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 13th November 2012, 11:30 AM   #161
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 7,926
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
Walking in woods inhabited by brown bears without a firearm is a recipe for disaster. For a frail person, walking alone and without a firearm at night in a city inhabited by thugs is a recipe for disaster.
I can see a good justification for being armed against bears. I am not so sure about the argument for those who are frail to be armed.
__________________
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 13th November 2012, 11:40 AM   #162
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 7,926
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Then what gun control do you have in mind that will:

1) Minimally impact the law abiding
2) Maximally impact the law breaking

Because almost all of the gun control proposals will minimally impact law breakers while having a great impact on law abiding gun owners.
Cut off the supply of guns to criminals by introducing compulsory background checks and licensing of people who want to have guns. Maintain a register of all guns. Have a gun amnesty where people can hand in guns with no questions asked followed by a campaign to seize illegally held guns.

It will take time though since there are more guns in the USA per head than anywhere else in the world

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...-homicides-map

I suspect none of that will happen as so many will object to giving information to the government about what guns they have.
__________________
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 13th November 2012, 11:42 AM   #163
stokes234
Master Poster
 
stokes234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 2,295
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Then what gun control do you have in mind that will:

1) Minimally impact the law abiding
2) Maximally impact the law breaking

Because almost all of the gun control proposals will minimally impact law breakers while having a great impact on law abiding gun owners.
Well, if we're talking about a hypothetical scenario where any of this is politically achievable, then my proposal would be:

1. Ban handguns, submachine guns, assault rifles and any concealable guns.
2. Require a national electronic register (accessible only to police) of everyone who owns a legal gun such as a rifle or shotgun, require a background check before anyone in the country can buy a gun, require people to report it if their gun is lost or stolen.
3. Make it so breaking either of these laws carries a prison sentence of a few years (i'm not usually a fan of harsh sentences, but from what I hear, the 5-year automatic jail sentence for possession of a handgun worked well in London).
4. Announce firing any guns from point 1. to be illegal, but declare a 2-year amnesty on owning them to allow everyone time to hand them in.
5. Enforce these laws with prejudice, and allow a good 30 or 40 years before availability of guns is down to a reasonable level.

I'm not saying it's an easy solution - it would take a long time before guns were hard enough to come by that criminal gangs wouldn't be automaticaly expected to have them, and the actual process of taking guns away from people would likely be quite dangerous for police, but I think that in the long term it would pay off in terms of reducing the gang problems and high murder rate in the US compared to the rest of the western world.
__________________
"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
Old 13th November 2012, 12:10 PM   #164
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 7,926
This is an interesting set of maps, which show guns per population, firearms murders per population and % of those murders with a gun.

Guns per population.

The USA is number 1 in the world with 88.1 per 100 people. The map is split into 5 bands with the USA the only country in the world to occupy the highest band of 70 to 100 guns per 100 people. Second is Yemen with 54.8 guns per 100 people. It is the only country in band 4 of 50 to 70 guns per 100 people. Then comes Switzerland with 45.7 guns per 100 people and it is amongst a number of countries in band 3 of 30 to 50 guns per 100 people.

Firearm homicide rate. (Note there is a mistake with this map as the squares denoting what band is what colour misses out the band of 1 to 2. That is a gray colour you see for most of Africa)

The US firearms homicide rate is 2.97 per 100,000. That puts it in the third lowest band out of six of 2 to 5 firearms homicides per 100,000. The highest band is 12 to 70 per 100,000 and it covers a number of South American countries and South Africa.

Percentage of homicides by gun.

The USA with 60% of homicides by gun jumps back up to the second highest band of 60 to 80%. The only country in the highest band is Columbia with 81.1%.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...-homicides-map

So the USA has the highest number guns per head with one of the highest percentages of gun use in homicide rates. But it drops down the world rankings when it comes to firearms homicides per 100,000. That to me suggests the USA is not that violent a place, but when violence does erupt there is a higher chance of a gun being used and being killed because of the sheer number people with access to guns.
__________________
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 13th November 2012, 01:00 PM   #165
lobosrul
Muse
 
lobosrul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 843
Originally Posted by stokes234 View Post
Well, if we're talking about a hypothetical scenario where any of this is politically achievable, then my proposal would be:

