|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On April 18 2013 13:29 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 13:23 Millitron wrote:On April 18 2013 13:18 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 18 2013 13:04 Millitron wrote:
I don't know the laws in every state, but pretty much all rifles have a simple background check, and pistols have a more thorough one and a 3 day waiting period. Are you trolling? You can buy a rifle at a gun show in every state except Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, and Illinois without a background check! A pistol, you'll need a check pr permit in Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota and certain counties in Florida. "In 2000, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) published the "Following the Gun" report.[18] The ATF analyzed more than 1,530 trafficking investigations over a two-and-a-half-year period and found gun shows to be the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation. "Straw purchasing was the most common channel in trafficking investigations."[19] These investigations involved a total of 84,128 firearms that had been diverted from legal to illegal commerce. All told, the report identified more than 26,000 firearms that had been illegally trafficked through gun shows in 212 separate investigations. The report stated that: "A prior review of ATF gun show investigations shows that prohibited persons, such as convicted felons and juveniles, do personally buy firearms at gun shows and gun shows are sources of firearms that are trafficked to such prohibited persons. The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers. Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations. Firearms that were illegally diverted at or through gun shows were recovered in subsequent crimes, including homicide and robbery, in more than a third of the gun show investigations." Sales at gun shows are private sales. I thought we were discussing going to a store and buying a gun. You want to require background checks for private sales? Good luck enforcing it. Not like that'd stop straw purchasing anyways. I want to require background checks for sales at gun shows, because they are the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation. It isn't hard to enforce at gun shows. It would be much harder for cartels, gangs and criminals to get many weapons through private sales by contacting private owners. Could they still get weapons? Yes, but not as easily or in the quantities that a single gun show provides. Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 13:29 micronesia wrote:On April 18 2013 13:18 BronzeKnee wrote:
As for a handgun, you'll need a check or permit in Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota and certain counties in Florida. That means in 40 out of 50 states, you can purchase a handgun the same way you'd purchase a soft drink.
Making a list of states is kind of misleading since this is often legislated at the county or local level. For example, I'm in NY State and in my county handguns are very strictly regulated. I think you're taking what I said out of context. First I'm talking about getting a handgun at a gun show, not a licensed dealer. Second, New York has some of the strictest gun legislation in the nation, but your local county regulate handguns at gun shows (which was the point of the conversation. And even if your country regulates gun shows, could you not just drive to another county? The point is getting guns is really easy in America and criminals, cartels and gangs take advantage of it. We shouldn't allow them to legally get a gun!
How does a background check stop straw purchases?
|
On April 18 2013 13:14 tokicheese wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 12:55 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 12:17 tokicheese wrote:On April 18 2013 12:14 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 11:42 tokicheese wrote:On April 18 2013 09:47 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 09:38 ahswtini wrote:
Do you really think a background check will have stopped Lanza? I can just imagine what he would've been thinking: "I could shoot my own mother right now with her guns, but that would be illegal because I haven't had a background check to allow me to have her guns!" More like, "Why won't my mommy buy me guns! Waaaaaah!" Who know's right? If it was illegal for her to share guns with her son, maybe she wouldn't have bought them in the first place. It was my understanding the only reason she collected guns was so she could share a hobby with her weird, distant son. Again, doesn't keep a crazy person from trying to do something crazy, but why make it easy? Requiring someone to have a license to shoot a gun they don't own is a terrible idea lol... Unless the only option for people to shoot is at a range how could they ever hope to enforce the law... Have a cop sitting in every bush across the US keeping an eye out? Even if a cop did find some people shooting guns if one person doesn't have a license is he going to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the unlicensed person was shooting? Again, an all-or-nothing argument. All laws are breakable. Should we make abandon rape laws because you can't follow every kid home from school? Or make drunk driving legal because you can't have road checks at every corner? Come on. Just because theirs no law that can be enforceable 100% of the time, or just because you can't prevent crime 100%, doesn't we should give up on improving the law. Having laws and having stiff penalties for breaking DOES deter crime. Stop being such a cynical hipster. Comparing someone shooting a gun without a license which isn't a bad thing any ways to rape is just an appeal to emotion. What exactly would that law prevent? Everyone who shoots a gun unlicensed is going to go on a shooting spree? I shot a gun without a license when I was a kid because you can't get a real gun license here until your 19. Holy shit I'm a criminal I shot a gun in a America, when I was under 19, without a licence or any experience whatsoever. Awwwwwwweeesome? You right though. In ideal world, a gun license in America would actually mean something — it would be like a driver's license or a welding ticket and represent some level of vetting and standard of training. But making it illegal for unlicensed or unpermitted people from operating a gun would do almost nothing, because the standards are so low. Any yahoo that can tick boxes on a form can get a license. Congratulations, you've convinced me your right, while somehow getting me to have LESS respect for gun owners and gun culture in general. This is the reason why negative stereotypes of pro-gun rights advocates persist. As long as they insist on having such low standards for all current and potential gun owners — such as insisting even some random Canadian deserves to shoot a round now and then! — every argument they make rings hollow and disingenuous. People can cite all the statistics they want but you can't argue that gun owners or sellers are responsible because there's barely any due process to getting a gun in America. There has to be a way for responsible gun owners to protect their rights without constantly providing cover for every idiot or jag-offs that wants a gun. You really love the name calling eh. First calling any one who questioned Amanda Todds a pimple faced geek in the Amanda Todd thread and now calling all gun owners essentially irresponsible. Get off your fucking high horse dude. You constantly shoot off ad hominims in every thread and it gets really fucking old. Man