolved. The debate today is on private sales, transfers, Internet sales and gun show sales that do not involve a federally licensed dealer. Estimates vary but it is thought that 20 to 40 percent of firearms are acquired through these means, not involving a FFL and therefore not requiring any form of background check, registration or even a simple record of the transaction. I remain of the opinion that background checks and documentation of current ownership (registration) should be extended to include *all* purchases and/or transfers. We don't live in the 1700 or 1800 hundreds. It won't cover all transfers, I realize, but it makes undocumented transfers illegal which may, over time, help reduce the number of firearms used in violent crimes. Law abiding citizens/gun owners have nothing to lose in terms of their "Rights". To those who simply cling to their "rights" under the 2nd Amendment I suggest the following: With "Rights" come responsibilities. To claim your "Rights" but ignore your responsibilities to society means you have haven't earned or deserve them. My responsibility to society includes storing my guns in a safe manner and operating them responsibly. Filling out paperwork, if I've done the above, does *nothing* for society. That's part of it. However, selling or transferring a gun to someone based simply on your knowledge of him or her isn't being responsible to society, IMO, and that's what this is all about. If you, as you have said you would do, handle the transaction through a FFL which would require the background check and record of the transaction, then I think you are fulfilling your responsibility. You may transfer your gun to a relative or someone *you* personally know but you don't know what he or she is going to do with it in the future when you are not around. That's why I think background checks and a paper trail of ownership (basically registration) should be required for all transactions. Doesn't infringe at all on your "Rights" to own a gun or on anyone else's including the person you transferred the firearm to. |
The gun thread
|
The gun thread
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 17:00:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 11/3/2014 4:46 PM, wrote: On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 16:02:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: You think the authorities are going to come knocking on your door? You might get a warm feeling about this but if they were going to come knocking on your door, they still will. Murders are usually solved by motive and opportunity if they don't just catch the guy with the gun (most acquaintance murders and suicides) If the person you sold the gun to was a total stranger, this might help you, but John already said he would go though a FFL with a stranger. I might just settle for a bill of sale that had the driver's license number on it. (maybe a picture of the guy or his car, with tag) I took a picture of the FFL who bought my machine gun standing by his truck with the tag showing. If this is a family member or close friend, you are probably still on the suspect list if they did not report it stolen/lost and you have a link to the victim or you look like the suspect.. When you are in a state without required registrations "I sold it" is still a defense. They still have to put you at the scene of the crime with a plausible reason you might kill this person. BTW the chance that they can or would actually trace a gun back to the original buyer are pretty slim. If you do know the guy who bought it from you, you can still finger the guy and a signed bill of sale is certainly a plus. I chuckled a little with your descriptions of creative ways to prove you sold or transferred a gun to someone. Why not just use the existing system that has been in use successfully for many years. It's in place and recognized as valid proof of transfer throughout the country. My way is free, for one thing, and it requires no running around the countryside looking for an FFL who is home and wants to 'do the deed'. What is so 'creative' about the transfer form I've shown you several times. |
The gun thread
|
The gun thread
On 11/3/2014 5:36 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/3/2014 4:46 PM, wrote: On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 16:02:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: You think the authorities are going to come knocking on your door? 30 You might get a warm feeling about this but if they were going to come knocking on your door, they still will. Murders are usually solved by motive and opportunity if they don't just catch the guy with the gun (most acquaintance murders and suicides) If the person you sold the gun to was a total stranger, this might help you, but John already said he would go though a FFL with a stranger. I might just settle for a bill of sale that had the driver's license number on it. (maybe a picture of the guy or his car, with tag) I took a picture of the FFL who bought my machine gun standing by his truck with the tag showing. If this is a family member or close friend, you are probably still on the suspect list if they did not report it stolen/lost and you have a link to the victim or you look like the suspect.. When you are in a state without required registrations "I sold it" is still a defense. They still have to put you at the scene of the crime with a plausible reason you might kill this person. BTW the chance that they can or would actually trace a gun back to the original buyer are pretty slim. If you do know the guy who bought it from you, you can still finger the guy and a signed bill of sale is certainly a plus. If I want a gun, I have to get a pardon first. I had to go to the town and apply to vote. I have no problem with that. Paperwork keeps guns from "floating" like a cell phone or a tv at a pawn shop so folks buy a tv, then sell it, buy another when they need it, etc.... I see no problem with a paper trail, in fact if it keeps the guns from flowing like water, I am all for it. Nowhere that I know of in the constitution does it say the govt can't keep track of guns, just that you can have 'em.... Just my .02 I agree 100 percent Scott. Background checks and the registration of a transfer or sale in no way infringes on anyone's rights. The NRA has a very interesting history. It started as an organization promoting marksmanship and safety. It supported and endorsed early gun control laws to benefit citizens as a whole. More recently the NRA has actually split into sub organizations one of which lobbies heavily against *any* changes in gun laws. The approach they take is "shotgun" style, meaning they will oppose *any* change, regardless of how valid or beneficial that change might be. Wayne alluded to that in a recent post. It's the "slippery slope" syndrome used basically to instil concern that eventually the government is coming to take your guns. This is not the NRA of old. It still exists and still promotes safety and responsibility in the ownership of firearms. It's the off shoot sub-division within the NRA umbrella that became the lobbying arm. |