1. Ban handguns, submachine guns, assault rifles and any concealable guns.
2. Require a national electronic register (accessible only to police) of everyone who owns a legal gun such as a rifle or shotgun, require a background check before anyone in the country can buy a gun, require people to report it if their gun is lost or stolen.
1: Submachine guns are already virtually banned. You can possess an older one with a curio and relics license but its very rare. The percentage of murders committed with assault rifles is tiny* ( And many of these are already illegal (ie fully automatic AK-47's.) 48 of 50 states have a concealed carry permit on the books (however about 10 of those states in practice rarely issue them), so I think you'd find a federal law to ban all handguns rather unpopular. It takes a two thirds majority by the states to amend the constitution, which is what that would take.

2: So make a register of all legal guns in the entire country? Do you expect criminals to register their firearms? How would that help anything. Guns kept legally in someones home whether registered or not, would do nothing to prevent domestic violence. As far as I am aware you are required to report lost or stolen firearm. But maybe that's only at the local level (and pretty much all of them).

How would any of that minimally impact the law-abiding but maximally the law breaking? I do agree a national instant background check on any purchase is a good idea.

* The best I could do was find that 348 murders in the entire US were committed with rifles of any type last year, including but not limited to legal assault rifles.
lobosrul 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 13th November 2012, 01:24 PM   #166
stokes234
Master Poster
 
stokes234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 2,295
Originally Posted by lobosrul View Post
1: Submachine guns are already virtually banned. You can possess an older one with a curio and relics license but its very rare. The percentage of murders committed with assault rifles is tiny* ( And many of these are already illegal (ie fully automatic AK-47's.)
Yes, I realise submachinegun or automatic rifle murders are particularly rare. I'd ban them to avoid the possibility of criminals falling back on these when handguns were no longer an option.

Originally Posted by lobosrul View Post
48 of 50 states have a concealed carry permit on the books (however about 10 of those states in practice rarely issue them), so I think you'd find a federal law to ban all handguns rather unpopular. It takes a two thirds majority by the states to amend the constitution, which is what that would take.
Yes, that's why I put it in a hypothetical scenario where the ban was politically achievable. I accept that in practice it would be very hard to achieve.

Originally Posted by lobosrul View Post
2: So make a register of all legal guns in the entire country? Do you expect criminals to register their firearms? How would that help anything. Guns kept legally in someones home whether registered or not, would do nothing to prevent domestic violence. As far as I am aware you are required to report lost or stolen firearm. But maybe that's only at the local level (and pretty much all of them).
No, I wouldn't expect criminals to register their firearms. In this hypothetical scenario I would expect criminals to at first obtain guns illegally. Then I would expect police to take away these illegal guns in a variety of situations over the next few decades until they're much less common.

I wouldn't advocate home searches for guns unless the person is accused of dealing them, but they could be found in home raids for other suspicions or during arrests.

Originally Posted by lobosrul View Post
How would any of that minimally impact the law-abiding but maximally the law breaking? I do agree a national instant background check on any purchase is a good idea.
I'm not too concerned with "minimally impacting law-abiding citizens" here. I realise some people enjoy firing guns, but I can't find it in me to consider this more important than reducing the murder rate.
__________________
"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
Old 13th November 2012, 02:25 PM   #167
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 5,162
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Cut off the supply of guns to criminals by introducing compulsory background checks and licensing of people who want to have guns.
This does little to stop criminals from stealing firearms.

[quote=Nessie;8767677]Maintain a register of all guns.[/quote
Still does nothing about the guns that are already in private hands whose owners refuse to register.

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Have a gun amnesty where people can hand in guns with no questions asked followed by a campaign to seize illegally held guns.
So how does this campaign work? Police raids on home suspected to contain unregistered firearms?

