Saiga410: Darth_Lukecash: Saiga410: He does have a very good point. He is not against the background checks mandated by FFL purchases... his is one of being against P2P needing background checks. The added regulatory hurdle is more intrusive than the benefit of removing the small amount of people who may get caught because criminals will still buy around this with their standard end arounds they use now which is not the traditional p2p. They will use their strawmen and universal background will not stop that.

The point it will tighten the legal loophole. One of the things law officials noted, was that criminals were purchasing guns via private sales/gun shows. By requiring all gun sales to be registered/background checked, it will limit the options.

Criminals will still get them, but it will be increasingly difficult.

I have yet to see clean data on the % of P2P purchases where a weapon is sold to someone that would be stopped (not involving criminal to criminal sales). I am on the fence, I do not think it would be offensive to have universal but I would like to see solid data that a decent amount of sales would stop because of this before I make a call.

Ah, the passive aggressive reponse. Let me guess... no amount of effectiveness would be quite enough...

Dimensio: 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.

Wow are you ever a huge farking gun nut. All I said was I agree with your compromised gun legislation but want you to promise not to be a hypocrite about it and you ran and grabbed your pocket constitution and spouted crap about limiting your free speech?

I retract any sentiment where I agreed with a hypocritical gun nut like you. There is no chance in hell we'll ever pass any meaningful legislation with douchebags like you. Instead people should just completely ignore your posts, you're just a nutball.

Don't forget to kiss your guns goodnight.

spongeboob: 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.

Explain this to me like I am six please, because it sounds to me like you are saying if we make it harder for criminals to get guns they will steal more guns. So do you just want no restrictions on gun purchases?

No, but if you're going to have a law that essentially makes gun owners a juicier target, we have to guarantee that no records of gun owners exist to be exploited. As it stands right now, with newspapers publishing names and addresses of gun owners, this is problematic to say the least.

lennavan: Dimensio: 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.

Wow are you ever a huge farking gun nut. All I said was I agree with your compromised gun legislation but want you to promise not to be a hypocrite about it and you ran and grabbed your pocket constitution and spouted crap about limiting your free speech?

I retract any sentiment where I agreed with a hypocritical gun nut like you. There is no chance in hell we'll ever pass any meaningful legislation with douchebags like you. Instead people should just completely ignore your posts, you're just a nutball.

Don't forget to kiss your guns goodnight.

Issuance of baseless insults against me due to my unwillingness to accept restrictions upon speech in exchange for a reasonable firearm registration system will not validate your position.

Ow! That was my feelings!: Ah, yes, registration. Good luck getting people to comply.

So you're saying that they won't be law-abiding gun owners and will in fact be criminals who own guns?

Confiscate their guns.

Bigger Leftist Intarweb Schlong: Ow! That was my feelings!: Ah, yes, registration. Good luck getting people to comply.

So you're saying that they won't be law-abiding gun owners and will in fact be criminals who own guns?

Confiscate their guns.

Ironically, it is the threat of confiscation that will tempt many gun owners to avoid registration. A registration law must be paired with a no-confiscation law to get anywhere near full compliance.

justtray: I can't tell if you're being serious or not...

Oh, I'm serious, though not 'serious serious'. I simply posted the statistics, along with a few comments. Most felons get a firearm through somebody else committing a felony.

As such, rather than targeting private firearm sales, which isn't even a percentage, you go after the 60-70% source. THAT would actually choke off felon access to firearms to a noticeable degree.

spongeboob: Okay instead of having to maintain a license in order to sale a firearm how about if you sale a firearm you simply go with the purchaser to a licensed firearms dealer and fill out the appropriate forms?

The problem with this is that right now said dealers tend to want to charge an arm and leg for the service - $80 or more, despite the call being 'free' to them. A lot of the guns sold through private hands aren't even worth that.

Electrify: 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.

My goal.

vicioushobbit: Guess we should all stop using condoms, too, because those little spermie buggers that want to get through, they're not going to submit to the latex. So why bother with the whole thing, anyway?

And don't bother frisking me at the airport, if a terrorist REALLY wants to get the bomb on the plane, he's going to.

/insert more sarcastic examples
//like guns, detest the NRA

Murder laws don't stop all murders, so we should legalize murder. The drop in the crime rate from no murders being a cime would be a bonus.

