JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Reply
Old 11th November 2012, 11:35 AM   #81
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 7,953
Originally Posted by joesixpack View Post
That same chart shows that non-gun homicides are far higher in the US, the implication being that people commit murder with what they have available. Taking guns out of the equation will still leave the US with the highest per-capita homicide rate on the graph.
So you are a murderous bunch with access to guns, That is making a bad situation worse. It is like giving arsonists lots of petrol and matches and then saying you cannot blame the giving of the petrol and the matches for the high instance of fires. I suspect that since the Scottish can be violent we would have a terrible gun death rate of we had as easy access to guns as you do.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 11:50 AM   #82
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
 
Alt+F4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Department of Abandoned Places
Posts: 10,000
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
The discussion was about US guns being smuggled to Northern Ireland during the Troubles by US supporters of Republican terrorists.
I, as part of the "murderous bunch" understands the difference between the words smuggling and importation, so what is your excuse? Yikes, even with all the time me and my fellow Americans are out there in our murder bunch at least we access to a dictionary.
__________________
"My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

Last edited by Alt+F4; 11th November 2012 at 11:57 AM.
Alt+F4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 12:02 PM   #83
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,117
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
If it is not gun laws then it is a cultural matter whereby Americans are more likely to shoot at each other than people from other countries in a given situation.
There are cultural issues that play into this. For example, white southern men are more likely to shoot each other than white men living in other parts of the country. It has to do with an "honor culture" that demands physical retaliation in response to a perceived insult.
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 12:06 PM   #84
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 7,953
Originally Posted by stokes234 View Post
Of course there are other factors, nobody sensible is suggesting gun crime is perfectly and solely correlated with availability of guns. However, it could be argued that there would be less gun crime in northern ireland if they hadn't been taking advantage of the lax US gun control laws.

........
Originally Posted by Alt+F4 View Post
I, as part of the "murderous bunch" understands the difference between the words smuggling and importation, so what is your excuse? Yikes, even with all the time me and my fellow Americans are out there in our murder bunch at least we access to a dictionary.
The original post about NI pointed out that there could have been less gun crime during the Troubles if US guns had not been available (the could being down to could they have been sourced elsewhere instead?). The guns used in the Troubles for terrorism were not imported, they were smuggled.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 12:06 PM   #85
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA
Posts: 4,534
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
So you are a murderous bunch with access to guns, That is making a bad situation worse. It is like giving arsonists lots of petrol and matches and then saying you cannot blame the giving of the petrol and the matches for the high instance of fires. I suspect that since the Scottish can be violent we would have a terrible gun death rate of we had as easy access to guns as you do.
The argument I'd make, and the argument that chart 3 demonstrates, is that poverty and the lack of social safety nets is a greater predictor of homicide rates than the access to guns.

If you live and work in a middle-class US, the chances of being the victim of violent crime is about the same as it would be in most of the EU. If you live and work in a poor neighborhood your chances are much greater.
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon.
joesixpack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 12:12 PM   #86
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 7,953
Originally Posted by joesixpack View Post
The argument I'd make, and the argument that chart 3 demonstrates, is that poverty and the lack of social safety nets is a greater predictor of homicide rates than the access to guns.

If you live and work in a middle-class US, the chances of being the victim of violent crime is about the same as it would be in most of the EU. If you live and work in a poor neighborhood your chances are much greater.
The argument I would like to make is that chart 2 shows how murderous and inclined to shoot the US is, as an average compared to other countries. That argument is neatly dodged by the article and you.

It is the same in the UK that poorer areas have higher crime rates than rich ones, more so urban ones.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 12:29 PM   #87
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Not America.
Posts: 5,284
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
It is an odd analysis in that the chart 2 showing murders per 100,000 prefaced by “guns don’t kill people, murderers do.” shows that the US is the most murderous out of the Western nations. Then the preface for the next chart on homicides per civilian gun and how that is related to poverty is prefaced It would also help to shoot down some of the “America is a uniquely violent place” garbage. But that has been shown not to be true by the preceding graph

One issue it does not deal with is that guns are easier to use to kill than other methods of killing. It fails to acknowledge that allowing millions of people to possess millions of the most effective killing weapons is going to result in the highest number of deaths, which it does, as shown by chart 2.