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 13th November 2012, 02:34 PM   #168
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 5,162
Originally Posted by lobosrul View Post
1: Submachine guns are already virtually banned. You can possess an older one with a curio and relics license but its very rare.
Not in the USA. A license is not required to own any machine gun registered prior to May 19, 1986. While supply does not meet demand, they are readily available to anyone who lives in one of the many states that allow unlicensed civilians to own them and is willing to pay too much for them. http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/?...=&session_key=

As far as I know, most machine guns in private hands are not curios or relics. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx....2.1.1&idno=27

Quote:
Curios or relics. Firearms which are of special interest to collectors by reason of some quality other than is associated with firearms intended for sporting use or as offensive or defensive weapons. To be recognized as curios or relics, firearms must fall within one of the following categories:

(a) Firearms which were manufactured at least 50 years prior to the current date, but not including replicas thereof;

(b) Firearms which are certified by the curator of a municipal, State, or Federal museum which exhibits firearms to be curios or relics of museum interest; and

(c) Any other firearms which derive a substantial part of their monetary value from the fact that they are novel, rare, bizarre, or because of their association with some historical figure, period, or event.....
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 13th November 2012, 02:46 PM   #169
Kestrel
Illuminator
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,844
Can anyone answer why private gun sales should be exempt from instant background checks and registration?
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 13th November 2012, 02:53 PM   #170
Giz
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK/US
Posts: 4,341
Originally Posted by stokes234 View Post
Yes, I realise submachinegun or automatic rifle murders are particularly rare. I'd ban them to avoid the possibility of criminals falling back on these when handguns were no longer an option.
Fully autos used illegaly are vanishingly rare. Homicide using rifles (including scary looking semi-auto assualt rifles) is pretty rare. Talk of banning AR-15's and the like is purely an exercise in pandering for votes based on emotion (unfounded fear). They simply aren't being used in crimes in any number… despite millions being in circulation.

Originally Posted by stokes234 View Post

I'm not too concerned with "minimally impacting law-abiding citizens" here. I realise some people enjoy firing guns, but I can't find it in me to consider this more important than reducing the murder rate.
The problem is, your method - on your assumptions - might lower the murder rate in 30 or 40 years. (I think some studies place it in the centuries given the amount of guns out there). So there is potentially no real impact for a lifetime… Given that - shouldn't the focus be instead on tackling the societal issues of the high crime areas, rather than penalizing law-abiding gun owners in a "this feels like we are doing something (but actually we aren't helping)"?
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 13th November 2012, 02:54 PM   #171
lobosrul
Muse
 
lobosrul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 843
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Not in the USA. A license is not required to own any machine gun registered prior to May 19, 1986. While supply does not meet demand, they are readily available to anyone who lives in one of the many states that allow unlicensed civilians to own them and is willing to pay too much for them. http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/?...=&session_key=

As far as I know, most machine guns in private hands are not curios or relics. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx....2.1.1&idno=27



Ranb
I guess I'm technically wrong about that. However, to purchase a submachine gun without a license some serious hoops must be jumped through:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/rpt/2009-R-0020.htm
lobosrul 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 13th November 2012, 03:08 PM   #172
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 5,162
I only took a brief look at your link, it all seems to be correct, but "serious hoops" is a broad term to say the least. I make title ii firearms as a hobby and feel that the paperwork is easy. I have never heard of the BATFE denying approval to buy or make an NFA firearm as long as the forms were filled out correctly. I misspelled my name one time and forgot to sign another application, both were approved.

The ATF form 1 (to make) and the ATF form 4 (to buy) are very easy to fill out; if you can fill out the 1040EZ for your taxes, then you can fill out the application to pay the $200 making or tranfer tax. If you are an individual, you also have to include your mugshot and finger prints as well as getting the local sheriff to sign the application. You certify yourself as a legal resident with form 5320.20. Other than the sheriff's signature, it is child's play if you ask me. 14 tax stamps and no denials yet.

It is easier and cheaper to buy a (one) machine gun with the ATF form 4 vs obtaining a license if you ask me. Only those who deal, import or manufacture as a business need the license, the rest of us hobbists are usually better off using the tax stamp application on each one.

Ranb

Last edited by Ranb; 13th November 2012 at 03:11 PM.
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 13th November 2012, 05:31 PM   #173
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The South!
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
So it is a violent state with easy access to guns, that is a recipe for disaster.
Way to completely ignore the rest of that post. Good call. Clearly something needs to be done about the fact that the sun is set 50% of the year. Someone needs to get on that. Maybe the USG can help them with that.

And while they're at it, force them to move into more populated areas too. That should help Alaskan's with their violence problem.....