The gun thread
|
The gun thread
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 13:39:41 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote: If you really want a good delineating point, liberals are city people who expect the government or a government regulated business will provide for their every need. Conservatives tend to not be typical city people who do not need someone to provide everything they need and they are willing to do things themselves without a nanny state government and hired talent coddling them all the way. Well said. === Yes. All of this talk about how benign mandatory registration is, assumes that we will always have a benign government going forward. I don't think that's a good assumption at all, and meanwhile you've let the camel get his nose into the tent in a big way. There's a very real risk of making the cure worse than the problem. |
The gun thread
On 11/3/2014 6:22 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 13:39:41 -0500, Poco Loco wrote: If you really want a good delineating point, liberals are city people who expect the government or a government regulated business will provide for their every need. Conservatives tend to not be typical city people who do not need someone to provide everything they need and they are willing to do things themselves without a nanny state government and hired talent coddling them all the way. Well said. === Yes. All of this talk about how benign mandatory registration is, assumes that we will always have a benign government going forward. I don't think that's a good assumption at all, and meanwhile you've let the camel get his nose into the tent in a big way. There's a very real risk of making the cure worse than the problem. Ah, the "slippery slope" argument again except now it's a camel sticking his nose in your tent. :-) If mandatory registration really bothers anyone, they should never purchase a gun from a dealer. They will have to rely on private transfers or "out of the car trunk" deals at gun shows. |
The gun thread
On Mon, 3 Nov 2014 17:19:50 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote: In article , says... It will show the current or last registered owner. The fewer guns being transferred with no traceability the better off *everyone* is. That's right. I'd make gun owners run a few hurdles too. Thirty day wait times. Gun safety courses. Moderate annual fees. Maybe 3 year retraining. Jail time for gun theft/loss law reporting violations. A bit more than a 16 year-old has to comply with to drive a car. Nothing that would even hinder the serious gun nut, but would put off the "casual" gun owner. It'll happen when society is free of old guys with old paranoid ideas. In the meantime they'll be the primary tools of the gun industry. And so it goes. Ought to do the same thing with voting. |
The gun thread
On 11/3/2014 7:06 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 17:00:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/3/2014 4:46 PM, wrote: On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 16:02:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: You think the authorities are going to come knocking on your door? You might get a warm feeling about this but if they were going to come knocking on your door, they still will. Murders are usually solved by motive and opportunity if they don't just catch the guy with the gun (most acquaintance murders and suicides) If the person you sold the gun to was a total stranger, this might help you, but John already said he would go though a FFL with a stranger. I might just settle for a bill of sale that had the driver's license number on it. (maybe a picture of the guy or his car, with tag) I took a picture of the FFL who bought my machine gun standing by his truck with the tag showing. If this is a family member or close friend, you are probably still on the suspect list if they did not report it stolen/lost and you have a link to the victim or you look like the suspect.. When you are in a state without required registrations "I sold it" is still a defense. They still have to put you at the scene of the crime with a plausible reason you might kill this person. BTW the chance that they can or would actually trace a gun back to the original buyer are pretty slim. If you do know the guy who bought it from you, you can still finger the guy and a signed bill of sale is certainly a plus. I chuckled a little with your descriptions of creative ways to prove you sold or transferred a gun to someone. Why not just use the existing system that has been in use successfully for many years. It's in place and recognized as valid proof of transfer throughout the country. If "throughout the country" is true if you are just talking about the 8 states that regulate private sales. Greg, the whole debate is about expanding the number of states that regulate private sales pr make it universal throughout the USA. It's on the ballot in Washington (state) tomorrow. Ironically there are two initiatives. Initiative 591 would ban background checks on firearms, unless in compliance with federal standards. The second, Initiative 594 would require universal background checks on all gun purchases. The second (594) has a 2:1 support level according to polls. |
The gun thread