Within that propensity to have and use guns there are other correlations to to do with poverty, race etc. But that does not get away from the clear correlation between Americans and other Western countries of a propensity to shoot plus lots of guns = a much higher gun death rate.
Correlation != causation.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 12:37 PM   #88
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Not America.
Posts: 5,284
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
The argument I would like to make is that chart 2 shows how murderous and inclined to shoot the US is, as an average compared to other countries. That argument is neatly dodged by the article and you.
You looked at the higher murder and gun death rate, and nothing else, including the commentary in the article specifically pointing out that there's no correlation between gun ownership and homicide rate. I assume that's why you moved the goalposts to "violent".
Swiss and American murderers use guns simply because they’re around. South Korean and British murderers don’t have a pistol in the closet so they take a knife from the drawer. Either way, killers gonna kill.

High murder rates are caused by the same factors in high-gun countries as they are in low-gun countries. St. Louis, Johannesburg and Tegucigalpa have very different gun laws, but most of their gun crime comes from some form of broken institution, urban poverty and gang violence, and not the presence or absence of a culture of owning firearms.
Quote:
It is the same in the UK that poorer areas have higher crime rates than rich ones, more so urban ones.
Which is Joe's point. And the article.
Poverty and failing institutions appear to be much better predictors of homicide than gun ownership. Murder rates are higher in neighborhoods of America that are poorer and less educated, regardless of gun culture, and it would seem to back up this theory if the same trend were repeated elsewhere. It would also help to shoot down some of the “America is a uniquely violent place” garbage.
And then Chart 3 does just that.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 12:56 PM   #89
Giz
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK/US
Posts: 4,619
Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
Which is Joe's point. And the article.
Poverty and failing institutions appear to be much better predictors of homicide than gun ownership. Murder rates are higher in neighborhoods of America that are poorer and less educated, regardless of gun culture, and it would seem to back up this theory if the same trend were repeated elsewhere. It would also help to shoot down some of the “America is a uniquely violent place” garbage.
And then Chart 3 does just that.
Yup.

America has some very violent areas (generally some inner city areas). Most of the guns used in that violence are stolen/illegally possessed etc.

Most gun control seems to target law abiding gun owners rather than gang bangers. Which means it will be useless at curbing violence and the only effect will be to curtail law abiding Americans freedoms.

Of course, it is easier for some politicians to blame guns rather than tackling the root cause - violent, dysfunctional societies.


To note just one point of emotion based, fact free, bit of gun control: "Do you know what a barrel shroud actually is?" (to a congresswoman whose legislation supports banning them)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 01:24 PM   #90
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,117
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Most gun control seems to target law abiding gun owners rather than gang bangers. Which means it will be useless at curbing violence and the only effect will be to curtail law abiding Americans freedoms.
Some gun control targets the diversion of weapons from the legal market into the criminal market. The gun lobby fights tooth and nail to keep those pathways open as they increase the market for their product.

Why do we exclude private sales from the background check requirement for handgun sales?
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 02:12 PM   #91
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 6,016
Originally Posted by geni View Post
Rights don't really exist outside a legal framework and while prior english law wouldn't have had a problem with white male protestants having as many weapons as they liked (well as long as they didn't suffer from being poor of course) it wouldn't have really viewed that as a right.
You are correct about the english common law, but throw civilization and law right down the hole and remove it from the question - individuals have a right to protect themselves - and that means that they have a right to possess the tools to do so - as long as they have the will to do so.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 02:18 PM   #92
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 6,016
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
Some gun control targets the diversion of weapons from the legal market into the criminal market. The gun lobby fights tooth and nail to keep those pathways open as they increase the market for their product.

Why do we exclude private sales from the background check requirement for handgun sales?
That's not true in every state.

In California, every transfer of a non C & R firearm must be done through an FFL dealer with a background check and a ten day waiting period.

We still have a pretty good (bad) crime rate.

