Firethorn: You need to double check your stats. Right now the #1 source for guns is apparently straw purchase - where a non-convicted criminal legally buys the firearms and provides them to the criminals.

This is a great argument for requiring gun owners to register their guns.

tenpoundsofcheese: lennavan: I mean, you don't hear people biatching about how you have to register your newborn baby with the government

You have to register a new born baby with the government?
Which government is that?

The United States government. This is news to you?

lennavan: Firethorn: You need to double check your stats. Right now the #1 source for guns is apparently straw purchase - where a non-convicted criminal legally buys the firearms and provides them to the criminals.

This is a great argument for requiring gun owners to register their guns.

I am open to a registration requirement, if the legal requirement includes specific language that mandates the complete destruction of the registry (and any copies) and nullifies the requirement for registration should any legislation that would have the effect of banning from civilian ownership any currently legal civilian firearm model pass both houses of Congress. The clause would also be applicable for any legislation attempting to repeal the clause itself.

lennavan: tenpoundsofcheese: lennavan: I mean, you don't hear people biatching about how you have to register your newborn baby with the government

You have to register a new born baby with the government?
Which government is that?

The United States government. This is news to you?

citation? what exactly is this "registration"?

someonelse: Has anybody noticed that the tiny group of sociopathic whores for the gun manufacturers actually running the NRA are increasingly out of step with the rank-and-file NRA members?

It's a shame NRA members have absolutely no voice in their "association".

Dimensio: lennavan: Firethorn: You need to double check your stats. Right now the #1 source for guns is apparently straw purchase - where a non-convicted criminal legally buys the firearms and provides them to the criminals.

This is a great argument for requiring gun owners to register their guns.

I am open to a registration requirement, if the legal requirement includes specific language that mandates the complete destruction of the registry (and any copies) and nullifies the requirement for registration should any legislation that would have the effect of banning from civilian ownership any currently legal civilian firearm model pass both houses of Congress. The clause would also be applicable for any legislation attempting to repeal the clause itself.

I can agree to this, so long as everyone like you signs a contract with specific language promising to never use the argument "weapon bans are useless because of the guns already in circulation."

Mrbogey: Eshman: Can one of our conservative friends please explain something to me? Like I'm 5 years old please:

How is creating a registry of gun ownership any more intrusive/ineefective than the system we currently have in place for automobiles?

Well any explanation would be overly simplistic but here you go little kid-

"The people who demand a gun registry are liars who want to, by and large, confiscate guns. So a registry is just a first step towards that. There hasn't been any movement to ban cars so it's hard to compare the two."

Most gun control legislation gets friction because gun control advocates tend to be liars who just want to shift the Overton window.

So instead of explaining to me why creating a registry of guns is more of an infringement of your fetish rights than registering your automobile, you fall back on hyperbole. ... In a condescending way at that. Jesus, you guys can't tone down the derp for one second to have a rational conversation, can you?

The unintended consequence of making background checks widespread is that the demand for black-market guns will go up, which means law abiding owners will be targeted more frequently for their guns. But somehow I doubt the gun grabbers will be too broken up about law abiding gun owners being murdered for the sake of their feel good policies.

Ow! That was my feelings!: spongeboob: Ow! That was my feelings!: vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: How do you enforce universal background checks?

Well, for one thing, you make sure all gun sellers have licenses, and you make them keep records and you audit them to see who they are selling to.

Right now we don't even do that.

We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

No but how about every seller?


If you can't sell alcohol, tobacco, prescription medications, etc without a licenses why should you be able to sell firearms?

We are just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one, I know, but we are debating a resale of a legal product here. I have sold a grand total of 2 firearms in 20 years of adult gun ownership. It would be an excessive burden on me to have to have a "dealers license" for such a rare event. Background check, ok, dealer's license, no.

Who said you had to? You do it like private car sales: Transfer of registration and "title" from person A to person B. Plus you let the notary public do the background check.

Mrbogey: lennavan: This is a great argument for requiring gun owners to register their guns.

It's illegal to strawpurchase. If I know you're a criminal or you ask me to buy a gun for you, it is a felony to do so. Under current US laws, crime guns can be traced through the FFL system. Straw purchasers can be identified after the fact.

The gov't hasn't been interested in pursuing straw purchasers though. It's just not a priority. Even Biden said that they don't enforce the laws we have.

Yeah, Holder knows all about straw purchases and not tracking them.

Another source on my earlier post:
Purchased - 20.8%
Retail Store - 14.7%
Pawnshop - 4.2%(Even a pawn shop needs an FFL to sell legally, thus is a subset of 'Retail Store' specializing in used stuff, including guns.)
Flea market - 1.3% (not sure how this works... Is it like a gun booth in a general show, vs gun shows with lots of non-weapon booths? Is there a percentage of gun booths that needs to be met before it's considered a gun show instead of a flea market?)
Gun show - .6% - yes not even a percent
'Friends or family' - 33.8%
'Street/illegal source' - 40.8%

'private sale from a legal owner' still isn't listed, so it must be rarer than the gun show thing.

