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 19th December 2012, 10:00 AM   #81
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shifting through paradigms
Posts: 42,958
Originally Posted by sgtbaker View Post
I have a hard time formulating an opinion about gun control when I know so little about gun laws. With 17 threads spawned by the Newton shooting, already, I am not going to start another one but I am not sure where it belongs; I hope I am not derailing.

It has always been my understanding that to purchase a hand gun from a dealer, there is a waiting period and a background check, the details of the requirements will vary from state to state. Is this correct? In order to be able to carry your handgun, you must pass additional tests (I am not sure about the requirements) and some states have an outright ban on carrying. Is this correct? It is to my understanding, though, that buying rifles and shotguns are easier, as in, no background check, no license. Is this correct?
For some reason BStrong left off the fact one can buy a gun at a gun show, or from another person with no background check. The estimates I've heard are ~40% of guns in the US are purchased this way.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger 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 19th December 2012, 10:04 AM   #82
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shifting through paradigms
Posts: 42,958
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
How many crimes are averted each year by gun wielding citizens - excluding cops of course?
Very few so the gun owner apologists claim it's because we don't hear about the majority of such preventions.

There may be some truth to their apology, but it hardly changes the numbers.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger 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 19th December 2012, 10:11 AM   #83
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Not Bandiagara
Posts: 7,241
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Very few so the gun owner apologists claim it's because we don't hear about the majority of such preventions.

There may be some truth to their apology, but it hardly changes the numbers.

"Very few" isn't a number.
GeeMack 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 19th December 2012, 11:41 AM   #84
seycyrus
Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 134
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
There are plenty of conflicting ways to manipulate the stats out there. You can find whatever you want to support your preferred outcome.
No, the raw data does not support the argument when it is properly filtered. The fact that the data is intentionally misinterpreted is damning. There is a difference between intentional suicide and unintentional shooting.
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
The depressed teen who kills himself with his parent's gun is just as dead as the kid killed in the shooting on the high school football field.
If we want to completely remove the obvious differences between these two tragedies and merge them just because the end result is the same (a dead person) then it is disingenuous to separate gun death from knife deaths or automobile deaths or fire deaths or ...<whatever>. Dead is dead, right?

But no, we are trying to be a little bit more honest than that aren't we? Circumstances matter.
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I work and am educated in the medical field. In medicine you weigh risk vs benefit and only in some circumstances, some neighborhoods, is it safer to own a gun than to not own one.
No, the data shows that *unless* you are suicidal, it is safer to own a gun than to not own one.
seycyrus 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 19th December 2012, 11:46 AM   #85
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 5,049
Originally Posted by Almo View Post
For me, good gun control would treat them in the same manner as cars. It shouldn't be easier to get a gun than it is a car. Ostensibly the car regulations are for safety, so why shouldn't guns have the same kind of restriction? People can get cars if they want them, they should be able to get guns if they want them. But not without going through some paperwork.
"Gun nuts", for lack of a better term, are highly suspicious of any kind of licensing and registration scheme, out of fear that it would facilitate confiscation at a later time. This is not, IMO irrational. If a list exists somewhere of who owns guns and which guns, it would certainly make it easier to confiscate them if in the future it is decided to ban them outright.

OTOH, I don't think this is a good enough reason not to require licensing and training to own a firearm. While I don't really think licensing and training would prevent mass shootings, it would likely put a substantial dent in the number of idiotic gun accidents.
CORed 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 19th December 2012, 11:47 AM   #86
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 5,678
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
If dealers can sell then half the equation is out of law enforcement's hands. If people can legally buy and the only law they are breaking is moving that gun illegally, that is a different threshold for people. If they have to go to the black market to buy, that is a different threshold and many many fewer people cross that threshold.


I don't agree with your interpretation.


SG - it's illegal for the dealers to sell also - and they know it -at this point, if an individual from California even walks into a gunstore in Nevada and attempts to buy anything, they get the 86 and a load of verbal abuse on the side.

This is the only legal way to do it for a Californian buying a firearm in another state. Individual buys from FFL dealer. Dealer ships firearm to FFL dealer in California, buyer does all paperwork and background check and ten day waiting period in California - no person to person sales allowed w/o going through a California FFL dealer with all associated paperwork and BG checks.