up and bring up a real argument to the table. First of all I'm Canadian. Even Canada with it's tight as fuck gun laws doesn't ban you from shooting a gun without a license because it's fucking retarded. It would accomplish literally nothing. First of all it couldn't be enforced in any way shape or form except for the extremely small fringe of people who shoot at a range without a license. (Places like DVC in Vancouver). I'm sure the range owners would love you for ruining there businesses though. Second passing laws that do nothing is retarded. I'm sorry but it just is. Someone who is going to shoot people isn't going to stop and say "Oh noes I might get a misdemeanour tacked onto my mass killing, better not do it" Even assuming it would make a differenc ein that scenario what is bad about shooting a gun without a license if it's done safely. Obviously someone has to have a license to have that gun so they are responsible for the safe use of the gun. You still haven't said why law is needed. Your just saying how scared you are of people ticking boxes and running around the woods shooting all over the place. Well I hate to break it to you but the #1 cause of death by firearm is suicide. Accidents is a distant second. The law does nothing and is a really stupid idea sorry to burst your bubble. "People can cite all the statistics they want but you can't argue that gun owners or sellers are responsible because there's barely any due process to getting a gun in America." So an actual reasonable discussion is impossible because your basing your entire argument being scared. Like every thread your in. Most gun owners want responsible ownership Idk where your pulling all these things out of your ass from...
Why are you so angry? I said I absolutely agree with you.
The standard for getting a gun licence is more strict in Canada, and I think to our benefit.
As I already mentioned, if gun license in America actually meant something, and distinguished people that were trained to own and operate a gun from people that aren't, a law that required you obtain a license to shoot a gun would discourage irresponsible gun owners from sharing guns with people that probably aren't prepared to used them ... or at least make them feel liable for their safety and use (so they don't get caught breaking the law).
Maybe people would be less inclined to do stupid shit like this:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sixth-grader-brings-gun-to-school-says-parents-told-him-to-carry-it-for-protection-after-newtown-shootings/
You say that a simple law like this wouldn't stop a massacre, and you're probably right — hey, I'm agreeing with you again!— while ignoring the wide spectrum of injuries and deaths, either caused by accidents or stupidity, that could probably be prevented with common sense laws.
People are required by law to wear seat belts. And while this is an impossible law to enforce completely or perfectly, it is a primary or secondary offence that drivers can be fined for. And the impact of the law is immense — it's estimated to prevent 40% of potential fatalities.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/341.pdf
Simple laws can have an enormous impact if designed correctly.
Is not allowing people to share guns with people that don't know how to use them, somehow, a controversial position? If you don't want to legislate against it, what would you recommend to prevent it? I'd love to hear your ideas.
You say most gun owners want responsible gun ownership, but frankly, most of their arguments you read related to this issue are cynical and defeatist, and focused first and foremost on protecting their own property.
+ Show Spoiler +You're bringing up the slut-shaming of Amanda Todd on TL into this thread? And then criticizing me for calling BS on it? Please.
|
I don't understand at all why expanding background checks is such a contentious issue.
From what I've heard the argument goes that universal background checks would be an infringement of American's 2nd Amendment rights. Why? I don't understand, can somebody please expand on this. The only argument I've heard is that universal background checks COULD mean a national gun registry, which COULD mean the government has the ability to raid and take guns away. In my opinion that's a pretty weak argument, as similar logic applied to other examples might show "Government shouldn't be able to ask your eye colour on your drivers license because then they COULD make a database about everybody's eye colour, and then they COULD go around house to house and murdering people with brown eyes." This two degrees of separation for unconstitutional acts seems pretty ridiculous, and I really don't see how it infringes on the populace's ability to bear arms.
|
On April 18 2013 13:38 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 13:29 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 18 2013 13:23 Millitron wrote:On April 18 2013 13:18 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 18 2013 13:04 Millitron wrote:
I don't know the laws in every state, but pretty much all rifles have a simple background check, and pistols have a more thorough one and a 3 day waiting period. Are you trolling? You can buy a rifle at a gun show in every state except Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, and Illinois without a background check! A pistol, you'll need a check pr permit in Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota and certain counties in Florida. "In 2000, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) published the "Following the Gun" report.[18] The ATF analyzed more than 1,530 trafficking investigations over a two-and-a-half-year period and found gun shows to be the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation. "Straw purchasing was the most common channel in trafficking investigations."[19] These investigations involved a total of 84,128 firearms that had been diverted from legal to illegal commerce. All told, the report identified more than 26,000 firearms that had been illegally trafficked through gun shows in 212 separate investigations. The report stated that: "A prior review of ATF gun show investigations shows that prohibited persons, such as convicted felons and juveniles, do personally buy firearms at gun shows and gun shows are sources of firearms that are trafficked to such prohibited persons. The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers. Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations. Firearms that were illegally diverted at or through gun shows were recovered in subsequent crimes, including homicide and robbery, in more than a third of the gun show investigations." Sales at gun shows are private sales. I thought we were discussing going to a store and buying a gun. You want to require background checks for private sales? Good luck enforcing it. Not like that'd stop straw purchasing anyways. I want to require background checks for sales at gun shows, because they are the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation. It isn't hard to enforce at gun shows. It would be much harder for cartels, gangs and criminals to get many weapons through private sales by contacting private owners. Could they still get weapons? Yes, but not as easily or in the quantities that a single gun show provides. On April 18 2013 13:29 micronesia wrote:On April 18 2013 13:18 BronzeKnee wrote:
As for a handgun, you'll need a check or permit in Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota and certain counties in Florida. That means in 40 out of 50 states, you can purchase a handgun the same way you'd purchase a soft drink.