On 11/3/14 6:47 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/3/2014 6:22 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 13:39:41 -0500, Poco Loco wrote: If you really want a good delineating point, liberals are city people who expect the government or a government regulated business will provide for their every need. Conservatives tend to not be typical city people who do not need someone to provide everything they need and they are willing to do things themselves without a nanny state government and hired talent coddling them all the way. Well said. === Yes. All of this talk about how benign mandatory registration is, assumes that we will always have a benign government going forward. I don't think that's a good assumption at all, and meanwhile you've let the camel get his nose into the tent in a big way. There's a very real risk of making the cure worse than the problem. Ah, the "slippery slope" argument again except now it's a camel sticking his nose in your tent. :-) If mandatory registration really bothers anyone, they should never purchase a gun from a dealer. They will have to rely on private transfers or "out of the car trunk" deals at gun shows. Wayne's answer is the same one conservatives gave to oppose the abolition of slavery, to oppose child labor laws, to keep from giving women the vote, to oppose social security, to oppose medicare, to oppose the voting rights act, et cetera ad nauseum. "once you let blacks vote, their noses will be in the tent in a big way." -- Theres more idleness and abuse of government favors among the economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged. - Norman Mailer |
The gun thread
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 17:55:58 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: Now, now John. I never advocated banning guns or even close. All I've advocated is that a simple, inexpensive and long-standing system that performs the most basic of checks be used in all gun sales or transfers. It just doesn't make sense that the purchase of a new firearm from a dealer is subject to this but isn't in subsequent transfers in many states. I've been interested in hearing specific and sensible reasons why people would oppose such a requirement. So far, all I've heard is: "It won't keep criminals from getting guns". "It's another tax" "Slippery slope" "Data base for future confiscation of all firearms" "Why should I pay a fee to a FFL" (that one cracks me up. The "fee" is not much and only applies when you are selling or transferring a gun which isn't that often. You probably shoot up the cost of the "fee" during one visit to the range) Or, as Greg proposes, "Create your own documentation system with cameras and driver's licenses" I think what we're getting to is that there is *no* rational reason to oppose background checks and transfer documentation for *all* changes in ownership of a firearm. The underlying reason for opposition is the mantra, "You are infringing on my 2A rights". *That* is ridiculous. You've still never addressed the transfer document I've shown you. And, although you may find all the reasons irrational, I'd suggest they're no more irrational than the idea that a lot of paperwork will make society 'safer'. So, we disagree. |
The gun thread
|
The gun thread
On 11/3/2014 7:28 PM, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On 11/3/2014 4:46 PM, wrote: On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 16:02:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: You think the authorities are going to come knocking on your door? You might get a warm feeling about this but if they were going to come knocking on your door, they still will. Murders are usually solved by motive and opportunity if they don't just catch the guy with the gun (most acquaintance murders and suicides) If the person you sold the gun to was a total stranger, this might help you, but John already said he would go though a FFL with a stranger. I might just settle for a bill of sale that had the driver's license number on it. (maybe a picture of the guy or his car, with tag) I took a picture of the FFL who bought my machine gun standing by his truck with the tag showing. If this is a family member or close friend, you are probably still on the suspect list if they did not report it stolen/lost and you have a link to the victim or you look like the suspect.. When you are in a state without required registrations "I sold it" is still a defense. They still have to put you at the scene of the crime with a plausible reason you might kill this person. BTW the chance that they can or would actually trace a gun back to the original buyer are pretty slim. If you do know the guy who bought it from you, you can still finger the guy and a signed bill of sale is certainly a plus. I chuckled a little with your descriptions of creative ways to prove you sold or transferred a gun to someone. Why not just use the existing system that has been in use successfully for many years. It's in place and recognized as valid proof of transfer throughout the country. You mean the one that has existed for the 400 years we have been in North America? Next time I have to fend off an Indian attack with a musket I'll let you know. |
The gun thread
On 11/3/2014 7:30 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 17:55:58 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Now, now John. I never advocated banning guns or even close. All I've advocated is that a simple, inexpensive and long-standing system that performs the most basic of checks be used in all gun sales or transfers. It just doesn't make sense that the purchase of a new firearm from a dealer is subject to this but isn't in subsequent transfers in many states. I've been interested in hearing specific and sensible reasons why people would oppose such a requirement. So far, all I've heard is: "It won't keep criminals from getting guns". "It's another tax" "Slippery slope" "Data base for future confiscation of all firearms" "Why should I pay a fee to a FFL" (that one cracks me up. The "fee" is not much and only applies when you are selling or transferring a gun which isn't that often. You probably shoot up the cost of the "fee" during one visit to the range) Or, as Greg proposes, "Create your own documentation system with cameras and driver's licenses" I think what