I had a customer today who worked at a gun store, and even she believes that the US needs better gun control.

/virtually all gun crime here involves guns which were illegally acquired
//can you guys do say the same thing?

Their positions are so counter-intuitive because they represent monied interests. Special interests are by definition fringe opinions that don't necessarily make sense in the context of anything else.

spongeboob: BraveNewCheneyWorld: spongeboob: 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.

Explain this to me like I am six please, because it sounds to me like you are saying if we make it harder for criminals to get guns they will steal more guns. So do you just want no restrictions on gun purchases?

No, but if you're going to have a law that essentially makes gun owners a juicier target, we have to guarantee that no records of gun owners exist to be exploited. As it stands right now, with newspapers publishing names and addresses of gun owners, this is problematic to say the least.

But if guns are for protection wouldn't the criminals be less likely to attempt to victimize gun owners. I would think that gun ownership being reported in the papers would ensure that your household will never be targeted.

That depends on the criminal and what they're after, doesn't it? If you make laws such that guns are harder for criminals to obtain, that means prices will go up. If they want guns, that means they're going after gun owners, and they're going to use publicly available information to identify them. Think about it this way, why steal a big screen tv, computers and electronics, then sell all those items for far less than retail cost, when you could steal smaller more portable guns that probably go for at least as much as retail? Now, if you know you're going after gun owners what are you going to do? You're going to bring backup, firepower and body armor.

I like how gun background forms have a little box that you have to check that says:

Are you crazy?

____Yes

____No

That's awesome...

Mrbogey: Bill_Wick's_Friend: 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.

Let's see.. in your post we have-

Quick to anger

Frequently lacking in basic facts

Openly abusive to opposing viewpoints.

Gun control advocates and their boosters just can't help themselves.

Quick to anger: I didn't catch that anger in his post. But then, I'm not a sensitive pansy.

Frequently lacking in basic facts: The only person here lacking basic facts is you. (No really, you've been using sensationalist language in favor of any sort of meaningful facts [hint: calling people "lying scumbags" is subjective])

Openly abusive to opposing viewpoints: and I quote: "All gun control advocates are lying scumbags".

Poor little guy. It'll get better *pats head*. Those meanie government thugs will get what's coming to them thanks to valiant patriots like you.

omnibus_necanda_sunt

They'd trace it to you. They'd bend the crook's arm until he gave up the guy who sold to him, then so on up the chain until you get to people following the new registry law.

Right, but in the example, I was the end of the chain, and all the cops had was a criminal's accusation.

It's very similar to the "lol, they won't register, so they're no longer law-abiding gun owners, so confiscate their firearms!" idea in that it misses the basic fact that you won't know who to go after for having illegal firearms, as they declined to register them with anyone to begin with. You'd have to wait until someone did something crazy, rather like now.

"Following the chain" would work for everything after the registration law (in theory), but not for all the weapons from the past century or so we have in every third house in this country, many of which are not registered and have absolutely no government records of possession to begin with.

Firethorn: 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...

I agree that the assault weapons ban is unnecessary. Violent crime, on the other hand, is a problem that is very broad in scope. There's the drug war, urban poverty, the prison and justice systems, etc. The mostly unregulated secondary weapons market definitely makes it easier for criminals. If we accept a little inconvenience on our end (as law abiding citizens) then there's less of a chance we'll have to use our weapons for defense. That's for handguns though. Especially the cheapies like High-Point and Taurus. Long guns generally aren't a problem and shouldn't be farked with.

Darth_Lukecash: Saiga410: He does have a very good point. He is not against the background checks mandated by FFL purchases... his is one of being against P2P needing background checks. The added regulatory hurdle is more intrusive than the benefit of removing the small amount of people who may get caught because criminals will still buy around this with their standard end arounds they use now which is not the traditional p2p. They will use their strawmen and universal background will not stop that.

The point it will tighten the legal loophole. One of the things law officials noted, was that criminals were purchasing guns via private sales/gun shows. By requiring all gun sales to be registered/background checked, it will limit the options.

Criminals will still get them, but it will be increasingly difficult.

You know how we got Al Capone, right? Tax evasion. Not murder because that was hard to prove. Not racketeering because that's hard to prove. But having undocumented income, that we could prove.