The answer to the your question has to do with the right of an individual to dispose of personal property as they see fit (wrt firearms, as long as they don't engage in an actual business of selling firearms w/o an FFL) and the inability of an individual not licensed as an FFL to perform a background check.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 03:03 PM   #93
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,318
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I do not know if they are ignoring the 2nd amendment, but most states infringe upon gun ownership when writing their laws. Making simple possession of a firearm a felony is an infringement.

Ranb
So if I want to set a quad 50 in my front lawn that should be OK?
tsig is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 03:15 PM   #94
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,318
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
You are correct about the english common law, but throw civilization and law right down the hole and remove it from the question - individuals have a right to protect themselves - and that means that they have a right to possess the tools to do so - as long as they have the will to do so.

Before I buy tools I like to know what the job is, a table saw isn't much help in troubleshooting an electrical circuit, so who are you protecting yourself against?
tsig is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 03:26 PM   #95
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,117
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
That's not true in every state.

In California, every transfer of a non C & R firearm must be done through an FFL dealer with a background check and a ten day waiting period.

We still have a pretty good (bad) crime rate.

The answer to the your question has to do with the right of an individual to dispose of personal property as they see fit (wrt firearms, as long as they don't engage in an actual business of selling firearms w/o an FFL) and the inability of an individual not licensed as an FFL to perform a background check.
Do Arizona and Nevada have similar laws?
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 03:36 PM   #96
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA
Posts: 4,534
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
So if I want to set a quad 50 in my front lawn that should be OK?
That really depends on where your front lawn is, and whether the weapon is loaded, I suspect.

It is currently against the law in most municipalities to brandish a loaded weapon in a populated area, and I don't know any gun nuts who would argue against that law. The right to bear arms is not intended as an unrestricted right to intimidate one's neighbors with a loaded weapon. I don't have a problem with my neighbor having an automatic weapon, why do you?
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon.
joesixpack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 03:46 PM   #97
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
geni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 28,136
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
I suspect that this is mistaken. "Common law" is unwritten and accepted. English common law recognized a right of self-defense.
Not exactly. For white male protestants yes. For other groups the situation was less clear cut.
geni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 03:54 PM   #98
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The South!
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
The US weapons market is so huge with so many guns of all types readily available that US is a good source, compared to other Western countries for those who want to commit crime in other countries. Mexico and formerly Northern Ireland are examples of that.
Again, it's the USA's fault that another country imports a firearm, then commits a crime with it?

So, if I buy a used car from you, import it into the US, then use it to run down some idiot, it's YOUR fault?????

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Those guns are smuggled.
How are they smuggled, if they were imported within the laws of both nations?

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
The US has its own problem with illegally held weapons as well.
Yep, I'd semi agree with that.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 04:01 PM   #99
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The South!
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
If it is not gun laws then it is a cultural matter whereby Americans are more likely to shoot at each other than people from other countries in a given situation.
Do you ever get tired of blindly hating Americans?
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 04:08 PM   #100
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The South!
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
So you are a murderous bunch with access to guns, That is making a bad situation worse. It is like giving arsonists lots of petrol and matches and then saying you cannot blame the giving of the petrol and the matches for the high instance of fires. I suspect that since the Scottish can be violent we would have a terrible gun death rate of we had as easy access to guns as you do.
Well, someone better tell Bic, Papermate, Sunoco and similar companies are going to be banned, because some people use them for criminal acts.

Chevy, Ford, and Dell computers are on the list too.


WTF????? Are all people from Ireland and Scotland this bad when it comes to logic?
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 05:29 PM   #101
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 5,627
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
That is a list of bad gun control, which does not mean gun control is then a bad thing.
Other than prohibiting gun possession by felons, children and the mentally ill, what good gun control laws can you name?

Ranb
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 08:35 PM   #102
foxholeatheist
Graduate Poster
 
foxholeatheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Seoul, South Korea
Posts: 1,159
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Other than prohibiting gun possession by felons, children and the mentally ill, what good gun control laws can you name?