Making a list of states is kind of misleading since this is often legislated at the county or local level. For example, I'm in NY State and in my county handguns are very strictly regulated. I think you're taking what I said out of context. First I'm talking about getting a handgun at a gun show, not a licensed dealer. Second, New York has some of the strictest gun legislation in the nation, but your local county regulate handguns at gun shows (which was the point of the conversation. And even if your country regulates gun shows, could you not just drive to another county? The point is getting guns is really easy in America and criminals, cartels and gangs take advantage of it. We shouldn't allow them to legally get a gun! How does a background check stop straw purchases?
I want you to listen to yourself for a moment...
You're essentially stating this in all your comments (and this what the NRA states): This isn't going to 100% stop gun violence or 100% stop bad guys from getting guns, thus it isn't worth pursuing. They will still get guns and gun violence will still happen!
That logic is flawed. Apply it to vaccines and realize how wrong you are.
Yes, the background check bill will not prevent all people from getting guns at gun shows who shouldn't get guns. But it will stop some people from getting guns at gun shows who shouldn't get guns, while at the same time not endangering the rights of people to own guns who should own guns.
|
On April 18 2013 13:39 YumYumGranola wrote:
I don't understand at all why expanding background checks is such a contentious issue.
From what I've heard the argument goes that universal background checks would be an infringement of American's 2nd Amendment rights. Why? I don't understand, can somebody please expand on this. The only argument I've heard is that universal background checks COULD mean a national gun registry, which COULD mean the government has the ability to raid and take guns away. In my opinion that's a pretty weak argument, as similar logic applied to other examples might show "Government shouldn't be able to ask your eye colour on your drivers license because then they COULD make a database about everybody's eye colour, and then they COULD go around house to house and murdering people with brown eyes." This two degrees of separation for unconstitutional acts seems pretty ridiculous, and I really don't see how it infringes on the populace's ability to bear arms.
How do you enforce background checks without a registry? If I have a gun, how do the police know I have passed a background check for it without a registry?
The UK used their gun registry to confiscate practically all guns. They had gotten a registry passed, then when they banned the guns, they gave people a short period to turn them in peacefully, and if they didn't, the police seized them, using the registry to find said people.
On April 18 2013 13:43 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 13:38 Millitron wrote:On April 18 2013 13:29 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 18 2013 13:23 Millitron wrote:On April 18 2013 13:18 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 18 2013 13:04 Millitron wrote:
I don't know the laws in every state, but pretty much all rifles have a simple background check, and pistols have a more thorough one and a 3 day waiting period. Are you trolling? You can buy a rifle at a gun show in every state except Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, and Illinois without a background check! A pistol, you'll need a check pr permit in Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota and certain counties in Florida. "In 2000, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) published the "Following the Gun" report.[18] The ATF analyzed more than 1,530 trafficking investigations over a two-and-a-half-year period and found gun shows to be the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation. "Straw purchasing was the most common channel in trafficking investigations."[19] These investigations involved a total of 84,128 firearms that had been diverted from legal to illegal commerce. All told, the report identified more than 26,000 firearms that had been illegally trafficked through gun shows in 212 separate investigations. The report stated that: "A prior review of ATF gun show investigations shows that prohibited persons, such as convicted felons and juveniles, do personally buy firearms at gun shows and gun shows are sources of firearms that are trafficked to such prohibited persons. The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers. Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations. Firearms that were illegally diverted at or through gun shows were recovered in subsequent crimes, including homicide and robbery, in more than a third of the gun show investigations." Sales at gun shows are private sales. I thought we were discussing going to a store and buying a gun. You want to require background checks for private sales? Good luck enforcing it. Not like that'd stop straw purchasing anyways. I want to require background checks for sales at gun shows, because they are the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation. It isn't hard to enforce at gun shows. It would be much harder for cartels, gangs and criminals to get many weapons through private sales by contacting private owners. Could they still get weapons? Yes, but not as easily or in the quantities that a single gun show provides. On April 18 2013 13:29 micronesia wrote:On April 18 2013 13:18 BronzeKnee wrote:
As for a handgun, you'll need a check or permit in Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota and certain counties in Florida. That means in 40 out of 50 states, you can purchase a handgun the same way you'd purchase a soft drink.