I'm going somewhere with this so pay attention.

I can't prove you are buying your buying a sawed off shotgun in a back alley for legit reasons, but I can prove you aren't authorized to make that sale or purchase. It gives more probable cause and makes convictions on SOMETHING easie and gets bad people off the street.

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.

Probably more broken up than the gun huggers are about the innocent victims of gun violence.

Exactly. It's the same reason we should abolish copyright law. There's no way you can catch all the pirates

Saiga410: rufus-t-firefly: Saiga410: justtray: stoli n coke: Saiga410: He does have a very good point. He is not against the background checks mandated by FFL purchases... his is one of being against P2P needing background checks. The added regulatory hurdle is more intrusive than the benefit of removing the small amount of people who may get caught because criminals will still buy around this with their standard end arounds they use now which is not the traditional p2p. They will use their strawmen and universal background will not stop that.

"If they've done nothing wrong, they've got nothing to worry about."

-Conservatives before 1/20/09

I will guess that you bother were against such reasoning back before 09 so you will join me in giving the govt the finger when they want to enter into a privacy issue.

Sure, we'll defend privacy.

Your criminal history, however, is not "private."

But my mental health history is.

Not when your current state of mental health indicates that a firearm in your possesion constitutes a significant threat to those around you. I don't get your resistance to this. You're already subject to a background check except in the case of a private transaction. I have to assume that you would find it difficult to get a firearm through any other means. Which is why it would be a good idea to close off that loophole.

Shaggy_C: Funny, this same "banning things doesn't work" argument gets used time and time again in marijuana legalization threads. I guess it all depends on whether the potentially banned item is near and dear to your heart or not, eh?

That would have to do with the reasons for the ban.

omnibus_necanda_sunt: 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.

What the fark, dude? The registry will just get dumped on WikiLeaks anyway.

Are you worried about the government confiscating your car, via their handy-dandy vehicle registries? No? Then why be worried about guns?

I am aware of no government that has utilized an automobile registry for confiscation. I am aware of multiple governments that have utilized a firearm registry for confiscation.

violentsalvation: "When it comes to the issue of background checks, let's be honest - background checks will never be 'universal' - because criminals will never submit to them," LaPierre's testimony reads.

So where's he wrong? And where did he say to do away with all background checks altogether? Oh wait he isn't, and he didn't. He is asking people like subtard to be realistic with their expectations for gun-violence reduction before knee jerking useless laws into place.

But no, OOGABOOGA NRA HERPADERP! Right, subtard?

Ah, no. He's advancing that as a justification for doing nothing. See the perfect solution fallacy.

"The war on drugs was a failure."

"We can't stop teens from having sex so we should give them condoms."

"It's stupid to think we can control the border with mexico."

"We need need gun control."

One of these things is not like the other...

Ow! That was my feelings!: GQueue: Ow! That was my feelings!: I have a fourth amendment right to privacy. What I own is none of your or the governments business. It's not a hard concept

I suppose you don't own a car then, seeing as how you have to register that thing you own with the government.

Only if I take said vehicle on a public roadway. I don't need to register it if it never leaves my property. Kinda like it works now with firearm possession and concealed carry.

Actually, you are totally wrong. In the vast majority of state (43 at last count) if you do not register all the cars you own, even ones that do not run, you will be fined and the vehicles impounded.

Also, if you want to make sure that universal checks happen, then you make sure that every gun owner that has a gun they sold used in a crime gets to go to jail if they can't show evidence of having done the check. Bet your scared little butt will check who you sell to and make damn sure you get a form saying you did.

But that is too much work for a REAL 'MURICAN!

/facts.
//It's what's for dinner.

Facetious_Speciest: gilgigamesh

For those claiming registration wouldn't work because no one would comply, establish tort and/or criminal liability for someone who transfers a gun without registering the transfer if that gun is later used in a crime.

Problem solved.

Ok, so...the federal government says I have to register my firearms. I don't. I sell one to you. You murder someone with the weapon. How exactly does that come back to me for prosecution? You tell the cops I sold you the weapon? How do you prove it? What ties me to this other than the word of a guy on the hook for murder?

