What is sensible gun control, anyway? - Page 3

Skeptic Ginger · 19th December 2012, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

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.

Skeptic Ginger · 19th December 2012, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by uke2se

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.

GeeMack · 19th December 2012, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

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.

seycyrus · 19th December 2012, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

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

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

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.

CORed · 19th December 2012, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by Almo

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.

BStrong · 19th December 2012, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

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 · 19th December 2012, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

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.

NWO Sentryman · 19th December 2012, 12:01 PM

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/

CORed · 19th December 2012, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

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 · 19th December 2012, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by Ambrosia

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.

GeeMack · 19th December 2012, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by CORed

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.

SezMe · 19th December 2012, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by GeeMack

...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

... 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 · 19th December 2012, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by CORed

...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.

Nessie · 19th December 2012, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by GeeMack

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?

Polaris · 19th December 2012, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Nessie

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.

triforcharity · 19th December 2012, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

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

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

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 · 19th December 2012, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

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 · 19th December 2012, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by GeeMack

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 · 19th December 2012, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by Voodoosix

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 · 19th December 2012, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Nessie

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.

DJW · 19th December 2012, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman

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.

triforcharity · 19th December 2012, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I don't agree with your interpretation.

Doesn't matter. The USSC does.

Kestrel · 19th December 2012, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by BStrong

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.

triforcharity · 19th December 2012, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

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.

Ambrosia · 19th December 2012, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by CORed

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?

triforcharity · 19th December 2012, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by Ambrosia

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.

Sam.I.Am · 19th December 2012, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by Kestrel

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.

DJW · 19th December 2012, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

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.

GeeMack · 19th December 2012, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by Nessie

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?

Kestrel · 19th December 2012, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am

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.

Dr. Keith · 19th December 2012, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by BStrong

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.

Ranb · 19th December 2012, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by Kestrel

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

Dr. Keith · 19th December 2012, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by Ambrosia

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.

Sam.I.Am · 19th December 2012, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by Kestrel

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).

Kestrel · 19th December 2012, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by Ranb

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 · 19th December 2012, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am

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.

Sam.I.Am · 19th December 2012, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by Kestrel

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).

BStrong · 19th December 2012, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

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.

Skeptic Ginger · 19th December 2012, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by GeeMack

"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.

Skeptic Ginger · 19th December 2012, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by seycyrus

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.

19th December 2012, 10:00 AM	#81
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,628	Originally Posted by sgtbaker 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.)

19th December 2012, 10:04 AM	#82
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,628	Originally Posted by uke2se 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.)

19th December 2012, 11:41 AM	#84
seycyrus Thinker Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 134	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger 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 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 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 Thinker Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 134

19th December 2012, 11:46 AM	#85
CORed Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 4,293	Originally Posted by Almo 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 Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 4,293

19th December 2012, 12:01 PM	#88
NWO Sentryman Proud NWO Gatekeeper Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Quantum Gate to the NWO Posts: 3,776	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

19th December 2012, 10:11 AM	#83
GeeMack Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,187	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger 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.

19th December 2012, 11:47 AM	#86
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,829	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger 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.

19th December 2012, 11:51 AM	#87
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,829	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger 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.

19th December 2012, 12:08 PM	#89
CORed Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 4,293	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger 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 Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 4,293

19th December 2012, 12:20 PM	#90
CORed Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 4,293	Originally Posted by Ambrosia 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 Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 4,293

19th December 2012, 12:39 PM	#91
GeeMack Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,187	Originally Posted by CORed 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.

19th December 2012, 12:55 PM	#92
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,367	Originally Posted by GeeMack ...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 ... 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.

19th December 2012, 12:57 PM	#93
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,367	Originally Posted by CORed ...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.

19th December 2012, 01:04 PM	#94
Nessie Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch. Posts: 4,866	Originally Posted by GeeMack 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

19th December 2012, 01:18 PM	#95
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,171	Originally Posted by Nessie 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.
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,171	__________________ "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

19th December 2012, 01:55 PM	#96
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,239	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger 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 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 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....
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

19th December 2012, 01:58 PM	#97
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,239	Originally Posted by Dcdrac 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!!!
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

19th December 2012, 02:04 PM	#98
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,239	Originally Posted by GeeMack 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
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

19th December 2012, 02:10 PM	#99
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,239	Originally Posted by Voodoosix 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....
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

19th December 2012, 02:12 PM	#100
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,239	Originally Posted by Nessie 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.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

19th December 2012, 02:13 PM	#101
DJW Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 581	Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman 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.

19th December 2012, 02:17 PM	#102
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,239	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger I don't agree with your interpretation. Doesn't matter. The USSC does.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

19th December 2012, 02:18 PM	#103
Kestrel Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: DM79 Posts: 4,203	Originally Posted by BStrong 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.

19th December 2012, 02:20 PM	#104
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,239	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger 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.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

19th December 2012, 02:22 PM	#105
Ambrosia Good of the Fods Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,738	Originally Posted by CORed 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?

19th December 2012, 02:26 PM	#106
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,239	Originally Posted by Ambrosia 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.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

19th December 2012, 02:28 PM	#107
Sam.I.Am Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Hunting Moose and Squirrel Posts: 4,154	Originally Posted by Kestrel 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.

19th December 2012, 02:35 PM	#108
DJW Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 581	Originally Posted by triforcharity 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.

19th December 2012, 02:41 PM	#109
GeeMack Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,187	Originally Posted by Nessie 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?

19th December 2012, 02:41 PM	#110
Kestrel Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: DM79 Posts: 4,203	Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am 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.

19th December 2012, 02:45 PM	#111
Dr. Keith Not a doctor. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 3,251	Originally Posted by BStrong 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.
	__________________ shift key currently inoperative. sorry for the inconvenience. -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Jonah Baldwin: Talk to her, dad. She's a doctor. Sam Baldwin: Of what? Her first name could be Doctor. - Sleepless in Seattle

19th December 2012, 02:52 PM	#112
Ranb Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 4,115	Originally Posted by Kestrel 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

19th December 2012, 02:56 PM	#113
Dr. Keith Not a doctor. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 3,251	Originally Posted by Ambrosia 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.
	__________________ shift key currently inoperative. sorry for the inconvenience. -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Jonah Baldwin: Talk to her, dad. She's a doctor. Sam Baldwin: Of what? Her first name could be Doctor. - Sleepless in Seattle

19th December 2012, 03:06 PM	#114
Sam.I.Am Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Hunting Moose and Squirrel Posts: 4,154	Originally Posted by Kestrel 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.

19th December 2012, 03:15 PM	#115
Kestrel Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: DM79 Posts: 4,203	Originally Posted by Ranb 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.