we're getting to is that there is *no* rational reason to oppose background checks and transfer documentation for *all* changes in ownership of a firearm. The underlying reason for opposition is the mantra, "You are infringing on my 2A rights". *That* is ridiculous. You've still never addressed the transfer document I've shown you. And, although you may find all the reasons irrational, I'd suggest they're no more irrational than the idea that a lot of paperwork will make society 'safer'. So, we disagree. Correct me if I am wrong but I think you acknowledged that the document you linked to was *not* a federal form. If I understand correctly it's simply an optional and personal, official looking bill of sale. The registration document required on dealer purchases can trace the serial number of the firearm from the manufacturer to the dealer and then to the original purchaser. That record of custody becomes broken when you do a private transfer. |
The gun thread
On 11/3/2014 7:30 PM, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On 11/3/2014 7:06 PM, wrote: On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 17:00:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/3/2014 4:46 PM, wrote: On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 16:02:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: You think the authorities are going to come knocking on your door? You might get a warm feeling about this but if they were going to come knocking on your door, they still will. Murders are usually solved by motive and opportunity if they don't just catch the guy with the gun (most acquaintance murders and suicides) If the person you sold the gun to was a total stranger, this might help you, but John already said he would go though a FFL with a stranger. I might just settle for a bill of sale that had the driver's license number on it. (maybe a picture of the guy or his car, with tag) I took a picture of the FFL who bought my machine gun standing by his truck with the tag showing. If this is a family member or close friend, you are probably still on the suspect list if they did not report it stolen/lost and you have a link to the victim or you look like the suspect.. When you are in a state without required registrations "I sold it" is still a defense. They still have to put you at the scene of the crime with a plausible reason you might kill this person. BTW the chance that they can or would actually trace a gun back to the original buyer are pretty slim. If you do know the guy who bought it from you, you can still finger the guy and a signed bill of sale is certainly a plus. I chuckled a little with your descriptions of creative ways to prove you sold or transferred a gun to someone. Why not just use the existing system that has been in use successfully for many years. It's in place and recognized as valid proof of transfer throughout the country. If "throughout the country" is true if you are just talking about the 8 states that regulate private sales. Greg, the whole debate is about expanding the number of states that regulate private sales pr make it universal throughout the USA. It's on the ballot in Washington (state) tomorrow. Ironically there are two initiatives. Initiative 591 would ban background checks on firearms, unless in compliance with federal standards. The second, Initiative 594 would require universal background checks on all gun purchases. The second (594) has a 2:1 support level according to polls. I would assume that you are in favor of requiring proof of citizenship and proof of residency in the precinct you want to cast your ballot too. Absolutely. At the same time I can understand that some people may have a hard time producing "proof" of citizenship or age so I am open to alternative ways other than SS numbers, Drivers Id, etc. Affidavits by friends/family/employers can suffice in some cases. The proof requirements should be reasonable but require some effort to produce. Nobody should be able to just verbally declare themselves a citizen, 18 years or older in order to vote. |
The gun thread
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:21:32 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/3/14 6:47 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/3/2014 6:22 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 13:39:41 -0500, Poco Loco wrote: If you really want a good delineating point, liberals are city people who expect the government or a government regulated business will provide for their every need. Conservatives tend to not be typical city people who do not need someone to provide everything they need and they are willing to do things themselves without a nanny state government and hired talent coddling them all the way. Well said. === Yes. All of this talk about how benign mandatory registration is, assumes that we will always have a benign government going forward. I don't think that's a good assumption at all, and meanwhile you've let the camel get his nose into the tent in a big way. There's a very real risk of making the cure worse than the problem. Ah, the "slippery slope" argument again except now it's a camel sticking his nose in your tent. :-) If mandatory registration really bothers anyone, they should never purchase a gun from a dealer. They will have to rely on private transfers or "out of the car trunk" deals at gun shows. Wayne's answer is the same one conservatives gave to oppose the abolition of slavery, to oppose child labor laws, to keep from giving women the vote, to oppose social security, to oppose medicare, to oppose the voting rights act, et cetera ad nauseum. "once you let blacks vote, their noses will be in the tent in a big way." Why should folks who can't afford an ID for voting have to go through the hassle, pay for the FFL, and provide picture ID's simply to purchase a gun? Try joining the discussion, which, until your arrival, has been relatively rancorless. |
The gun thread
On 11/3/2014 7:06 PM, BAR wrote:
Why do we let idiots, and I do mean idiots, vote? Should people have to take an IQ test so that we are assured that the people casting votes are of enough intelligence or intellect that we will be comfortable with them making decisions that affect those of a higher level intelligence or intellect. I don't care.. If they are a citizen and only vote once/understand and respect the sanctity of the voting booth, I just don't care. |