Well, maybe nothing, as long as you are OK with being an accessory to murder before the fact.

Mrbogey: featurecreep: I can't prove you are buying your buying a sawed off shotgun in a back alley for legit reasons, but I can prove you aren't authorized to make that sale or purchase. It gives more probable cause and makes convictions on SOMETHING easie and gets bad people off the street.

If you're a felon and in possession of a shotgun you're breaking the law.


You can't be stopped by an officer on suspicion of being a felon. You also have people with criminal intent who have yet to be caught and are not currently felons. See also, straw purchasers.

Mike_1962

Well, maybe nothing, as long as you are OK with being an accessory to murder before the fact.

So, mostly nothing. If one had compunctions of that sort, they probably wouldn't be illegally selling firearms to begin with.

gilgigamesh: Ask yourself: "do criminal background checks increase or decrease the number of guns sold in America?"  Well clearly, if some people can't buy guns because they are convicted violent felons, that means less guns sold.

Also, more felons with guns means a climate of fear that will also cause law abiding citizens to buy guns against the criminal element who are now heavily armed, which means even more guns sold.

So I think its easy to see that screening out criminals from being able to buy guns reduces profit and is therefore a Bad Thing.  So criminal background checks must be opposed.

See?  Simple.

Keeping Democrats (especially non-white or non-males...or both) in power should do that just fine, if not better.

Facetious_Speciest: gilgigamesh

No, the fire arm is registered to you.

No, I declined to register.

You sell it to me, and when you do, you notify the state of the sale. Your failure to do so is a crime if the gun later turns up as a murder weapon. Also, the victims can sue you for wrongful death.

This all supposes I register the weapon, which I haven't in the scenario. Having not done so, I would be unlikely to sell it to you if you insisted on the proper paperwork.

You suggested that the solution to registry noncompliance was to "establish tort and/or criminal liability for someone who transfers a gun without registering the transfer if that gun is later used in a crime."

I'm asking how that even makes sense, considering that you couldn't trace the weapon to me if I chose not to register the weapon to begin with. I don't even think your idea is terrible in theory, I just can't see how it would work in practice. What am I missing?

What you are saying is that to get around the law, all you have to do is break the law.

Mike_1962

What you are saying is that to get around the law, all you have to do is break the law.

I'm not saying that; it's self-evident. I was saying that plans dismissive of reality don't work. In this case, a proposed penalty for those who refuse to register their weapons cannot be applied until the owner misuses them so they can be found and confiscated...as they never registered them, you don't know they have them to begin with in many cases.

The poster was actually only referring to weapons bought after the registration demand, and we worked that all out.

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."

Um, not sure if serious. Family/friends and blackmarket are both private sales.

omnibus_necanda_sunt: Dimensio: omnibus_necanda_sunt: 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.

What the fark, dude? The registry will just get dumped on WikiLeaks anyway.

Are you worried about the government confiscating your car, via their handy-dandy vehicle registries? No? Then why be worried about guns?

I am aware of no government that has utilized an automobile registry for confiscation. I am aware of multiple governments that have utilized a firearm registry for confiscation.

So, you don't believe in an Imaginary Sky Wizard, but you do believe in Imaginary HitlerTM. Great.
Moving on...

No possible rational nor honest interpretation of my statements could allow for such a conclusion.


That still doesn't address the fact that the registry will be impossible to secure, and it's the very idea of the security of the provision that would make this rider a factor in any give-and-take with gun owners. This idea seems extremely implausible. If South Carolina can have thousands of citizen's SSNs and confidential government data stolen by some Cheeto-stained prick that gets away clean, any registry involving 50 states and countless police departments will probably be about as secure as Users/2012/Johnny/Documents/English/To_Kill_A_Mockingbird_Review.docx

Exposure of the registry is irrelevant to the protection criteria that I have outlined. By eliminating a registration requirement should any confiscation legislation pass Congress, firearm owners could credibly claim to have transferred their firearms to new, unregistered, owners should a confiscation act be enacted even if leaked copies of the registry were available.

Gun free zones = juicy target for criminals because there's no guns

Houses with guns = juicy target for criminals because there's guns

Gun threads are very educational.

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?

Wow, a right winger who has never heard of a birth certificate. Who would have thought such a thing could exist in this day and age?