Do you only read what you can twist into something negative about America and it's gun laws? Sure seems like it.
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 13th November 2012, 05:42 PM   #174
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The South!
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Cut off the supply of guns to criminals by introducing compulsory background checks
Um....already happens. If you purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer, they're required to run a background check through NCIC (National Crime Information Center) and in Florida, also the FCIC.

So, it's already done.

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
and licensing of people who want to have guns.
Who pays for this? Why? What good is it going to do, when the vast majority of people who use guns in a crime, are already criminals who SHOULDN'T have guns in the first place.

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Maintain a register of all guns.
Why? What good is this going to do?

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Have a gun amnesty where people can hand in guns with no questions asked
Many different sheriff's departments already do this.

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
followed by a campaign to seize illegally held guns.
Huh? How would this program be implemented?

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I suspect none of that will happen as so many will object to giving information to the government about what guns they have.
Correct. Among other reasons....
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 13th November 2012, 05:46 PM   #175
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 5,686
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
This came up in the Fast and Furious investigation. ATF agents were told they did not have probable cause to stop a sale in the parking lot of a gun store immediately after purchase. They had to have proof that the sale was arranged before the purchase was made in the gun shop before detaining either party in the sale or seizing the weapon.
Funny, as ATFE has no problem going after straw buyers everywhere else:

http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/20...-arrested.html

http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/20...al-prison.html

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/201...gun-gun-dealer

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/new...moms-in-texas/
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 13th November 2012, 05:48 PM   #176
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
 
Alt+F4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Department of Abandoned Places
Posts: 10,000
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
Do you only read what you can twist into something negative about America and it's gun laws? Sure seems like it.
Yes. As long as it's something negative about the US Nessie supports it.
__________________
"My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky
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 13th November 2012, 05:55 PM   #177
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 53,776
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
Can anyone answer why private gun sales should be exempt from instant background checks and registration?
Private sellers don't have the means. And would you give your Social Security number etc to some guy you found in the classified ads?
WildCat 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 13th November 2012, 05:58 PM   #178
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 5,686
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I only took a brief look at your link, it all seems to be correct, but "serious hoops" is a broad term to say the least. I make title ii firearms as a hobby and feel that the paperwork is easy. I have never heard of the BATFE denying approval to buy or make an NFA firearm as long as the forms were filled out correctly. I misspelled my name one time and forgot to sign another application, both were approved.

The ATF form 1 (to make) and the ATF form 4 (to buy) are very easy to fill out; if you can fill out the 1040EZ for your taxes, then you can fill out the application to pay the $200 making or tranfer tax. If you are an individual, you also have to include your mugshot and finger prints as well as getting the local sheriff to sign the application. You certify yourself as a legal resident with form 5320.20. Other than the sheriff's signature, it is child's play if you ask me. 14 tax stamps and no denials yet.

It is easier and cheaper to buy a (one) machine gun with the ATF form 4 vs obtaining a license if you ask me. Only those who deal, import or manufacture as a business need the license, the rest of us hobbists are usually better off using the tax stamp application on each one.

Ranb
Except for those of us who reside in states where individuals are generally denied access to NFA weapons and devices.

In California, it's either have a legit out-of-state property in an NFA state, or a SOT and the state MG dealer license.

Pre 5-19-86 that made a bunch of sense
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 13th November 2012, 05:58 PM   #179
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The South!
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by stokes234 View Post
Well, if we're talking about a hypothetical scenario where any of this is politically achievable, then my proposal would be:
This 'aught to be good.....

Originally Posted by stokes234 View Post
1. Ban handguns, submachine guns, assault rifles and any concealable guns.
Well, there's this pesky problem of the US 2nd Amendment. It states pretty clearly that the right to the people of the US to own FIREARMS shall NOT be infringed.

So, there goes that idea.


Originally Posted by stokes234 View Post
2. Require a national electronic register (accessible only to police) of everyone who owns a legal gun such as a rifle or shotgun,
Why? What will this do?

Originally Posted by stokes234 View Post
require a background check before anyone in the country can buy a gun,
Already required, with a few exceptions. One being private sellers.