Better read the SC decision in Heller v. DC - a blanket ban on firearms across the board is exactly what they found unconstitutional.

The Macdonald v. Chicago decision incorporated Heller onto the states.
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 19th December 2012, 11:51 AM   #87
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 5,678
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
For some reason BStrong left off the fact one can buy a gun at a gun show, or from another person with no background check. The estimates I've heard are ~40% of guns in the US are purchased this way.
Hey SG - go back and read what I posted in my proposal - all sales through an FFL dealer with a NICS background check.

The law currently allows individuals to sell their lawfully owned firearms to other individuals, unless state law (such as California's) restrict it. In California such a sale must be made through an FFL dealer.

"Gun Shows" in this context is nothing but a buzz word, individuals in areas that allow it can sell their firearm on the side of the road if they so choose. I'm not defending the practice, I'm explaining it.
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 19th December 2012, 12:01 PM   #88
NWO Sentryman
Proud NWO Gatekeeper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Quantum Gate to the NWO
Posts: 5,058
Interesting article form Salon which does highlight a problem in analysing the effectiveness of gun control:
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_...n_gun_science/
__________________
If I now say "dominoes", you won't think "pizza". Will you? - FireGarden on the Middle East
NWO Sentryman 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 19th December 2012, 12:08 PM   #89
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 5,049
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Seriously? This data is gun facts 101.

Take your pick: from the Google search for: gun in home more likely to kill family

Naturally there are many deniers in the mix. So be my guest and deny the facts from all the reliable medical sources. I'm not going to bother with this argument since deniers are never going to look at the actual data.

I will come right out and admit my bias. I consider the CDC and other medical data collection sources to be more reliable than gun apologist web sources.



The problem with any local gun regulations, be they city, county or state is that anyone can just go buy their guns elsewhere and take them to the place the guns are banned. To be effective a ban has to be federal.
A federal gun ban will make all the guns disappear just like federal drug bans have made all the drugs disappear.
CORed 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 19th December 2012, 12:20 PM   #90
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 5,049
Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
A week ago I'd have disagreed with you on machine guns. Over the past few days I have done some googling, and a little other research. Now I am a little more knowledgeable, and would agree with all of your suggestions.

Seems like a reasonable set of regs to me.

Why anyone might want to own a machine gun remains beyond me. given proper training/storage etc if an individual has a good reason to own one though I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to own one.

I do still like the idea of magazine capacity restrictions, though if there are good reasons not to have them then perhaps I'm wrong there.
The problem I see with magazine capacity restrictions is enforcement. Yes, if you could really eliminate high capacity magazines, it would probably reduce the death toll in some mass shooting situations. It would at least give survivors a chance to rush the shooter while he was reloading. The trouble is, a magazine is a very simple device. In most cases, it is just a metal box with a spring inside. Anybody with rudimentary fabricating skills can make one.

The driving force behind people advocating gun bans is much the same as that behind drug laws: The irrational belief that anything deemed undesirable can be legislated out of existence. I wouldn't necessarily oppose restrictions on magazine capacity. It is one thing that does have a bearing on the capacity for destruction of a weapon. I just don't really expect it to do a lot of good.
CORed 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 19th December 2012, 12:39 PM   #91
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Not Bandiagara
Posts: 7,241
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
A federal gun ban will make all the guns disappear just like federal drug bans have made all the drugs disappear.

I'm required to keep records of all the guns I've sold to private individuals for seven years. Oddly enough, I sold my last gun just a couple months more than seven years ago. I just shredded and disposed of the legal paperwork last month. And it's been so long I can't for the life of me remember the names of the people I sold them to. Love to help you if I could. Thanks for stopping by.
GeeMack 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 19th December 2012, 12:55 PM   #92
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 17,873
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
...The gun controls are such that several seemingly benign activities we choose to participate in present a greater risk of injury or death than guns, gun owners, or gun oriented activities.
I'm interested in your describing some of those activities that are more dangerous.

Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
... At what point should the scared people be expected to take responsibility for their own fear?
I find this to be quite condescending. It implies that people who favor greater gun controls are motivated just by their fears. BS.
SezMe 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 19th December 2012, 12:57 PM   #93
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 17,873
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
...The trouble is, a magazine is a very simple device. In most cases, it is just a metal box with a spring inside. Anybody with rudimentary fabricating skills can make one.
That may be true, but just because someone can find a way around some law does not imply that the law is ineffective.
SezMe 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 19th December 2012, 01:04 PM   #94
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 7,925
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
It might help you avoid such severe misunderstandings if you'd read the entire discussion.
You think the fear is with those who want more gun control.

"There's an issue here that the gun opponents seem reluctant to address. At what point should the scared people be expected to take responsibility for their own fear? We already have regulations that accommodate their fear but have little objective rationale. For example, the idea of banning "assault weapons" is specifically designed to assuage the fear of people who don't understand guns, the machinery itself, the existing regulations, or the social dynamics that might put them at risk. The term "assault weapon" is intentionally loaded to work on the fearful."

I say a person who feels the need for an assault weapon is the one living in fear. The imaginary fear of a tyrannical government, mass attack on their home and crime in general. Or do they need them to shoot ducks?
__________________
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 19th December 2012, 01:18 PM   #95
Polaris
Philosopher
 
Polaris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,841
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
You think the fear is with those who want more gun control.

"There's an issue here that the gun opponents seem reluctant to address. At what point should the scared people be expected to take responsibility for their own fear? We already have regulations that accommodate their fear but have little objective rationale. For example, the idea of banning "assault weapons" is specifically designed to assuage the fear of people who don't understand guns, the machinery itself, the existing regulations, or the social dynamics that might put them at risk. The term "assault weapon" is intentionally loaded to work on the fearful."

I say a person who feels the need for an assault weapon is the one living in fear. The imaginary fear of a tyrannical government, mass attack on their home and crime in general. Or do they need them to shoot ducks?
I want to have a small number of semi-automatic rifles as collector's pieces to take to a range and shoot at targets. I don't fear a tyrannical government, mass attack on my home or crime in general (and I've been robbed several times in the last few years, as well as sucker punched by a meth head who'd been caught shoplifting by a store clerk).

Funny you mention shooting ducks. After the 94 AWB, Clinton was photographed hunting ducks with a Benelli semi-automatic shotgun that was banned as an "assault weapon" by the very bill he signed.

In case I have an intruder in the house, that's what my shotgun is for.
__________________
"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

"Roy Moore of Alabama. The world would absolutely benefit by him being run over by any vehicle." - Lowpro
Polaris 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 19th December 2012, 01:55 PM   #96
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The South!
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Seriously? This data is gun facts 101.

Take your pick: from the Google search for: gun in home more likely to kill family

Naturally there are many deniers in the mix. So be my guest and deny the facts from all the reliable medical sources. I'm not going to bother with this argument since deniers are never going to look at the actual data.
Thank you. And yes, I did read a few of your linked articles. Some good, some horrible. However, here's the problem. As with just about any study I've seen, it takes a small area, and tries to extrapolate that data to try to fit the nation as a whole.

Not to mention that self defense laws vary from state to state, so what may be considered legal self defense in one state, is not in another.

The stats, while they may be accurate, only apply to that small area.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I will come right out and admit my bias. I consider the CDC and other medical data collection sources to be more reliable than gun apologist web sources.
Fair enough. I consider groups like the Brady group to be tyrannical $## hats who are hell bent on taking my rights away.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
The problem with any local gun regulations, be they city, county or state is that anyone can just go buy their guns elsewhere and take them to the place the guns are banned. To be effective a ban has to be federal.
That's your excuse? More gun laws for people to break? How does that solve a problem? Seems like Chicago should be a pretty safe place, according to your 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 19th December 2012, 01:58 PM   #97
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The South!
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by Dcdrac View Post
Making ownership of guns taxaeable with an incrementing scale according to how the powerful they are the more powerful and capable they are the highter the tax you pay.

still have the right to bear arms jsut expect to pay more for it.
How many times are you going to suggest this, while ignoring the many times I've replied to this nonsense.