The gun thread
On 11/3/2014 7:36 PM, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 17:36:45 -0500, KC wrote: Nowhere that I know of in the constitution does it say the govt can't keep track of guns, just that you can have 'em.... Just my .02 I know of anywhere in the constitution that defines the right to privacy but we all assume it is there. The real problem? If the government is going to all the trouble of keeping track of something, it is just a matter of time before they start taxing it and then they become addicted to the tax. Minorities always get taxed the most. You only have to look at smokers to see that. If you can believe the left, we are in the minority and an unpopular one at that. It is interesting that the 2A has the words "shall not be infringed" while the others don't. The 2A has all kinds of "interesting" words that are subject to interpretation and debate. For example, the first four words a "A well regulated Militia...." Note the word "regulated"? It also says in the same sentence (after referring to the Militia): "the right of *the* people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What people? It doesn't say "all" people. It doesn't say "citizens". This is the big debate. Some people feel it is talking about people in the "Militia" only. Others think all people were part of the Militia, so it applies to everyone. Are you in the Militia? I am not. |
The gun thread
|
The gun thread
On 11/3/2014 8:07 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:21:32 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/3/14 6:47 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/3/2014 6:22 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 13:39:41 -0500, Poco Loco wrote: If you really want a good delineating point, liberals are city people who expect the government or a government regulated business will provide for their every need. Conservatives tend to not be typical city people who do not need someone to provide everything they need and they are willing to do things themselves without a nanny state government and hired talent coddling them all the way. Well said. === Yes. All of this talk about how benign mandatory registration is, assumes that we will always have a benign government going forward. I don't think that's a good assumption at all, and meanwhile you've let the camel get his nose into the tent in a big way. There's a very real risk of making the cure worse than the problem. Ah, the "slippery slope" argument again except now it's a camel sticking his nose in your tent. :-) If mandatory registration really bothers anyone, they should never purchase a gun from a dealer. They will have to rely on private transfers or "out of the car trunk" deals at gun shows. Wayne's answer is the same one conservatives gave to oppose the abolition of slavery, to oppose child labor laws, to keep from giving women the vote, to oppose social security, to oppose medicare, to oppose the voting rights act, et cetera ad nauseum. "once you let blacks vote, their noses will be in the tent in a big way." Why should folks who can't afford an ID for voting have to go through the hassle, pay for the FFL, and provide picture ID's simply to purchase a gun? How much does a voter ID cost? Every state I checked offer them for free. |
The gun thread
|
The gun thread
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:57:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: The registration document required on dealer purchases can trace the serial number of the firearm from the manufacturer to the dealer and then to the original purchaser. That record of custody becomes broken when you do a private transfer. === Exactly what problem or crime do you expect to solve with this unbroken chain of custody? I don't hear law enforcement agencies clamoring that they really need this. In mot crimes that I hear about, the original owner of the gun does not seem to be an important question. |
The gun thread
On 11/3/2014 7:06 PM, BAR wrote: Why do we let idiots, and I do mean idiots, vote? Should people have to take an IQ test so that we are assured that the people casting votes are of enough intelligence or intellect that we will be comfortable with them making decisions that affect those of a higher level intelligence or intellect. Idiots share the same rights that you do. |
The gun thread
On 11/3/2014 8:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:57:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The registration document required on dealer purchases can trace the serial number of the firearm from the manufacturer to the dealer and then to the original purchaser. That record of custody becomes broken when you do a private transfer. === Exactly what problem or crime do you expect to solve with this unbroken chain of custody? I don't hear law enforcement agencies clamoring that they really need this. In mot crimes that I hear about, the original owner of the gun does not seem to be an important question. In itself registration won't prevent crimes Wayne but it may start to reduce the number of guns readily available to those who commit them. Right now it is estimated that between 20 and 40 percent of the guns in the USA are not registered anywhere. It's a process. It won't return any rewards overnight. I agree that from what I've read most in law enforcement do not support many of the contemplated new gun-control proposals but they are more related to things like gun types, magazine sizes, etc. There isn't much on the concept of background checks and registration, mainly I think because those laws already exist for guns purchased through a dealer. |
The gun thread