Originally Posted by stokes234 View Post
require people to report it if their gun is lost or stolen.
Already a requirement in most states. But, I'm not opposed to this law at all. I think it's a great law, because now a stolen gun is semi-traceable.

Originally Posted by stokes234 View Post
3. Make it so breaking either of these laws carries a prison sentence of a few years (i'm not usually a fan of harsh sentences, but from what I hear, the 5-year automatic jail sentence for possession of a handgun worked well in London).
2 years for not reporting your gun stolen? Seems pretty harsh....


Originally Posted by stokes234 View Post
4. Announce firing any guns from point 1. to be illegal, but declare a 2-year amnesty on owning them to allow everyone time to hand them in.
Laughable!! Do you realize the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to own all 18 handguns I own????


Originally Posted by stokes234 View Post
5. Enforce these laws with prejudice, and allow a good 30 or 40 years before availability of guns is down to a reasonable level.


Originally Posted by stokes234 View Post
I'm not saying it's an easy solution -
It's an impossible solution, as it GREATLY affects the LEGAL, RESPONSIBLE gun owners, and punishes NOT ONE CRIMINAL. It just makes MORE criminals out of people like myself who very much enjoy guns, and have many of them.


Originally Posted by stokes234 View Post
it would take a long time before guns were hard enough to come by that criminal gangs wouldn't be automaticaly expected to have them,
Or, maybe we can punish the gang bangers who have illegal guns???? HOLY ******* ******!! How goddamn logical is THAT!! Get caught with a gun, illegally, 10 years. That'll get their attention pretty quick. 2 strikes-20 years. 3-rd strike= Life.


Originally Posted by stokes234 View Post
and the actual process of taking guns away from people would likely be quite dangerous for police,
Well, not so much dangerous, but deadly. Do you realize how many people would have NO problem shooting anyone who is from the government coming to take their guns? I guarantee THOUSANDS of officers would be dead in 3 months time.

Originally Posted by stokes234 View Post
but I think that in the long term it would pay off in terms of reducing the gang problems and high murder rate in the US compared to the rest of the western world.
Yeah, that's the ticket. Make more criminals, instead of punishing the criminals who ignore the laws anyway......

BTW...

click here, zoom in.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nstitution.jpg

That right there pretty much blows your entire silly plan out of the water....
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 13th November 2012, 06:01 PM   #180
Kestrel
Illuminator
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,844
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Private sellers don't have the means. And would you give your Social Security number etc to some guy you found in the classified ads?
How about concluding the sale at a licensed dealers shop? The dealer gets a small fee and a customer that probably needs other items. The seller is relieved of all responsibility for vetting the buyer.
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 13th November 2012, 06:07 PM   #181
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The South!
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
Can anyone answer why private gun sales should be exempt from instant background checks and registration?
I don't have an issue with this personally. But, I think the argument is that it's none of the governments business what I do with my private property.

I wouldn't be opposed to having to make the sale through a FFL dealer with a small fee. Like, less than $10 small.
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 13th November 2012, 06:37 PM   #182
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 5,686
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Cut off the supply of guns to criminals by introducing compulsory background checks and licensing of people who want to have guns. Maintain a register of all guns. Have a gun amnesty where people can hand in guns with no questions asked followed by a campaign to seize illegally held guns.

It will take time though since there are more guns in the USA per head than anywhere else in the world

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...-homicides-map

I suspect none of that will happen as so many will object to giving information to the government about what guns they have.
Canada tried it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry

After $2 billion or so with -0- benefit, and four or so years of amnesty for registration, the government called it a day and scrapped the whole scheme.

In 1968, as part of the Gun Control Act, a 60 day amnesty program for registration of machine guns and assorted National Firearms Act weapons and devices resulted in the registration of 57,223 weapons and/or devices.