We already pay higher taxes, as the guns that are more powerful, cost more.

Did you miss that?

We.

Already

Do.

Remember my .50 cal ammo? 3.70 PER ROUND!!!
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 19th December 2012, 02:04 PM   #98
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The South!
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
Is there any objective rationale for that suggestion?
Yes.

We already do.

Perhaps it's time to read up on the NFA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
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 19th December 2012, 02:10 PM   #99
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The South!
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by Voodoosix View Post
why not treat them as we do cars?

must posses valid gun owners license, like a drivers license- pass test (written and range) plus extensive background check
(id like to see psych eval too).

mandatory gun liability insurance (price commensurate with owner's qualifications, exp, and type of and number of guns)

yearly reg fee (like a license plate) for each gun owned.

huge fines penalties for possessing non reg/ins guns, severe punishment for using gun while a committing a crime (and for not filing transfer of ownership paperwork or not reporting a gun as stolen in a reasonable amount of time). if a gun reg to you is used by someone else to commit a crime you are responsible/liable as well.




hell we can fix the economy while were at it


(ps. im a gun owner)
I disagree with most of what you've suggested. I've hilited the only portion I agree with.

WRT: Insurance of my guns: My guns aren't the problem. It's the illegally held weapons that criminals use that are the biggest problem. And they aren't getting insurance.

I may be willing to go with the yearly renewal, if the price was reasonable. Like say, $1 or less per gun, per year.

The bolded is ABSURD, and quite possibly a violation of my rights....
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 19th December 2012, 02:12 PM   #100
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The South!
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Who is more scared, the person who does not feel the need for a gun to defend them self or the person who does feel the need for a gun to defend them self? I say the latter, it the gun owners who are scared, they are the ones behaving like little kids seeing bogeymen in the night.
This *********** load of **** again? When are you EVER going to *********** learn? Is there something that prevents you from learning? Is it something in that **** water you're drinking in Scotland? WTF man???? Seriously???

You're an ignorant fool if you actually believe I'm scared and need a gun. Some may be. However, the vast majority are not, your ignorance notwithstanding.
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 19th December 2012, 02:13 PM   #101
DJW
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman View Post
Interesting article form Salon which does highlight a problem in analysing the effectiveness of gun control:
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_...n_gun_science/
Google "kellerman study debunked" or "kellerman study discredited" for a little perspective on Dr. Kellerman and the effectiveness of analysing gun control given the politicization of the data being collected.

The Salon article doesn't even mention the credibility issues surrounding Kellerman which provoked the Republicans that the article denounced.

We won't ever get sensible gun control if we don't have legitimate, unbiased data from which to work off of.
DJW 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 19th December 2012, 02:17 PM   #102
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The South!
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I don't agree with your interpretation.
Doesn't matter. The USSC does.
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 19th December 2012, 02:18 PM   #103
Kestrel
Illuminator
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,830
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Hey SG - go back and read what I posted in my proposal - all sales through an FFL dealer with a NICS background check.

The law currently allows individuals to sell their lawfully owned firearms to other individuals, unless state law (such as California's) restrict it. In California such a sale must be made through an FFL dealer.

"Gun Shows" in this context is nothing but a buzz word, individuals in areas that allow it can sell their firearm on the side of the road if they so choose. I'm not defending the practice, I'm explaining it.
California did the right thing by requiring all sales to be processed through a dealer. Arizona doesn't bother, providing a ready source of firearms that can be purchased for cash with no questions asked. Really convenient if your business is selling handguns to gang bangers and you don't want a paper trail pointing to you when these guns are found on 16 year old ghetto kids. And since there are no border controls between Arizona and California, these guns can easily find their way to the streets of Los Angeles.
Kestrel 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 19th December 2012, 02:20 PM   #104
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The South!
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Very few so the gun owner apologists claim it's because we don't hear about the majority of such preventions.

There may be some truth to their apology, but it hardly changes the numbers.
Really? Few? You're kidding me right now, aren't you?

http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/pol...1bd1601cf.html

http://www.news-herald.com/articles/...1820589340.txt

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Hom...174633151.html

There's three different ones. There are most likely THOUSANDS more.