Ranb
That's an interesting point. I sought help for PTSD related crap through the Army but stopped because I was worried that it may affect my ability to renew my CWP or even to purchase firearms.

How do we define mentality ill?
__________________
You start wearing the blue and brown and
You're working for the clampdown
-The Clash

My Band!
The Heimlich County Gun Club
foxholeatheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 03:21 AM   #103
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 7,953
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
Again, it's the USA's fault that another country imports a firearm, then commits a crime with it?

So, if I buy a used car from you, import it into the US, then use it to run down some idiot, it's YOUR fault?????



How are they smuggled, if they were imported within the laws of both nations?



Yep, I'd semi agree with that.
The IRA and other Republican terrorist organisations got hold of US guns with the assistance of US supporters and smuggled them into Ireland to be used in the Troubles.

Do you seriously think that IRA terrorists went through UK border control where they declared their weapons and when asked stated their use was for terrorism
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 03:22 AM   #104
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 7,953
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
Do you ever get tired of blindly hating Americans?
Stupid comment.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 03:23 AM   #105
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 7,953
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
Well, someone better tell Bic, Papermate, Sunoco and similar companies are going to be banned, because some people use them for criminal acts.

Chevy, Ford, and Dell computers are on the list too.


WTF????? Are all people from Ireland and Scotland this bad when it comes to logic?
Another stupid comment.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 03:33 AM   #106
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 7,953
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Other than prohibiting gun possession by felons, children and the mentally ill, what good gun control laws can you name?

Ranb
1 - licensing where people who want guns are subject to full background checks to ensure suitability to hold guns.

2 - via licensing a register of all guns to allow tracing when guns are recovered that have been stolen or used in crime.

3 - proper security for all guns when not in use to limit thefts and misuse by unlicensed people, children etc.

4 - aggravation of offences committed by people with guns

5 - offenses of misuse of firearms, such as reckless discharge, allowing another to use a gun who is not licensed, having unregistered guns

6 - the big one, get those unlicensed and unregistered guns off the streets from the gangs.

In the UK the above is pretty easy as we do not have anywhere near as many guns as the US or people who hold guns. You have a mountain of guns to tackle.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 04:07 AM   #107
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Not America.
Posts: 5,284
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
The IRA and other Republican terrorist organisations got hold of US guns with the assistance of US supporters and smuggled them into Ireland to be used in the Troubles.
Dodge.

Quote:
Do you seriously think that IRA terrorists went through UK border control where they declared their weapons and when asked stated their use was for terrorism
Appeal to Ridicule, dodge again.

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Stupid comment.
Not actually a denial.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 04:10 AM   #108
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Not America.
Posts: 5,284
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
1 - licensing where people who want guns are subject to full background checks to ensure suitability to hold guns.

2 - via licensing a register of all guns to allow tracing when guns are recovered that have been stolen or used in crime.
Even for private sales?

Quote:
3 - proper security for all guns when not in use to limit thefts and misuse by unlicensed people, children etc.
Most legal gun owners already do that. They take responsibility very seriously.

Quote:
4 - aggravation of offences committed by people with guns
You mean like armed robbery vs just robbery?

Quote:
5 - offenses of misuse of firearms, such as reckless discharge, allowing another to use a gun who is not licensed, having unregistered guns
Again, those are, broadly, already in place, barring the last one.

Quote:
6 - the big one, get those unlicensed and unregistered guns off the streets from the gangs.
You think the cops haven't been trying to do that for decades?

Quote:
In the UK the above is pretty easy as we do not have anywhere near as many guns as the US or people who hold guns. You have a mountain of guns to tackle.
Actually, what you're proposing is basically as impossible as the war on drugs.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 04:50 AM   #109
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 5,627
Originally Posted by foxholeatheist View Post
That's an interesting point. I sought help for PTSD related crap through the Army but stopped because I was worried that it may affect my ability to renew my CWP or even to purchase firearms.
That is a slippery slope. I have heard from others who feared that asking for help or seeking treatment would come back to haunt them.

Ranb
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 06:04 AM   #110
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,117
Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
Even for private sales?
Sure, why not?