NFA weapons and devices are the only firearms currently subject to federal registration - and the BATFE can't even keep accurate records of the weapons and devices in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record:

http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/CRSmemoNFRTR0001.pdf

IIRC, there are somewhere around 180,000 registered transferable MG's in the US, throw in everything else (Suppressors, Destructive Devices, short barreled rifles and shotguns, Any Other Weapon) and that might double that number, and BATFE can't even keep those few numbers straight:

http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/Criti...8IGreports.pdf

http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/1999statement.pdf

The below letter to ATF NFTR in 2007 is interesting, as the company in possession had their paperwork in order, but the NFTR had no record of the weapon in question - lucky for PARS he had his ducks in a row.

http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/ParsLetter2007.pdf

I doubt any total registration scheme would work any better than the Canadian model or our current NFTR

ETA - I believe our foriegn posters are missing something else about about registration as a crime fighting tool - Felons are exempt from registration and perjury related to completing 4473 forms etc.

Fifth Amendent precludes self incrimination.

Last edited by BStrong; 13th November 2012 at 06:40 PM.
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 13th November 2012, 06:59 PM   #183
Kestrel
Illuminator
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,844
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
ETA - I believe our foriegn posters are missing something else about about registration as a crime fighting tool - Felons are exempt from registration and perjury related to completing 4473 forms etc.

Fifth Amendent precludes self incrimination.
The claim that felons are exempt from perjury charges is pure BS.
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 13th November 2012, 07:02 PM   #184
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA
Posts: 4,534
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
So it is a violent state with easy access to guns, that is a recipe for disaster.
A murder rate of .004% is disaster? Wow, your standards for "disaster" are pretty low.
__________________
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 13th November 2012, 07:06 PM   #185
DDWW
Muse
 
DDWW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 597
Just two points folks; sorry if these have been brought up already.

1. Felons cannot be charged with failure to register a firearm.

2. How are you going to pay for all the guns you ban? Banning/confiscating firearms (anything of value) for the public good, is considered a "taking" under the fifth amendment. Compensation must be made. Same as taking property from landowners “for the public good”.

OK, Carry on.

DDWW
DDWW 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 13th November 2012, 07:31 PM   #186
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 5,686
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
The claim that felons are exempt from perjury charges is pure BS.
You're correct, I was thinking of Entrapment by Estoppel.

Any comment about felons not being subject to criminal charges for failing to register a firearm?
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 13th November 2012, 07:35 PM   #187
Courier
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,237
All of those events were committed using legally owned guns. They all went through background checks, showing they had no criminal record or a reason why they would be forbidden from owning firearms.
Courier 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 14th November 2012, 12:29 AM   #188
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 10,550
Originally Posted by stokes234 View Post
Well, if we're talking about a hypothetical scenario where any of this is politically achievable, then my proposal would be:

1. Ban handguns, submachine guns, assault rifles and any concealable guns.
2. Require a national electronic register (accessible only to police) of everyone who owns a legal gun such as a rifle or shotgun, require a background check before anyone in the country can buy a gun, require people to report it if their gun is lost or stolen.
3. Make it so breaking either of these laws carries a prison sentence of a few years (i'm not usually a fan of harsh sentences, but from what I hear, the 5-year automatic jail sentence for possession of a handgun worked well in London).
4. Announce firing any guns from point 1. to be illegal, but declare a 2-year amnesty on owning them to allow everyone time to hand them in.
5. Enforce these laws with prejudice, and allow a good 30 or 40 years before availability of guns is down to a reasonable level.

I'm not saying it's an easy solution - it would take a long time before guns were hard enough to come by that criminal gangs wouldn't be automaticaly expected to have them, and the actual process of taking guns away from people would likely be quite dangerous for police, but I think that in the long term it would pay off in terms of reducing the gang problems and high murder rate in the US compared to the rest of the western world.
I agree, and in particular with respect to the timescales involved.

In the United States there isn't sufficient appetite for gun control. The number of deaths by firearm is viewed as an acceptable price for the right to own and use guns - in the same way that the number of road deaths is a acceptable price for the right to use automobiles.
The Don 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 14th November 2012, 12:39 AM   #189
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London ish
Posts: 4,885
You guys don't need gun control, you need bullet control.

The proliferation of legal firearms means that there are literally bins of bullets available for the illegal ones.

Guns don't kill people. Bullets do.
__________________
Eviscerate the delusional.
3point14 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 14th November 2012, 03:11 AM   #190
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Not America.
Posts: 5,177
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
How does the US domestic gun market represent the whole of America? I have differentiated from Americans who don't have guns by calling it the domestic gun market.