And these are just the ones that the intruder was killed. This doesn't include the thousands of others that you won't hear about, because it wasn't reported by the news.
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 19th December 2012, 02:22 PM   #105
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
 
Ambrosia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,747
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
The problem I see with magazine capacity restrictions is enforcement. [...] a magazine is a very simple device.
So while such a law might actually be a good one on paper - in practical application it's so unenforceable as to be worthless?
Ambrosia 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 19th December 2012, 02:26 PM   #106
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The South!
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
So while such a law might actually be a good one on paper - in practical application it's so unenforceable as to be worthless?
Yeah, for the most part. It makes something illegal to manufacture, but does nothing about the ones already in existence and purchased legally. All it does is drive up the price of the existing ones.
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 19th December 2012, 02:28 PM   #107
Sam.I.Am
Illuminator
 
Sam.I.Am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hunting Moose and Squirrel
Posts: 4,407
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
California did the right thing by requiring all sales to be processed through a dealer. Arizona doesn't bother, providing a ready source of firearms that can be purchased for cash with no questions asked. Really convenient if your business is selling handguns to gang bangers and you don't want a paper trail pointing to you when these guns are found on 16 year old ghetto kids. And since there are no border controls between Arizona and California, these guns can easily find their way to the streets of Los Angeles.
Arizona gun dealers (all states in fact) do have to follow federal law so there is a paper trail and a waiting period involved. Even the "Fast and Furious" scandal has a paper trail associated with it.
__________________
"Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"...

About my avatar.
Sam.I.Am 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 19th December 2012, 02:35 PM   #108
DJW
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
Yeah, for the most part. It makes something illegal to manufacture, but does nothing about the ones already in existence and purchased legally. All it does is drive up the price of the existing ones.
I mentioned somewhere else in one of these threads that it did more than just make the mags more expensive. I think there were a lot of unintended consequences from the AWB--like my Paraord P-10. I don't think the industry would have created a really small .45 ACP with a 10+1 capacity otherwise.

A lot of concerted effort is necessary to create sensible gun control law, so we're doomed.
DJW 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 19th December 2012, 02:41 PM   #109
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Not Bandiagara
Posts: 7,241
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
You think the fear is with those who want more gun control.

You have repeatedly demonstrated a lack of awareness of many of the issues under discussion. But why don't you start with this... What do you suppose is the primary motivation for the people who want other people to have less guns or no guns, or who want to otherwise restrict people's access to guns?

Quote:
I say a person who feels the need for an assault weapon is the one living in fear.

Your apparent misunderstanding of the term "assault weapon" is noted. Please do pay more attention.

Quote:
The imaginary fear of a tyrannical government, mass attack on their home and crime in general. Or do they need them to shoot ducks?

Do you have anything you don't need? If you list your personal possessions here and other people decide you don't need some of them, are you willing to just discard them? Do you feel it's appropriate to choose your possessions, your hobbies, your interests, the ways you choose to make your life safer, more pleasant, more fun, or more interesting based on other people's assessment of your needs?
GeeMack 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 19th December 2012, 02:41 PM   #110
Kestrel
Illuminator
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,830
Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am View Post
Arizona gun dealers (all states in fact) do have to follow federal law so there is a paper trail and a waiting period involved. Even the "Fast and Furious" scandal has a paper trail associated with it.


It might be nice if people actually read the thread before posting comments.

We were talking about private party sales being exempt from the background checks required when a firearm is sold by a licensed dealer. California mandates background checks on all firearms sales, Arizona doesn't. When you buy from a private party in Arizona no paper trail is created.

It's not a hard concept to understand, and the problem with exempting priviate sales should be obvious.
Kestrel 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 19th December 2012, 02:45 PM   #111
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,420
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
From my pov based on my training and experience, if I were put in charge of revamping firearms laws across the board this is what I'd do - warning - there will something guaranteed to piss off everyone. . . .
As others have said, I think those are all good ideas. I'd throw in the later idea regarding liability insurance: you have a gun you must insure it. My reason is that insurance companies will be better at making sure that they only insure low risk people and that people in higher risk environments will have to put up more protection around their guns. I'm not a libertarian, but insurance does have a place in encouraging people to do things that are good for us all.