Right now it's a huge loophole in the system. A private sale in many states does not require a background check or registration. They are handled on a cash and carry basis with no questions asked. It provides a convenient loophole for diverting firearms into the criminal trade.

When Colorado still allowed private sales at gun shows without a background check, you could see the effect in the market price. A used handgun from a private seller at the gun show often sold for $100 more than a new one from a licensed dealer.

Another oddity with US law is that the authorities are prohibited from using computers to track firearms registrations. When a firearm is found in criminal hands, the process of tracking it is entirely manual. That ATF contacts the manufacturer who directs them to licensed dealer that first handled the firearm. An ATF agent then goes to that dealer and searches the paper records to find the sale. The first purchaser is then contacted. If the gun was traded in at another licensed dealer, the process is repeated. But if the purchaser says, "I sold it to some guy named Bob at the gun show", the trace hits a dead end.
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 06:50 AM   #111
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 6,016
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Before I buy tools I like to know what the job is, a table saw isn't much help in troubleshooting an electrical circuit, so who are you protecting yourself against?
If I had the option of picking and choosing who I might run into, or who might run into me, I wouldn't need any type of weapon, but that isn't the case.

I've carried issue weapons from an M60 on down, and as an LEO I carried an issue weapon and carried a backup weapon as well.

In retirement, I generally carry a Glock G30 or a first year manufactured S&W Centennial steel frame DAO revolver.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 06:54 AM   #112
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 6,016
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
Do Arizona and Nevada have similar laws?
No, but it's a generally crime for California residents to purchase firearms out-of-state from individuals w/o the transfer being conducted through an FFL dealer - Fed. law, 1986 FOPA - The Firearms Owner Protection Act requires an individual to follow the firearms statutes their own state of residence, even when doing business out-of-state.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 06:57 AM   #113
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 7,953
Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
Dodge.

Appeal to Ridicule, dodge again.



Not actually a denial.
To make this very, very clear, the US guns used in Northern Ireland by terrorists during the Troubles were smuggled there and not imported.

I am staggered that anyone would think any other way.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 07:02 AM   #114
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 7,953
Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
Even for private sales?

Most legal gun owners already do that. They take responsibility very seriously.

You mean like armed robbery vs just robbery?

Again, those are, broadly, already in place, barring the last one.

You think the cops haven't been trying to do that for decades?

Actually, what you're proposing is basically as impossible as the war on drugs.
Yes even for private sales, I know legal gun owners are generally responsible, but there are exceptions such as the cop who left his gun in his car so that his three year old shot his seven year old child, as discussed in another thread. Yes I mean armed robbery as opposed to an unarmed one. I know your laws are broadly in place. I am sure the cops have been trying to disarm the gangs for years.

I am not proposing anything as I said, the USA let the genie out the bottle and will never get it back in again. The best you can do is damage limitation.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 07:12 AM   #115
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 7,953
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
Sure, why not?

Right now it's a huge loophole in the system. A private sale in many states does not require a background check or registration. They are handled on a cash and carry basis with no questions asked. It provides a convenient loophole for diverting firearms into the criminal trade.

When Colorado still allowed private sales at gun shows without a background check, you could see the effect in the market price. A used handgun from a private seller at the gun show often sold for $100 more than a new one from a licensed dealer.

Another oddity with US law is that the authorities are prohibited from using computers to track firearms registrations. When a firearm is found in criminal hands, the process of tracking it is entirely manual. That ATF contacts the manufacturer who directs them to licensed dealer that first handled the firearm. An ATF agent then goes to that dealer and searches the paper records to find the sale. The first purchaser is then contacted. If the gun was traded in at another licensed dealer, the process is repeated. But if the purchaser says, "I sold it to some guy named Bob at the gun show", the trace hits a dead end.
In the UK to get a gun you have to fill out a questionnaire, detail what guns you want, why you want them and where you will be shooting. You have to provide two referees and instal an approved gun cabinet. You then get a full background check and home visit by the police to go over the questionnaire and check the guns you have bought and the security. It initially takes about a month and costs about £60 to get the licence. Every fives years you apply for a renewal at about £50 and the above process is repeated, but to a lesser extent.