Somacandra: . I told you even if that was true that no one in hell would buy a gun and NOT TAKE IT OFF YOUR PROPERTY BECAUSE THAT'S COMPLETE IDIOCY. A transfer of ownership includes a transfer to a new space.

To use the car analogy, you're allowed to transfer your unregistered car from property to property even while it remains unregistered as long as you don't drive it on public property(IE roads). You just have to trailer it.

To me the equivalent is carrying a firearm unloaded in a locked case. It's unusable without taking a number of extra steps, just like the car on a trailer - you COULD drive it; if you unloaded it from the trailer. The usage portion would be carrying it loaded, on your person, in public places. You need a permit for that one.

Firethorn: I view it a bit like registration laws.

1. The regulation costs money, whether it's registration or background check
2. Said money could be spent elsewhere, such as hiring more cops, if it wasn't being done.
3. If the amount of crime preventable by hiring more cops(or equipping them better) exceeds the amount of crime that would be prevented by background checks, it's better to put the money into 'more cops'.

oldass31: Criminals have two main methods of acquiring guns. The first is they purchase privately from an unaware, but law-abiding citizen. The second is they purchase their gun from another criminal.

You need to double check your stats. Right now the #1 source for guns is apparently straw purchase - where a non-convicted criminal legally buys the firearms and provides them to the criminals.
Beck et al. 1993, interview of imprisoned felons:
31% 'Family and friends' - Whether straw or actual 'gifting', it's still a felony to knowingly provide a firearm to a known felon.
28% 'Black Market', drug dealer or fence - Straw, stolen, etc...
27% Bought at store - either NICS failed, they didn't have a felony record yet, or the gunstore committed a felony
9% Theft.

Private sellers aren't even listed. Neither are gun shows.

Thus, LaPierre's response is a lot more nuanced than your - "In conclusion, Wayne LaPierre is an asshole."

You're right. We need to cut down on the number of weapons in our society at large. By doing so, we'll also reduce the number of weapons available in grey/black markets. Thanks for clearing that up.

Okay, a line or two of that article was poorly written and hard to follow, but did I just read that the leader of the NRA is in favor of mental health screening being a part of background checks, then immediately follow that by saying he's against universal background checks? Did he just eat his own logic?

I don't know why they think guns should be as easy to acquire as picking up some fruit at the local grocer. It's not like you're submitting to background checks daily to own a gun; just once when you buy it. And studies have shown again and again that adding inconvenience actually deters crime, especially if that inconvenience increases the likelihood of getting caught (ie. alarm company signs on a home--why risk breaking into it when you can move one more house down to find one that doesn't advertise an alarm system?).

The prevailing GOP logic on this issue is absurd. If you want to own guns, fine, but why do you want them completely unregulated? That is asking for so much trouble.

MyEnamine: We need to cut down on the number of weapons in our society at large.

How, exactly, could such reduction be accomplished?

Grand_Moff_Joseph: These guys just can't help themselves...they have to dig deeper.

tenpoundsofcheese: lennavan: tenpoundsofcheese: lennavan: I mean, you don't hear people biatching about how you have to register your newborn baby with the government

You have to register a new born baby with the government?
Which government is that?

The United States government. This is news to you?

citation? what exactly is this "registration"?

It's called a birth certificate you silly pants.

Darth_Lukecash: vernonFL: Wherever the next mass shooting is, Wayne LaPierre should be forced to wipe up the blood and carry the bodies to the morgue.

Better yet, be the one who tells the grieving family that their loved ones died for freedom of gunn ownersship.

Did the grieving family kill your dog or something? Why would you inflict this douchebag on anyone, much less a family already suffering from severe emotional distress?

lennavan: Dimensio: lennavan: Firethorn: You need to double check your stats. Right now the #1 source for guns is apparently straw purchase - where a non-convicted criminal legally buys the firearms and provides them to the criminals.

This is a great argument for requiring gun owners to register their guns.

I am open to a registration requirement, if the legal requirement includes specific language that mandates the complete destruction of the registry (and any copies) and nullifies the requirement for registration should any legislation that would have the effect of banning from civilian ownership any currently legal civilian firearm model pass both houses of Congress. The clause would also be applicable for any legislation attempting to repeal the clause itself.

I can agree to this, so long as everyone like you signs a contract with specific language promising to never use the argument "weapon bans are useless because of the guns already in circulation."