Also, why do we have to remove suicides from the gun death statistics? It is far harder to commit suicide without a gun. (See sidebar re: knife attacks in Asia for similar reasoning) It is certainly possible, but it is harder. So, guns have made that death more likely, why should we not count that as a cost of having easy access to guns?

All costs on one side, all benefits on the other. Then we can look at changes that reduce the costs without infringing on the benefits.
Dr. Keith 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 19th December 2012, 02:52 PM   #112
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 5,147
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
We were talking about private party sales being exempt from the background checks required when a firearm is sold by a licensed dealer.
So where is this law that exempts private sales from the background check? Are you saying that there is a law that says all sales are subject to a background check then goes on to say that private sales are exempt?

There is no such law, or can you prove otherwise?

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 19th December 2012, 02:56 PM   #113
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,420
Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
So while such a law might actually be a good one on paper - in practical application it's so unenforceable as to be worthless?
Except that I have only rarely ever seen a pump or auto shotgun free of the hunting plug in Texas. Sure, there are those who don't hunt, but during hunting season you don't want to be caught with an unplugged gun so everyone has a plug, even if the gun is primarily used for other purposes. And plugs are dirt simple devices and pretty easy to remove with a little knowledge.

I mean who cares that you are limited to three shots instead of five.

My sample size may be skewed by the fact that most of my gun usage is in very prime bird hunting areas of the state.

So clips could be registered, with a serial number.
Dr. Keith 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 19th December 2012, 03:06 PM   #114
Sam.I.Am
Illuminator
 
Sam.I.Am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hunting Moose and Squirrel
Posts: 4,407
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post


It might be nice if people actually read the thread before posting comments.

We were talking about private party sales being exempt from the background checks required when a firearm is sold by a licensed dealer. California mandates background checks on all firearms sales, Arizona doesn't. When you buy from a private party in Arizona no paper trail is created.

It's not a hard concept to understand, and the problem with exempting priviate sales should be obvious.
Private party sales at gun shows and the like are not 100% paper free. They are however allowed to walk away with the gun at the time of purchase once the background check clears (which is almost instantaneous today), that is the only difference. The federal paperwork and background checks still have to be done no matter where the sale occurs.

If the persons paperwork shows that they are from California (your example) then gun dealers will not sell the weapon because they know that the sale will cause them legal problems later on. If the buyer lies and says that the gun is for themselves and then turns around and sells it to a "Gang banger" then that person is the one breaking the law by lying on a federal document. He could do that in any state, including California.

California requires additional background checks, limits on how many weapons a day\week that you can purchase and a longer waiting period, that is what the loophole was. It was circumventing some state laws, not federal ones (outside of a waiting period which is legally waived for gun show purchases).
__________________
"Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"...

About my avatar.
Sam.I.Am 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 19th December 2012, 03:15 PM   #115
Kestrel
Illuminator
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,830
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
So where is this law that exempts private sales from the background check? Are you saying that there is a law that says all sales are subject to a background check then goes on to say that private sales are exempt?

There is no such law, or can you prove otherwise?

Ranb
The problem is explained here.

Quoting from the ATF FAQ:
Quote:
When a transaction takes place between private (unlicensed) persons who reside in the same State, the Gun Control Act (GCA) does not require any record keeping. A private person may sell a firearm to another private individual in his or her State of residence and, similarly, a private individual may buy a firearm from another private person who resides in the same State. It is not necessary under Federal law for a Federal firearms licensee (FFL) to assist in the sale or transfer when the buyer and seller are “same-State” residents. Of course, the transferor/seller may not knowingly transfer a firearm to someone who falls within any of the categories of prohibited persons contained in the GCA. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and (n). However, as stated above, there are no GCA-required records to be completed by either party to the transfer.