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:57:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 11/3/2014 7:30 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 17:55:58 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Now, now John. I never advocated banning guns or even close. All I've advocated is that a simple, inexpensive and long-standing system that performs the most basic of checks be used in all gun sales or transfers. It just doesn't make sense that the purchase of a new firearm from a dealer is subject to this but isn't in subsequent transfers in many states. I've been interested in hearing specific and sensible reasons why people would oppose such a requirement. So far, all I've heard is: "It won't keep criminals from getting guns". "It's another tax" "Slippery slope" "Data base for future confiscation of all firearms" "Why should I pay a fee to a FFL" (that one cracks me up. The "fee" is not much and only applies when you are selling or transferring a gun which isn't that often. You probably shoot up the cost of the "fee" during one visit to the range) Or, as Greg proposes, "Create your own documentation system with cameras and driver's licenses" I think what we're getting to is that there is *no* rational reason to oppose background checks and transfer documentation for *all* changes in ownership of a firearm. The underlying reason for opposition is the mantra, "You are infringing on my 2A rights". *That* is ridiculous. You've still never addressed the transfer document I've shown you. And, although you may find all the reasons irrational, I'd suggest they're no more irrational than the idea that a lot of paperwork will make society 'safer'. So, we disagree. Correct me if I am wrong but I think you acknowledged that the document you linked to was *not* a federal form. If I understand correctly it's simply an optional and personal, official looking bill of sale. Exactly. The registration document required on dealer purchases can trace the serial number of the firearm from the manufacturer to the dealer and then to the original purchaser. That record of custody becomes broken when you do a private transfer. The document I provided traces the serial number from the old owner to the new. The record of custody remains. I've sold two guns in the past few years. Neither were through the federal bureaucracy, but the record of custody is not broken. When I transfer two rifles in the next few months, the record of custody will be intact. If circumstance cause the feds to need the information, they can come ask me. No problem. |
The gun thread
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 20:31:47 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 11/3/2014 8:07 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:21:32 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/3/14 6:47 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/3/2014 6:22 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 13:39:41 -0500, Poco Loco wrote: If you really want a good delineating point, liberals are city people who expect the government or a government regulated business will provide for their every need. Conservatives tend to not be typical city people who do not need someone to provide everything they need and they are willing to do things themselves without a nanny state government and hired talent coddling them all the way. Well said. === Yes. All of this talk about how benign mandatory registration is, assumes that we will always have a benign government going forward. I don't think that's a good assumption at all, and meanwhile you've let the camel get his nose into the tent in a big way. There's a very real risk of making the cure worse than the problem. Ah, the "slippery slope" argument again except now it's a camel sticking his nose in your tent. :-) If mandatory registration really bothers anyone, they should never purchase a gun from a dealer. They will have to rely on private transfers or "out of the car trunk" deals at gun shows. Wayne's answer is the same one conservatives gave to oppose the abolition of slavery, to oppose child labor laws, to keep from giving women the vote, to oppose social security, to oppose medicare, to oppose the voting rights act, et cetera ad nauseum. "once you let blacks vote, their noses will be in the tent in a big way." Why should folks who can't afford an ID for voting have to go through the hassle, pay for the FFL, and provide picture ID's simply to purchase a gun? How much does a voter ID cost? Every state I checked offer them for free. Well, according to some liberals, it's the cost and hassle of getting the ID that equates to a 'poll tax'. |
The gun thread
On 11/4/2014 7:14 AM, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On 11/3/2014 8:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:57:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The registration document required on dealer purchases can trace the serial number of the firearm from the manufacturer to the dealer and then to the original purchaser. That record of custody becomes broken when you do a private transfer. === Exactly what problem or crime do you expect to solve with this unbroken chain of custody? I don't hear law enforcement agencies clamoring that they really need this. In mot crimes that I hear about, the original owner of the gun does not seem to be an important question. In itself registration won't prevent crimes Wayne but it may start to reduce the number of guns readily available to those who commit them. Right now it is estimated that between 20 and 40 percent of the guns in the USA are not registered anywhere. How many guns should there be in the USA that are allowed to be in the people's hands? It's a process. It won't return any rewards overnight. You can stop the same number of car related deaths each year by outlawing cars. I agree that from what I've read most in law enforcement do not support many of the contemplated new gun-control proposals but they are more related to things like gun types, magazine sizes, etc. There isn't much on the concept of background checks and registration, mainly I think because those laws already exist for guns purchased through a dealer. Again, the laws exist and are ineffective and you want to require all states to implement ineffective laws. Can't help myself. My responses to your questions and comments: Bar: "How many guns should there be in the USA that are allowed to be in the people's hands?" Me: "As many as they want. I am not against owning guns" Bar: "You can stop the same number of car related deaths each year by outlawing cars." Me: "False equivalency. Cars are not a cause of violent crimes committed by criminals" Maybe "get-a-way cars" :-) Bar: "Again, the laws exist and are ineffective and you want to require all states to implement ineffective laws. Me: "The laws that require a background check and registration for guns purchased from a licensed dealer already exists in *all* the states. It's a federal law. At issue are the guns acquired by other means that are not registered and traceable to the current owner or possessor of the gun. Here are the stats on guns *used in crimes*: 39.6% are obtained from a friend or family member. 