In terms of cost and time taken it is cheaper and usually quicker than getting a drivers licence. There big difference is that a drivers licence does not involve a background check and it does train and assess your ability to drive.

If we recover a firearm we put its details into our computer and voila, we have the up to date keepers name and details. If the number has been ground off then there are still ways of trying to recover it to ID the gun. If someone is found with a tampered with gun there are charged with possessing an unlicensed gun.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 07:13 AM   #116
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,117
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
No, but it's a generally crime for California residents to purchase firearms out-of-state from individuals w/o the transfer being conducted through an FFL dealer - Fed. law, 1986 FOPA - The Firearms Owner Protection Act requires an individual to follow the firearms statutes their own state of residence, even when doing business out-of-state.
If a California resident buys from a dealer in Nevada, the dealer will ship it to a licensed dealer in California. But in a private sale, we have to trust that the buyer will follow the law. A buyer who may have gone to the private sales market specifically because he can't pass a background check.
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 07:19 AM   #117
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 7,953
In the UK a private sale means both the seller and buyer (which includes firearms dealers) have to inform their local police (who do the licensing) that the gun has be sold (or transferred, gifted or lent) so both of their licences can be updated with who has what gun. It is an offence not to that within one week of the sale.

That is the same as we have with buying or selling a car whereby both seller and buyer have to inform the Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency of the sale.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 07:32 AM   #118
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
 
Darth Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Rat cheer
Posts: 36,003
dcdrac:

You are welcome to stay out of this country if you don't like the gun laws in place. There are volumes full of them.

You use the term "gun control" in the usual dishonest way.

In other news, some 21,000,000 law abiding owners of firearms harmed nobody yesterday. Think about that.
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission.
"Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis
Darth Rotor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 07:46 AM   #119
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Not America.
Posts: 5,284
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Yes even for private sales, I know legal gun owners are generally responsible, but there are exceptions such as the cop who left his gun in his car so that his three year old shot his seven year old child, as discussed in another thread. Yes I mean armed robbery as opposed to an unarmed one. I know your laws are broadly in place. I am sure the cops have been trying to disarm the gangs for years.

I am not proposing anything as I said, the USA let the genie out the bottle and will never get it back in again. The best you can do is damage limitation.
Nessie? I'm not American. I grew up outside of the US, and live in Northern England. I've told you this before. Perhaps you forgot.

Also, if a cop happened to be wandering by and had seen the gun and the kids, he probably would've stopped and gotten the kids out of the car, or done something. Just leaving the gun in there was already severe, possibly illegal negligence.

Last edited by 000063; 12th November 2012 at 07:51 AM.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 10:44 AM   #120
stokes234
Master Poster
 
stokes234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 2,295
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Then you should have no trouble demonstrating that gun laws in the US are the primary predictor of gun homicide rates. You'd expect, for example, that Vermont with its lax gun laws would have a far higher homicide rate than in Illinois, which has some of the strongest gun laws.

Is that what you find?
I'd expect the parts of the country most susceptible to gang violence - big cities with large ghetto-ised areas, easy access to smuggled drugs from other countries, and high rates of poverty - to have worse gang violence problems as a result of easy access to guns. I wouldn't expect it to make a whole lot of difference to areas which I wouldn't expect to be susceptible to gang violence anyway to have worse problems as a result. For example, if the UK were to legalise guns, I would expect gang violence in London and Manchester to worsen, but wouldn't expect to see much of an effect in Bedfordshire, Slough, High Wycombe etc.

To answer your question though, beyond the obvious logical point of "it's easier to shoot people if you have a gun", I don't have any evidence showing a strong correlation between countries that legalising guns leads to higher levels of gang violence. We just don't have a big enough sample size. Perhaps if you had cities like San Francisco or Miami in america where guns were illegal and effectively banned it might be possible to make a comparison, but at present I don't think we have the available data.
__________________
"I offer the world my genius. All I ask in return is that the world cover my expenses." Hugo Rune
stokes234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:45 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.