There may be State or local laws or regulations that govern this type of transaction. Contact State Police units or the office of your State Attorney General for information on any such requirements.
Kestrel 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 19th December 2012, 03:33 PM   #116
Kestrel
Illuminator
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,830
Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am View Post
Private party sales at gun shows and the like are not 100% paper free. They are however allowed to walk away with the gun at the time of purchase once the background check clears (which is almost instantaneous today), that is the only difference. The federal paperwork and background checks still have to be done no matter where the sale occurs.
Requiring background checks for private party sales is a function of state law. Federal law only requires background checks for licensed dealers. So the paperwork requirement varies by state. Arizona is one of the states that does not require background checks or any other paperwork for private sales including sales made at gun shows.
Kestrel 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 19th December 2012, 04:12 PM   #117
Sam.I.Am
Illuminator
 
Sam.I.Am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hunting Moose and Squirrel
Posts: 4,407
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
Requiring background checks for private party sales is a function of state law. Federal law only requires background checks for licensed dealers. So the paperwork requirement varies by state. Arizona is one of the states that does not require background checks or any other paperwork for private sales including sales made at gun shows.
You missed the part where the sale must be between two people living in the same state in which case the states laws must be followed. If the sale is between people from 2 different states then the gun must be shipped to a licensed dealer in the buyers state so that that states laws can be met before the buyer can take possesion. In other words there are already federal laws in place to cover the sale of firearms in Arizona to someone from California. While I have no doubt that there are people breaking these laws that doesn't mean that the laws don't already exist and doesn't mean that they will follow any new laws (in fact if anything it would indicate the opposite).
__________________
"Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"...

About my avatar.
Sam.I.Am 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 19th December 2012, 04:18 PM   #118
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 5,678
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
As others have said, I think those are all good ideas. I'd throw in the later idea regarding liability insurance: you have a gun you must insure it. My reason is that insurance companies will be better at making sure that they only insure low risk people and that people in higher risk environments will have to put up more protection around their guns. I'm not a libertarian, but insurance does have a place in encouraging people to do things that are good for us all.

Also, why do we have to remove suicides from the gun death statistics? It is far harder to commit suicide without a gun. (See sidebar re: knife attacks in Asia for similar reasoning) It is certainly possible, but it is harder. So, guns have made that death more likely, why should we not count that as a cost of having easy access to guns?

All costs on one side, all benefits on the other. Then we can look at changes that reduce the costs without infringing on the benefits.
I've gone through the liability insurance problem in another thread iirc, but I'll run it past the folks here, too.

In the jurisdiction I reside in, there is a requirement of a $1,000,000.00 liability insurance policy for concealed carry permit holders - essentially closing down the availability of carry permits for low income individuals (non-home owners)

There is already a civil action in preperation that will address this - however - I have always recommened to individuals in the strongest possible terms that if they are considering having a firearm for self defense, even if it's only in the home, they must consider the reality that in the event they use lethal force - even in complete compliance with the law, and even if no-billed by the grand jury - they can potentially find themselves on the receiving end of a civil suit that will bankrupt them, and subject them to a future of debt.

Having a good liability insurance policy can give the individual that finds themselves in that position a little breathing room, but I believe that any such mandate by the federal or state government would be problematic from a constitutional pov.

Believe me, I didn't just start to think about this issue on the 14th - this has been a subject of discussion in my cirle since the 1970's.
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 19th December 2012, 04:29 PM   #119
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shifting through paradigms
Posts: 42,958
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
"Very few" isn't a number.
Make one up, be my guest.

I know from past looks at this topic and the evidence that the number of documented prevented crimes is few and it is a relatively rare occurrence compared to the number of people killed with the gun from their own household.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 19th December 2012 at 04:30 PM.
Skeptic Ginger 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 19th December 2012, 04:31 PM   #120
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shifting through paradigms
Posts: 42,958
Originally Posted by seycyrus View Post
No, the raw data does not support the argument when it is properly filtered. The fact that the data is intentionally misinterpreted is damning. There is a difference between intentional suicide and unintentional shooting.

If we want to completely remove the obvious differences between these two tragedies and merge them just because the end result is the same (a dead person) then it is disingenuous to separate gun death from knife deaths or automobile deaths or fire deaths or ...<whatever>. Dead is dead, right?

But no, we are trying to be a little bit more honest than that aren't we? Circumstances matter.


No, the data shows that *unless* you are suicidal, it is safer to own a gun than to not own one.
I don't see your numbers or your source.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger 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 12:25 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.