Making a list of states is kind of misleading since this is often legislated at the county or local level. For example, I'm in NY State and in my county handguns are very strictly regulated. I think you're taking what I said out of context. First I'm talking about getting a handgun at a gun show, not a licensed dealer. Second, New York has some of the strictest gun legislation in the nation, but your local county regulate handguns at gun shows (which was the point of the conversation. And even if your country regulates gun shows, could you not just drive to another county? The point is getting guns is really easy in America and criminals, cartels and gangs take advantage of it. We shouldn't allow them to legally get a gun! How does a background check stop straw purchases? I want you to listen to yourself for a moment... You're essentially stating this in all your comments (and this what the NRA states): This isn't going to 100% stop gun violence or 100% stop bad guys from getting guns, thus it isn't worth pursuing. They will still get guns and gun violence will still happen! That logic is flawed. Apply it to vaccines and realize how wrong you are. Yes, the background check bill will not prevent all people from getting guns at gun shows who shouldn't get guns. But it will stop some people from getting guns at gun shows who shouldn't get guns, while at the same time not endangering the rights of people to own guns who should own guns.
IT WON'T. That's the whole point behind a straw purchase. The person doing the buying can legally buy a gun. He'd pass a background check, get his gun, and pass it off to whoever paid him to get it.
|
On April 18 2013 13:44 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 13:39 YumYumGranola wrote:
I don't understand at all why expanding background checks is such a contentious issue.
From what I've heard the argument goes that universal background checks would be an infringement of American's 2nd Amendment rights. Why? I don't understand, can somebody please expand on this. The only argument I've heard is that universal background checks COULD mean a national gun registry, which COULD mean the government has the ability to raid and take guns away. In my opinion that's a pretty weak argument, as similar logic applied to other examples might show "Government shouldn't be able to ask your eye colour on your drivers license because then they COULD make a database about everybody's eye colour, and then they COULD go around house to house and murdering people with brown eyes." This two degrees of separation for unconstitutional acts seems pretty ridiculous, and I really don't see how it infringes on the populace's ability to bear arms. How do you enforce background checks without a registry? If I have a gun, how do the police know I have passed a background check for it without a registry? The UK used their gun registry to confiscate practically all guns. They had gotten a registry passed, then when they banned the guns, they gave people a short period to turn them in peacefully, and if they didn't, the police seized them, using the registry to find said people.
Right, but the US government CAN'T confiscate all guns, because that would be unconstitutional. You could just as easily say that a census is unconstitutional because then the government has your address, so they'd know how to find every home in America to search for guns. The act of confiscating guns is unconstitutional, I don't think that having a registry would be.
Just think about it, if we applied that same logic:
Handcuffs -> Unconstitutional because police officers could use them to detain civilians without charging them of a crime.
Temporary chain-link fences -> Unconstitutional because the police could infringe your first amendment rights by setting up a barrier around your church and telling you that you can't go.
T-shirts -> Unconstitutional because they could be made into a gag by tying it around your mouth, literally preventing you from exercising free speech.
Don't buy it.
|
On April 18 2013 13:44 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 13:39 YumYumGranola wrote:
I don't understand at all why expanding background checks is such a contentious issue.
From what I've heard the argument goes that universal background checks would be an infringement of American's 2nd Amendment rights. Why? I don't understand, can somebody please expand on this. The only argument I've heard is that universal background checks COULD mean a national gun registry, which COULD mean the government has the ability to raid and take guns away. In my opinion that's a pretty weak argument, as similar logic applied to other examples might show "Government shouldn't be able to ask your eye colour on your drivers license because then they COULD make a database about everybody's eye colour, and then they COULD go around house to house and murdering people with brown eyes." This two degrees of separation for unconstitutional acts seems pretty ridiculous, and I really don't see how it infringes on the populace's ability to bear arms. How do you enforce background checks without a registry? If I have a gun, how do the police know I have passed a background check for it without a registry?
Let us assume I don't have a drivers license or state issued ID. If I have a six pack, how do the police know I can drink it without a registry?
|
On April 18 2013 13:23 Millitron wrote:
You want to require background checks for private sales? Good luck enforcing it. Not like that'd stop straw purchasing anyways.
I just want to say that there isn't a law in the land that is enforced 100% of the time.
It's like speeding. You can't pull everyone over. But you pull people over sometimes to discourage everyone else from driving like fucking maniacs. And if you're caught too many times they impound your car.
|
United States24574 Posts
On April 18 2013 13:29 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 13:29 micronesia wrote:On April 18 2013 13:18 BronzeKnee wrote:
As for a handgun, you'll need a check or permit in Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota and certain counties in Florida. That means in 40 out of 50 states, you can purchase a handgun the same way you'd purchase a soft drink.
Making a list of states is kind of misleading since this is often legislated at the county or local level. For example, I'm in NY State and in my county handguns are very strictly regulated. I think you're taking what I said out of context. First I'm talking about getting a handgun at a gun show, not a licensed dealer. Second, New York has some of the strictest gun legislation in the nation, but your local county regulate handguns at gun shows (which was the point of the conversation. And even if your country regulates gun shows, could you not just drive to another county?
I could go to another county (although not the ones adjacent to me) or I could go to another state. My problem is that you made it sound like anywhere in New York you can buy a handgun like you purchase a soft drink. You cannot. This is probably true for many of the other states you didn't put on your list as well. Even if what you were saying wasn't wrong it was a bit misleading.
|
On April 18 2013 13:48 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 13:44 Millitron wrote:On April 18 2013 13:39 YumYumGranola wrote:
I don't understand at all why expanding background checks is such a contentious issue.