No back pedal, just making clear what I thought was already clear.
1. Probable Freudian Slip.
2. You were not clear. You implied that the US was somehow responsible for what the domestic gun market does.
3. If they're trafficking internationally, then they are, by definition, an international market.

Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
This does little to stop criminals from stealing firearms.

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Maintain a register of all guns.
Still does nothing about the guns that are already in private hands whose owners refuse to register.


So how does this campaign work? Police raids on home suspected to contain unregistered firearms?

Ranb
Wouldn't that be in violation of the Constitution, and not just the Second Amendment?
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 14th November 2012, 03:25 AM   #191
Hercules Rockefeller
Graduate Poster
 
Hercules Rockefeller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Ponylandistan
Posts: 1,828
Fix poverty and all crime rates will drop.
__________________
Quantum physics means that anything can happen at anytime and for no reason. Also, eat plenty of oatmeal, and animals never had a war! - Deepak Chopra
Hercules Rockefeller 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 14th November 2012, 05:18 AM   #192
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 5,686
Originally Posted by stokes234 View Post
Well, if we're talking about a hypothetical scenario where any of this is politically achievable, then my proposal would be:

1. Ban handguns, submachine guns, assault rifles and any concealable guns.
2. Require a national electronic register (accessible only to police) of everyone who owns a legal gun such as a rifle or shotgun, require a background check before anyone in the country can buy a gun, require people to report it if their gun is lost or stolen.
3. Make it so breaking either of these laws carries a prison sentence of a few years (i'm not usually a fan of harsh sentences, but from what I hear, the 5-year automatic jail sentence for possession of a handgun worked well in London).
4. Announce firing any guns from point 1. to be illegal, but declare a 2-year amnesty on owning them to allow everyone time to hand them in.
5. Enforce these laws with prejudice, and allow a good 30 or 40 years before availability of guns is down to a reasonable level.

I'm not saying it's an easy solution - it would take a long time before guns were hard enough to come by that criminal gangs wouldn't be automaticaly expected to have them, and the actual process of taking guns away from people would likely be quite dangerous for police, but I think that in the long term it would pay off in terms of reducing the gang problems and high murder rate in the US compared to the rest of the western world.
Better read this first.

Imagining Gun Control in America, understanding the remainder problem, Wake Forest Law Review

http://wakeforestlawreview.com/imagi...ainder-problem

Best case scenario based on registration/surrender number experiences in jurisdictions and countries that have banned firearms, a 400 year supply of firearms and ammo would be retained by civilians in the US, regardless of law.

Please note: not an NRA or pro-gun publication or author.
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 14th November 2012, 05:30 AM   #193
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 5,686
Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller View Post
Fix poverty and all crime rates will drop.
In part, yes.

There are three major metro areas in the general geographic are where I live.

Two of them have high crime in general, and one of those two has a high murder rate.

The third doesn't have either of thos problems, with like demographics.

The two high crime metros have highly politicized LEA's with the CLEO chosen by the Mayor and board of supervisors more for like liberal attitudes and "policing" policies and practices than for ability.

In one of those two metros, the CLEO is not only facing that, they need to deal with a city administration that in part has worked against enforcement in many instances, up to and including contacting family members to warn them of impending enforcement actions (anti-gang and drug warrant service)

The third metro, that has none of those problems and a CLEO chosen for ability. and the only real problem the local agency faces is budgeting limitations.

poverty isn't that only factor that allows crime to flourish.
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 14th November 2012, 05:54 AM   #194
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA
Posts: 4,534
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
In part, yes.

There are three major metro areas in the general geographic are where I live.

Two of them have high crime in general, and one of those two has a high murder rate.

The third doesn't have either of thos problems, with like demographics.

The two high crime metros have highly politicized LEA's with the CLEO chosen by the Mayor and board of supervisors more for like liberal attitudes and "policing" policies and practices than for ability.