39.2% are obtained "on the street" or from an illegal source. 0.7% are purchased at a gun show. 1% are purchased a flea market. 3.8% are from a pawn shop. 8.3% are bought at FFL licenced retail outlets So, you can see that the overwhelming majority of guns that end up being used in a crime come from sources that *do not* require that a chain of custody is maintained. That's why the registration of guns is ineffective as it stands today. If transfers required re-registration to subsequent owners, the number of guns available "on the street" would diminish over time and those used in a crime would be more traceable. We can never completely eliminate gun crimes but when there are 74 or more shootings in schools in 18 months, don't you think it's worth trying? That's my argument. |
The gun thread
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 08:34:45 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 11/4/2014 7:14 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 11/3/2014 8:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:57:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The registration document required on dealer purchases can trace the serial number of the firearm from the manufacturer to the dealer and then to the original purchaser. That record of custody becomes broken when you do a private transfer. === Exactly what problem or crime do you expect to solve with this unbroken chain of custody? I don't hear law enforcement agencies clamoring that they really need this. In mot crimes that I hear about, the original owner of the gun does not seem to be an important question. In itself registration won't prevent crimes Wayne but it may start to reduce the number of guns readily available to those who commit them. Right now it is estimated that between 20 and 40 percent of the guns in the USA are not registered anywhere. How many guns should there be in the USA that are allowed to be in the people's hands? It's a process. It won't return any rewards overnight. You can stop the same number of car related deaths each year by outlawing cars. I agree that from what I've read most in law enforcement do not support many of the contemplated new gun-control proposals but they are more related to things like gun types, magazine sizes, etc. There isn't much on the concept of background checks and registration, mainly I think because those laws already exist for guns purchased through a dealer. Again, the laws exist and are ineffective and you want to require all states to implement ineffective laws. Can't help myself. My responses to your questions and comments: Bar: "How many guns should there be in the USA that are allowed to be in the people's hands?" Me: "As many as they want. I am not against owning guns" Bar: "You can stop the same number of car related deaths each year by outlawing cars." Me: "False equivalency. Cars are not a cause of violent crimes committed by criminals" Maybe "get-a-way cars" :-) Bar: "Again, the laws exist and are ineffective and you want to require all states to implement ineffective laws. Me: "The laws that require a background check and registration for guns purchased from a licensed dealer already exists in *all* the states. It's a federal law. At issue are the guns acquired by other means that are not registered and traceable to the current owner or possessor of the gun. Here are the stats on guns *used in crimes*: 39.6% are obtained from a friend or family member. 39.2% are obtained "on the street" or from an illegal source. 0.7% are purchased at a gun show. 1% are purchased a flea market. 3.8% are from a pawn shop. 8.3% are bought at FFL licenced retail outlets So, you can see that the overwhelming majority of guns that end up being used in a crime come from sources that *do not* require that a chain of custody is maintained. That's why the registration of guns is ineffective as it stands today. If transfers required re-registration to subsequent owners, the number of guns available "on the street" would diminish over time and those used in a crime would be more traceable. We can never completely eliminate gun crimes but when there are 74 or more shootings in schools in 18 months, don't you think it's worth trying? That's my argument. === Your cure is worse than the disease. Take a look at that "friend or family member" statistic. How do you propose to fix that? |
The gun thread
On 11/4/2014 8:34 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2014 7:14 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 11/3/2014 8:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:57:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The registration document required on dealer purchases can trace the serial number of the firearm from the manufacturer to the dealer and then to the original purchaser. That record of custody becomes broken when you do a private transfer. === Exactly what problem or crime do you expect to solve with this unbroken chain of custody? I don't hear law enforcement agencies clamoring that they really need this. In mot crimes that I hear about, the original owner of the gun does not seem to be an important question. In itself registration won't prevent crimes Wayne but it may start to reduce the number of guns readily available to those who commit them. Right now it is estimated that between 20 and 40 percent of the guns in the USA are not registered anywhere. How many guns should there be in the USA that are allowed to be in the people's hands? It's a process. It won't return any rewards overnight. You can stop the same number of car related deaths each year by outlawing cars. I agree that from what I've read most in law enforcement do not support many of the