From what I've heard the argument goes that universal background checks would be an infringement of American's 2nd Amendment rights. Why? I don't understand, can somebody please expand on this. The only argument I've heard is that universal background checks COULD mean a national gun registry, which COULD mean the government has the ability to raid and take guns away. In my opinion that's a pretty weak argument, as similar logic applied to other examples might show "Government shouldn't be able to ask your eye colour on your drivers license because then they COULD make a database about everybody's eye colour, and then they COULD go around house to house and murdering people with brown eyes." This two degrees of separation for unconstitutional acts seems pretty ridiculous, and I really don't see how it infringes on the populace's ability to bear arms. How do you enforce background checks without a registry? If I have a gun, how do the police know I have passed a background check for it without a registry? Let us assume I don't have a drivers license or state issued ID. If I have a six pack, how do the police know I can drink it without a registry?
They don't. Now this is different, because your looks can tip them off as to whether or not you're old enough, but the point still stands. Say you're 21, you don't have a license, and some cop sees you drinking. He mistakes you for being 20, and bam, you're arrested.
|
On April 18 2013 13:44 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 13:39 YumYumGranola wrote:
I don't understand at all why expanding background checks is such a contentious issue.
From what I've heard the argument goes that universal background checks would be an infringement of American's 2nd Amendment rights. Why? I don't understand, can somebody please expand on this. The only argument I've heard is that universal background checks COULD mean a national gun registry, which COULD mean the government has the ability to raid and take guns away. In my opinion that's a pretty weak argument, as similar logic applied to other examples might show "Government shouldn't be able to ask your eye colour on your drivers license because then they COULD make a database about everybody's eye colour, and then they COULD go around house to house and murdering people with brown eyes." This two degrees of separation for unconstitutional acts seems pretty ridiculous, and I really don't see how it infringes on the populace's ability to bear arms. How do you enforce background checks without a registry? If I have a gun, how do the police know I have passed a background check for it without a registry? The UK used their gun registry to confiscate practically all guns. They had gotten a registry passed, then when they banned the guns, they gave people a short period to turn them in peacefully, and if they didn't, the police seized them, using the registry to find said people. Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 13:43 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 18 2013 13:38 Millitron wrote:On April 18 2013 13:29 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 18 2013 13:23 Millitron wrote:On April 18 2013 13:18 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 18 2013 13:04 Millitron wrote:
I don't know the laws in every state, but pretty much all rifles have a simple background check, and pistols have a more thorough one and a 3 day waiting period. Are you trolling? You can buy a rifle at a gun show in every state except Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, and Illinois without a background check! A pistol, you'll need a check pr permit in Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota and certain counties in Florida. "In 2000, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) published the "Following the Gun" report.[18] The ATF analyzed more than 1,530 trafficking investigations over a two-and-a-half-year period and found gun shows to be the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation. "Straw purchasing was the most common channel in trafficking investigations."[19] These investigations involved a total of 84,128 firearms that had been diverted from legal to illegal commerce. All told, the report identified more than 26,000 firearms that had been illegally trafficked through gun shows in 212 separate investigations. The report stated that: "A prior review of ATF gun show investigations shows that prohibited persons, such as convicted felons and juveniles, do personally buy firearms at gun shows and gun shows are sources of firearms that are trafficked to such prohibited persons. The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers. Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations. Firearms that were illegally diverted at or through gun shows were recovered in subsequent crimes, including homicide and robbery, in more than a third of the gun show investigations." Sales at gun shows are private sales. I thought we were discussing going to a store and buying a gun. You want to require background checks for private sales? Good luck enforcing it. Not like that'd stop straw purchasing anyways. I want to require background checks for sales at gun shows, because they are the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation. It isn't hard to enforce at gun shows. It would be much harder for cartels, gangs and criminals to get many weapons through private sales by contacting private owners. Could they still get weapons? Yes, but not as easily or in the quantities that a single gun show provides. On April 18 2013 13:29 micronesia wrote:On April 18 2013 13:18 BronzeKnee wrote:
As for a handgun, you'll need a check or permit in Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota and certain counties in Florida. That means in 40 out of 50 states, you can purchase a handgun the same way you'd purchase a soft drink.
Making a list of states is kind of misleading since this is often legislated at the county or local level. For example, I'm in NY State and in my county handguns are very strictly regulated. I think you're taking what I said out of context. First I'm talking about getting a handgun at a gun show, not a licensed dealer. Second, New York has some of the strictest gun legislation in the nation, but your local county regulate handguns at gun shows (which was the point of the conversation. And even if your country regulates gun shows, could you not just drive to another county? The point is getting guns is really easy in America and criminals, cartels and gangs take advantage of it. We shouldn't allow them to legally get a gun! How does a background check stop straw purchases? I want you to listen to yourself for a moment... You're essentially stating this in all your comments (and this what the NRA states): This isn't going to 100% stop gun violence or 100% stop bad guys from getting guns, thus it isn't worth pursuing. They will still get guns and gun violence will still happen! That logic is flawed. Apply it to vaccines and realize how wrong you are. Yes, the background check bill will not prevent all people from getting guns at gun shows who shouldn't get guns. But it will stop some people from getting guns at gun shows who shouldn't get guns, while at the same time not endangering the rights of people to own guns who should own guns. IT WON'T. That's the whole point behind a straw purchase. The person doing the buying can legally buy a gun. He'd pass a background check, get his gun, and pass it off to whoever paid him to get it.