In one of those two metros, the CLEO is not only facing that, they need to deal with a city administration that in part has worked against enforcement in many instances, up to and including contacting family members to warn them of impending enforcement actions (anti-gang and drug warrant service)

The third metro, that has none of those problems and a CLEO chosen for ability. and the only real problem the local agency faces is budgeting limitations.

poverty isn't that only factor that allows crime to flourish.
How do you know this bolded part to be true? Someone has to select the Chief of Police, obviously, so how is it done to ensure that s/he is selected only by qualifications?
__________________
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 14th November 2012, 06:28 AM   #195
MortFurd
Graduate Poster
 
MortFurd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: An American in Germany
Posts: 1,980
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
The claim that felons are exempt from perjury charges is pure BS.
Exempt in the sense that they won't be filling out the forms in the first place. Never submit a form, you can't be charged with giving false information, no perjury.
MortFurd 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 14th November 2012, 06:49 AM   #196
Beady
Philosopher
 
Beady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: 44:57:19N, 73:16:18W
Posts: 5,503
Just a quick interjection, here, about the various amnesty programs notionally intended to "get guns off the street." My latest acquisition is a used S&W 5906 9mm semi-auto pistol with a 15-round magazine. According to the Blue Book of Gun Values, this handgun is favored by US law enforcement and the Mounties. Near the muzzle is "WPPD - 56"; apparently meaning something like this was at one time pistol #56 in the White Plains, New York, Police Department, and that it entered the public market when it was decommissioned for whatever reason. Short version, even the police don't have a problem with stocking the "public arsenal."
__________________
I tolerate with utmost latitude the right of others to differ with me in opinion without imputing to them criminality. I know too well all the weaknesses and uncertainty of human reason to wonder at its different results. -- Thomas Jefferson

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. -- Thomas Jefferson
Beady 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 14th November 2012, 06:57 AM   #197
Kestrel
Illuminator
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,844
Originally Posted by MortFurd View Post
Exempt in the sense that they won't be filling out the forms in the first place. Never submit a form, you can't be charged with giving false information, no perjury.
Licensed firearms dealers are required by law to have the buyer fill out the registration forms. If you don't fill out the form, you don't get the gun. Expanding that requirement to all sales makes it more difficult for a prohibited person to acquire a firearm. Just finding a private seller is not enough, you have to find a private seller willing to illegally sell a firearm that can be traced back to the seller.
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 14th November 2012, 06:57 AM   #198
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 5,686
Originally Posted by joesixpack View Post
How do you know this bolded part to be true? Someone has to select the Chief of Police, obviously, so how is it done to ensure that s/he is selected only by qualifications?
I'm a retired officer.

Lot's of shop talk goes on between professionals.

WRT the other two agencies in queation, the process to select a CLEO is so obvious that it is reported on extensively in the local media.

For the agency that hires on qualifications, the process doesn't make news - nothing there to report - they find a likely qualified candidate, and hire who they think can do the job best. No need for the applicant to publicly affirm that they are commited to civil rights, gender equality and the rights of the undocumented.

For the two agencies in question that require this of their CLEO's, the office is a revolving door.
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 14th November 2012, 07:21 AM   #199
Kestrel
Illuminator
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,844
Originally Posted by Courier View Post
All of those events were committed using legally owned guns. They all went through background checks, showing they had no criminal record or a reason why they would be forbidden from owning firearms.
The Columbine shooters acquired two rifles and a shotgun from private sellers at a gun show while under the legal age for buying from a federally licensed dealer. The fourth weapon was the illegal sale of a handgun set up at the same gun show.

The Virginia Tech shooter was known to be mentally ill by the courts, but that information never made it into the database used for instant checks. The shooters in Tucson and Aurora were also known to have mental health issues, but these never came to the attention of the court system. At least one Denver area gun shop turned away the Aurora shooter because he was acting so flaky.

In three of these four cases the background check system was not aware that the buyers had severe mental problems. Clearly there is room for improvement in this system.
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 14th November 2012, 07:53 AM   #200
MortFurd
Graduate Poster
 
MortFurd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: An American in Germany
Posts: 1,980
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
Licensed firearms dealers are required by law to have the buyer fill out the registration forms. If you don't fill out the form, you don't get the gun. Expanding that requirement to all sales makes it more difficult for a prohibited person to acquire a firearm. Just finding a private seller is not enough, you have to find a private seller willing to illegally sell a firearm that can be traced back to the seller.
What crook is going to fill out the forms on the gun he stole or bought from some other crook? That's what I'm getting at.
MortFurd 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 12:41 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.