I am not obligated to surrender rights protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: The unintended consequence of making background checks widespread is that the demand for black-market guns will go up, which means law abiding owners will be targeted more frequently for their guns. But somehow I doubt the gun grabbers will be too broken up about law abiding gun owners being murdered for the sake of their feel good policies.



Hey how come you never came back to prove your media conspiracy this morning? You were so confident. Were you busy doing research in to how registering guns will lead to the wholesale murder of gun owners?

Mrbogey: WraithSama: The prevailing GOP logic on this issue is absurd. If you want to own guns, fine, but why do you want them completely unregulated? That is asking for so much trouble.

The GOP isn't advocating for no regulations.

Okay, no additional regulations. However, current regulations on gun ownership is exceedingly lax, and private sales are completely unregulated.

Eshman: Mrbogey: Eshman: Can one of our conservative friends please explain something to me? Like I'm 5 years old please:

How is creating a registry of gun ownership any more intrusive/ineefective than the system we currently have in place for automobiles?

Well any explanation would be overly simplistic but here you go little kid-

"The people who demand a gun registry are liars who want to, by and large, confiscate guns. So a registry is just a first step towards that. There hasn't been any movement to ban cars so it's hard to compare the two."

Most gun control legislation gets friction because gun control advocates tend to be liars who just want to shift the Overton window.

So instead of explaining to me why creating a registry of guns is more of an infringement of your fetish rights than registering your automobile, you fall back on hyperbole. ... In a condescending way at that. Jesus, you guys can't tone down the derp for one second to have a rational conversation, can you?

He's a conspiracy nut. What did you expect?

Dimensio: lennavan: Dimensio: lennavan: Firethorn: You need to double check your stats. Right now the #1 source for guns is apparently straw purchase - where a non-convicted criminal legally buys the firearms and provides them to the criminals.

This is a great argument for requiring gun owners to register their guns.

I am open to a registration requirement, if the legal requirement includes specific language that mandates the complete destruction of the registry (and any copies) and nullifies the requirement for registration should any legislation that would have the effect of banning from civilian ownership any currently legal civilian firearm model pass both houses of Congress. The clause would also be applicable for any legislation attempting to repeal the clause itself.

I can agree to this, so long as everyone like you signs a contract with specific language promising to never use the argument "weapon bans are useless because of the guns already in circulation."

I am not obligated to surrender rights protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Of course not. You are however, obligated to agree to that if you're not a hypocritical douchebag. Otherwise you'd be fighting against confiscation while simultaneously arguing gun bans don't work without confiscation. That'd be a real hypocritical douche move. I'm just tryin to make sure everyone knows you're not a douche.

You aren't obligated to surrender your first amendment rights. But you can if you want to. It helps you see movies in theaters.

lennavan: Dimensio: lennavan: Dimensio: lennavan: Firethorn: You need to double check your stats. Right now the #1 source for guns is apparently straw purchase - where a non-convicted criminal legally buys the firearms and provides them to the criminals.

This is a great argument for requiring gun owners to register their guns.

I am open to a registration requirement, if the legal requirement includes specific language that mandates the complete destruction of the registry (and any copies) and nullifies the requirement for registration should any legislation that would have the effect of banning from civilian ownership any currently legal civilian firearm model pass both houses of Congress. The clause would also be applicable for any legislation attempting to repeal the clause itself.

I can agree to this, so long as everyone like you signs a contract with specific language promising to never use the argument "weapon bans are useless because of the guns already in circulation."

I am not obligated to surrender rights protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Of course not. You are however, obligated to agree to that if you're not a hypocritical douchebag. Otherwise you'd be fighting against confiscation while simultaneously arguing gun bans don't work without confiscation. That'd be a real hypocritical douche move. I'm just tryin to make sure everyone knows you're not a douche.

You aren't obligated to surrender your first amendment rights. But you can if you want to. It helps you see movies in theaters.

Obligating firearm owners to sign a contract limiting their speech as a basis for guaranteeing that a firearm registry will not be used for confiscation is not reasonable.

way south: Criminals aren't as stupid as people are want to believe.
The interception rate for the system we have is less than three percent, which means the crooks are going elsewhere and won't stumble into an "improved check" at any meaningful rate.

/currently that elsewhere is private sales.
/when that route is closed, it will be thefts.
/then imports, most likely.
/if you don't do something about the criminals, they'll just improvise.

If you make it more attractive and accessible for a potential criminal to get a good job than to get a gun for crime, the crime rate will plummet.

Eshman: In a condescending way at that. Jesus, you guys can't tone down the derp for one second to have a rational conversation, can you?

Quick to anger

Frequently lacking in basic facts

Openly abusive to opposing viewpoints.