My time on the internet has made me a harsh, harsh man toward ignorance.
I'm not sure if you lack education or you simply didn't read my post. Your logic is flawed. It is wrong. So what you are saying does not make sense.
Here we have two things, vaccines and the flu, and background checks and guns.
People get the flu vaccine every year. But it doesn't mean they won't get the flu!
People go through background checks every year. But it doesn't mean that everyone who passes a background checks should own a gun!
With your logic, because background checks don't prevent every person who shouldn't own a gun to get a gun, then we should scrap them.
And thus, with that same logic, because vaccines don't prevent everyone person who gets one from getting the flu, we shouldn't use them.
Do you understand now? That logic isn't sound. It doesn't make sense. Unless of course you argue against the flu vaccine. Thankfully this logic process can be used for many things, and I'm sure I'd catch you contradicting yourself on something with it.
The flu vaccines prevents some people from getting the flu, thus it is a worthwhile endeavor. And background checks at gun shows would prevent some people who shouldn't own a gun, from getting a gun, and thus it is worthwhile endeavor, especially since it doesn't endanger the rights of people to own guns who should own guns.
Will people who use straw purchasers still get guns? Yes! Just like some people will still end up with the flu even though they got the vaccine.
|
The UK used their gun registry to confiscate practically all guns. They had gotten a registry passed, then when they banned the guns, they gave people a short period to turn them in peacefully, and if they didn't, the police seized them, using the registry to find said people.
Cool.
Unfortunately, that is completely irrelevant to our situation. A law that makes a national gun registry is different from a law that bans guns and allows for their confiscation. There is nothing bad about the gun registry law itself, and in fact it could be very helpful, and thus there is no logical argument against it. The following is how your argument sounds:
A is fine, and is actually beneficial in several ways.
However, B, a completely separate topic, is not ok, if it is combined with A.
Therefore, we should just not do A, just in case B happens.
Do you not see how ridiculous this sounds? Like a previous poster said, this is analogous to saying that "It is bad for the U.S. government to take the census, or to know (roughly) our physical characteristics, or to know where we live, because if they passed a law that just allowed them to indiscriminately kill individuals with X, Y, or Z characteristic, then that list would allow them to do it!"
Your argument would hold if a law that makes a national gun registry would increase the chance of a gun-banning law being made, or if it set a legal precedent for this law to be made. However, it doesn't, so your argument holds no weight.
|
United States24574 Posts
On April 18 2013 13:57 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +
The UK used their gun registry to confiscate practically all guns. They had gotten a registry passed, then when they banned the guns, they gave people a short period to turn them in peacefully, and if they didn't, the police seized them, using the registry to find said people.
Cool. So how does that have any relevance to the U.S.? Oh, it doesn't? Yes, that is correct, it doesn't. A law that makes a national gun registry is different from a law that bans guns and allows for their confiscation. There is nothing bad about the gun registry law itself, and thus there is no logical argument against it. The following is how your argument sounds: A is fine, and is actually beneficial in several ways. However, B, a completely separate topic, is not ok, if it is combined with A. Therefore, we should just not do A, just in case B happens. Do you not see how ridiculous this sounds?
Of the 300 million guns in the usa, half won't be registered even if it is made mandatory because those people will expect a ban in 5 years or so. Making a new law knowing that it will create millions of new criminals overnight is a bad idea.
|
On April 18 2013 13:50 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 13:29 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 18 2013 13:29 micronesia wrote:On April 18 2013 13:18 BronzeKnee wrote:
As for a handgun, you'll need a check or permit in Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota and certain counties in Florida. That means in 40 out of 50 states, you can purchase a handgun the same way you'd purchase a soft drink.
Making a list of states is kind of misleading since this is often legislated at the county or local level. For example, I'm in NY State and in my county handguns are very strictly regulated. I think you're taking what I said out of context. First I'm talking about getting a handgun at a gun show, not a licensed dealer. Second, New York has some of the strictest gun legislation in the nation, but your local county regulate handguns at gun shows (which was the point of the conversation. And even if your country regulates gun shows, could you not just drive to another county? Even if what you were saying wasn't wrong it was a bit misleading.
I did not intend to mislead, that is the facts based on state law. If anything, I think you are misleading people about the ability to get a gun without a background check.
Seems like your grasping at straws here "well it isn't legal in this county or town" is meaningless when the majority of Americans are in driving distance of a gun show that doesn't require background checks.
|
On April 18 2013 13:58 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 13:57 Stratos_speAr wrote:
The UK used their gun registry to confiscate practically all guns. They had gotten a registry passed, then when they banned the guns, they gave people a short period to turn them in peacefully, and if they didn't, the police seized them, using the registry to find said people.