contemplated new gun-control proposals but they are more related to things like gun types, magazine sizes, etc. There isn't much on the concept of background checks and registration, mainly I think because those laws already exist for guns purchased through a dealer. Again, the laws exist and are ineffective and you want to require all states to implement ineffective laws. Can't help myself. My responses to your questions and comments: Bar: "How many guns should there be in the USA that are allowed to be in the people's hands?" Me: "As many as they want. I am not against owning guns" Bar: "You can stop the same number of car related deaths each year by outlawing cars." Me: "False equivalency. Cars are not a cause of violent crimes committed by criminals" Maybe "get-a-way cars" :-) Bar: "Again, the laws exist and are ineffective and you want to require all states to implement ineffective laws. Me: "The laws that require a background check and registration for guns purchased from a licensed dealer already exists in *all* the states. It's a federal law. At issue are the guns acquired by other means that are not registered and traceable to the current owner or possessor of the gun. Here are the stats on guns *used in crimes*: 39.6% are obtained from a friend or family member. 39.2% are obtained "on the street" or from an illegal source. 0.7% are purchased at a gun show. 1% are purchased a flea market. 3.8% are from a pawn shop. 8.3% are bought at FFL licenced retail outlets So, you can see that the overwhelming majority of guns that end up being used in a crime come from sources that *do not* require that a chain of custody is maintained. That's why the registration of guns is ineffective as it stands today. If transfers required re-registration to subsequent owners, the number of guns available "on the street" would diminish over time and those used in a crime would be more traceable. We can never completely eliminate gun crimes but when there are 74 or more shootings in schools in 18 months, don't you think it's worth trying? That's my argument. I thought you were done with this thread. ;-) |
The gun thread
On 11/4/2014 8:51 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 08:34:45 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/4/2014 7:14 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 11/3/2014 8:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:57:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The registration document required on dealer purchases can trace the serial number of the firearm from the manufacturer to the dealer and then to the original purchaser. That record of custody becomes broken when you do a private transfer. === Exactly what problem or crime do you expect to solve with this unbroken chain of custody? I don't hear law enforcement agencies clamoring that they really need this. In mot crimes that I hear about, the original owner of the gun does not seem to be an important question. In itself registration won't prevent crimes Wayne but it may start to reduce the number of guns readily available to those who commit them. Right now it is estimated that between 20 and 40 percent of the guns in the USA are not registered anywhere. How many guns should there be in the USA that are allowed to be in the people's hands? It's a process. It won't return any rewards overnight. You can stop the same number of car related deaths each year by outlawing cars. I agree that from what I've read most in law enforcement do not support many of the contemplated new gun-control proposals but they are more related to things like gun types, magazine sizes, etc. There isn't much on the concept of background checks and registration, mainly I think because those laws already exist for guns purchased through a dealer. Again, the laws exist and are ineffective and you want to require all states to implement ineffective laws. Can't help myself. My responses to your questions and comments: Bar: "How many guns should there be in the USA that are allowed to be in the people's hands?" Me: "As many as they want. I am not against owning guns" Bar: "You can stop the same number of car related deaths each year by outlawing cars." Me: "False equivalency. Cars are not a cause of violent crimes committed by criminals" Maybe "get-a-way cars" :-) Bar: "Again, the laws exist and are ineffective and you want to require all states to implement ineffective laws. Me: "The laws that require a background check and registration for guns purchased from a licensed dealer already exists in *all* the states. It's a federal law. At issue are the guns acquired by other means that are not registered and traceable to the current owner or possessor of the gun. Here are the stats on guns *used in crimes*: 39.6% are obtained from a friend or family member. 39.2% are obtained "on the street" or from an illegal source. 0.7% are purchased at a gun show. 1% are purchased a flea market. 3.8% are from a pawn shop. 8.3% are bought at FFL licenced retail outlets So, you can see that the overwhelming majority of guns that end up being used in a crime come from sources that *do not* require that a chain of custody is maintained. That's why the registration of guns is ineffective as it stands today. If transfers required re-registration to subsequent owners, the number of guns available "on the street" would diminish over time and those used in a crime would be more traceable. We can never completely eliminate gun crimes but when there are 74 or more shootings in schools in 18 months, don't you think it's worth trying? That's my argument. === Your cure is worse than the disease. Take a look at that "friend or family member" statistic. How do you propose to fix that? If you are the registered owner of a gun that is used in a crime, you share the responsibility for the commitment of that crime unless it is reported as stolen or lost within a time prescribed by law (typically 24-48 hrs). Transfer of ownership to friends or family requires state registration by new owner. This does not require paying a FFL. In MA we can do it on-line and it's free as long as the new owner holds a valid gun permit. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:53 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com