Hell...there's a guy in this very thread (likely his 400th or so post in the past 15 days defending his law-abiding gun ownership) declaring that if the law were changed requiring some sort of registration he would deliberately disobey that law.

These seem to be common traits among many (most?) of Fark's gun lovers and passionate defenders of their "rights". Funny that these are the very people who insist that they are responsible law abiding gun owners when the obvious reality is that they are angry low-average men who have issues with authority -- the very people who you wouldn't want to be armed and whose vehement and passionate defences of their weapons fetishes are about as helpful to their cause as Mr LaPierre's myopic mumblings.

Chances are he makes a Million Dollars a year more than you, and that's if you make $200,000.

Make the background checks as tough as you want. I have nothing to fear. Just keep them quick.

This is why the NRA will fail.

This is why when the NRA fails, a defender of guns right for reasonable law abiding citizens, (not just the American gun cartel), is necessary.

/And you will still have people arguing a ar-15 with a 30 round clip is useful for suburban home defense, just because they can.
//I need fragmentation hand grenades for home defense.

I once dropped a thing on the floor, and it broke.

That's just so stupid. Why do we even have things?

WraithSama: Okay, a line or two of that article was poorly written and hard to follow, but did I just read that the leader of the NRA is in favor of mental health screening being a part of background checks, then immediately follow that by saying he's against universal background checks? Did he just eat his own logic?



No you read it incorrectly, as did most people here.

He said that background checks will never be universal (e.g. everyone who gets a gun will have submitted to a background check).

He never said they shouldn't have background checks.

He is saying that background checks should have more checks on mental health - they have always said that.
"One problem with the systems is that many states don't report the names of people who've been legally labeled dangerously mentally ill."

Dimensio: MyEnamine: We need to cut down on the number of weapons in our society at large.

How, exactly, could such reduction be accomplished?

Pretty much all the proposed regulations that "punish legal gun owners". The pre-owned weapons market is wide open right now. At least that's how it appears. Regulating stricter rules for weapons transactions will reduce the number of transactions. The answer is to apply some breaks to the free market. Fewer legal weapons also means fewer weapons for criminals.

HotWingConspiracy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: The unintended consequence of making background checks widespread is that the demand for black-market guns will go up, which means law abiding owners will be targeted more frequently for their guns. But somehow I doubt the gun grabbers will be too broken up about law abiding gun owners being murdered for the sake of their feel good policies.

[img.photobucket.com image 200x219]

Hey how come you never came back to prove your media conspiracy this morning? You were so confident. Were you busy doing research in to how registering guns will lead to the wholesale murder of gun owners?

I notice you didn't actually respond to the post.

Also, I'm not going to "prove to you" that there have been a greater frequency of stories about shootings post CT shooting than pre. The fact that it's true is quite obvious to anyone who pay attention to the news. Besides, you don't ever offer anything particularly useful to any conversation (see above), so what would be the point? You're forum cancer.

Mrbogey: Quick to anger

I'm pointing and laughing at you and your pathetic guns. Anger? Not hardly. I don't have to live in your miserable backwater.

Mrbogey: Frequently lacking in basic facts

Oh? Would you like to play some games with statistics about whose citizens get shot a lot more than anyone else in civilized industrialized nations? No, I don't think you want to play that game. The "b-b-b-but Switzerland...!" card is already played and that's about all ya got in your hand. I've put those basic facts into enough threads and watched fetishists like you contort yourself into pretzels to find some way -- ANY way -- to insist that the massively high murder-by-gun rate in the USA has nothing to do with the massive amount of guns owned by simpletons and fetishists and criminals and whackos and that adding more guns into an already saturated nation is the best way to lower the constant carnage.

Facts aren't your friend in this argument.

lennavan: This is a great argument for requiring gun owners to register their guns.

NYC and Canada tried this. Turns out that the cost of maintaining the system exceeds it's utility, at least when it comes to long guns.

MyEnamine: You're right. We need to cut down on the number of weapons in our society at large. By doing so, we'll also reduce the number of weapons available in grey/black markets. Thanks for clearing that up.

I don't see how this follows? How about we 'cut down on criminals' period, by doing such things as fixing our school systems, concentrating on reform in prisons and jails, and ensuring people can get mental health care? If you want to be evil, execute the worst 10% or so of criminals in order to free up the resources to help the rest become law-abiding and productive.

The vast majority of guns aren't used criminally, especially rifles, yet that's where all the legislation is today. A shooter goes on a rampage with a bunch of hand guns and we suddenly need to restore the AWB?
To be fair, I'd like to see the option of private sale background checks; I'd like to know at least as well as the gun store that I'm not selling to a criminal. But LaPierre is right - it wouldn't do much, even if it'd be pretty cheap to give the option.

Of course, that also gives every employer the ability to do a cheap and quick background check. All they need is your social...