Cool. So how does that have any relevance to the U.S.? Oh, it doesn't? Yes, that is correct, it doesn't. A law that makes a national gun registry is different from a law that bans guns and allows for their confiscation. There is nothing bad about the gun registry law itself, and thus there is no logical argument against it. The following is how your argument sounds: A is fine, and is actually beneficial in several ways. However, B, a completely separate topic, is not ok, if it is combined with A. Therefore, we should just not do A, just in case B happens. Do you not see how ridiculous this sounds? Of the 300 million guns in the usa, half won't be registered even if it is made mandatory because those people will expect a ban in 5 years or so. Making a new law knowing that it will create millions of new criminals overnight is a bad idea.
So, because people are irrationally paranoid (and because of this, they willfully break the law), then we just shouldn't make a law that can benefit society?
|
As an aside, Canada has a National Gun Registry, that is most people have problems with due to cost overruns and relative effectiveness. Obviously, a criminal isn't jumping at the chance to register an illegal gun.
But police officers have cited that it helps when on patrol or when they respond to domestic disputes — it makes them feel more prepared when approaching a vehicle or entering a home if they know whether or not the owner has a gun.
|
United States24574 Posts
On April 18 2013 14:01 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 13:50 micronesia wrote:On April 18 2013 13:29 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 18 2013 13:29 micronesia wrote:On April 18 2013 13:18 BronzeKnee wrote:
As for a handgun, you'll need a check or permit in Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota and certain counties in Florida. That means in 40 out of 50 states, you can purchase a handgun the same way you'd purchase a soft drink.
Making a list of states is kind of misleading since this is often legislated at the county or local level. For example, I'm in NY State and in my county handguns are very strictly regulated. I think you're taking what I said out of context. First I'm talking about getting a handgun at a gun show, not a licensed dealer. Second, New York has some of the strictest gun legislation in the nation, but your local county regulate handguns at gun shows (which was the point of the conversation. And even if your country regulates gun shows, could you not just drive to another county? Even if what you were saying wasn't wrong it was a bit misleading. I did not intend to mislead, that is the facts based on state law. If anything, I think you are misleading people about the ability to get a gun without a background check. Seems like your grasping at straws here "well it isn't legal in this country or town" is meaningless when the majority of Americans are in driving distance of a gun show where that doesn't require background checks.
You said "That means in 40 out of 50 states, you can purchase a handgun the same way you'd purchase a soft drink." You were misleading, not me. I didn't call you a liar as I have no knowledge that you are wrong. People will read what you said and think this means anywhere in those 40 states (or most places) you can buy a handgun in 5 minutes legally with no check, which isn't true.
On April 18 2013 14:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 13:58 micronesia wrote:On April 18 2013 13:57 Stratos_speAr wrote:
The UK used their gun registry to confiscate practically all guns. They had gotten a registry passed, then when they banned the guns, they gave people a short period to turn them in peacefully, and if they didn't, the police seized them, using the registry to find said people.
Cool. So how does that have any relevance to the U.S.? Oh, it doesn't? Yes, that is correct, it doesn't. A law that makes a national gun registry is different from a law that bans guns and allows for their confiscation. There is nothing bad about the gun registry law itself, and thus there is no logical argument against it. The following is how your argument sounds: A is fine, and is actually beneficial in several ways. However, B, a completely separate topic, is not ok, if it is combined with A. Therefore, we should just not do A, just in case B happens. Do you not see how ridiculous this sounds? Of the 300 million guns in the usa, half won't be registered even if it is made mandatory because those people will expect a ban in 5 years or so. Making a new law knowing that it will create millions of new criminals overnight is a bad idea. So, because people are irrationally paranoid (and because of this, they willfully break the law), then we just shouldn't make a law that can benefit society?
How is it irrational paranoia when one of our closest allies did exactly that? Maybe you are right and a similar ban won't happen for 100s of years, but we have no way of knowing. And yes, making a law that many people simply won't follow isn't something that should happen overnight without an extremely good reason... in fact if there was such a good reason you might be able to convince them over the course of a few months/years to agree with the proposed law. Alas, a gun registry is not so one-sided as you seem to think it is.
Using 'can benefit society' as sufficient justification for a new law is of course rather ridiculous and I hope you didn't mean it literally.
|
On April 18 2013 13:51 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 13:48 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 18 2013 13:44 Millitron wrote:On April 18 2013 13:39 YumYumGranola wrote:
I don't understand at all why expanding background checks is such a contentious issue.
From what I've heard the argument goes that universal background checks would be an infringement of American's 2nd Amendment rights. Why? I don't understand, can somebody please expand on this. The only argument I've heard is that universal background checks COULD mean a national gun registry, which COULD mean the government has the ability to raid and take guns away. In my opinion that's a pretty weak argument, as similar logic applied to other examples might show "Government shouldn't be able to ask your eye colour on your drivers license because then they COULD make a database about everybody's eye colour, and then they COULD go around house to house and murdering people with brown eyes." This two degrees of separation for unconstitutional acts seems pretty ridiculous, and I really don't see how it infringes on the populace's ability to bear arms. How do you enforce background checks without a registry? If I have a gun, how do the police know I have passed a background check for it without a registry? Let us assume I don't have a drivers license or state issued ID. If I have a six pack, how do the police know I can drink it without a registry? They don't. Now this is different, because your looks can tip them off as to whether or not you're old enough, but the point still stands. Say you're 21, you don't have a license, and some cop sees you drinking. He mistakes you for being 20, and bam, you're arrested.
No your point does not still stand when you apply it the other way. Logic has to work both ways, for it to make sense.
Counter example: Say your 20 and drinking, you don't have a license, a cop see's you drinking, he can't tell if you're 20 or 21 but your looks make him suspicious so he arrests you.
The cop was correct in his suspicion and the law worked to deter someone from breaking it. This does not mean that cops should then arrest every person who has a gun, but if a gun license required a background check, they could then check someone who had a gun whether they had a gun license on them or not (which should prove to some extent that they have had a background check).
|
On April 18 2013 14:06 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 13:51 Millitron wrote:On April 18 2013 13:48 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 18 2013 13:44 Millitron wrote:On April 18 2013 13:39 YumYumGranola wrote:
I don't understand at all why expanding background checks is such a contentious issue.
From what I've heard the argument goes that universal background checks would be an infringement of American's 2nd Amendment rights. Why? I don't understand, can somebody please expand on this. The only argument I've heard is that universal background checks COULD mean a national gun registry, which COULD mean the government has the ability to raid and take guns away. In my opinion that's a pretty weak argument, as similar logic applied to other examples might show "Government shouldn't be able to ask your eye colour on your drivers license because then they COULD make a database about everybody's eye colour, and then they COULD go around house to house and murdering people with brown eyes." This two degrees of separation for unconstitutional acts seems pretty ridiculous, and I really don't see how it infringes on the populace's ability to bear arms. How do you enforce background checks without a registry? If I have a gun, how do the police know I have passed a background check for it without a registry? Let us assume I don't have a drivers license or state issued ID. If I have a six pack, how do the police know I can drink it without a registry? They don't. Now this is different, because your looks can tip them off as to whether or not you're old enough, but the point still stands. Say you're 21, you don't have a license, and some cop sees you drinking. He mistakes you for being 20, and bam, you're arrested. No your point does not still stand when you apply it the other way. Logic has to work both ways, for it to make sense. Counter example: Say your 20 and drinking, you don't have a license, a cop see's you drinking, he can't tell if you're 20 or 21 but your looks make him suspicious so he arrests you. The cop was correct in his suspicion and the law worked to deter someone from breaking it. This does not mean that cops should then arrest every person who has a gun, but if a gun license required a background check, they could then check someone who had a gun whether they had a gun license on them or not (which should prove to some extent that they have had a background check).
Like the NRA, logic doesn't apply to him. Any argument that supports his position is sound, any argument that doesn't is flawed.
My point was to show that if a Cop sees someone with a six pack, nothing is going to happen (assuming they appear to be of legal age) because the check happens the point of sale. There is no registry needed. A guy can buy a beer with an ID, then leave that ID at home and walk to his buddies with the beer and the Cop won't do anything (again assuming that he appears to be of legal age).
The same thing could happen with guns. The background check happens at point of sale (including sales at gun shows). No registry is needed. In this instance though, the Cop might be more inclined to check the person for a license if they are carrying a gun down the street. And if they don't appear to be that old, they might take the person in, the same way they would take someone in with alcohol if they thought they were underage.
The point here is to show that comprehensive backgrounds checks do not require a registry of gun owners, just as age checks for alcohol do not require an alcohol registry showing who buys what alcohol. Thus, if the government decided to ban Vodka, they wouldn't be able to track everyone who bought Vodka because they don't tie what type of alcohol you purchased to your age. Thus, if the government wanted to ban the AR-15, they wouldn't be able to track everyone who bought an AR-15 because they don't tie what type of firearm you purchase with the background check.
|
On April 18 2013 13:44 Millitron wrote:
The UK used their gun registry to confiscate practically all guns. They had gotten a registry passed, then when they banned the guns, they gave people a short period to turn them in peacefully, and if they didn't, the police seized them, using the registry to find said people.
Um...no. we have a registry on guns, yet people still seem to own them. They can go shooting and everything. What happened was, we had a shooting in a school - it was in a small town called Dunblane, where the tennis pro Andy Murray is from. I believe he was a student at that school at the time, actually, though I might be misremembering. Anyways, just one. That's all it took, and public opinion went against gun ownership and many of them were confiscated.
Thing is, the gun registry wasn't created to keep tabs on gun owners, it was to keep tabs on who had guns! Insane idea, knowing who possesses firearms. But then, that might simply be a personal view, and I admit that fully. I'm just not into the idea that my government is out to get me, which seems such a common idea in the US. I have to say I find it strange, this notion of not caring who is buying weaponry. And guns are weaponry, regardless of usage. I don't particularly have a problem with guns, or people who own them. What I want is a well regulated gun industry, with the government having knowledge of who is buying these weapons. Unfortunately what we get here is the hyperbolic and frankly shameful NRA refusing to consider any kind of legislation (Guns don't kill people! People do! And TV! Videogames! The guns have nothing to do with it!!!!), senators who will outright lie and people who seem scared to even consider the notion that maybe being able to buy assault rifles without a background check might be a decent idea. Hmm.
Please don't drag my country into your gun debate, especially if you're going to spout crap. I had enough of that when people were talking about Obamacare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
