How They Got Their Guns

No it is not worth it.

 

Guns were far easier to bring to school when I grew up. Knives weapons anything. Don't think anyone felt the need frankly.

So what's so different between the 80s and now?
Guns? Nope. They're the same. People? Hmmmm. I think we've got something. Family values? Ah hah. Drugging up kids? We're getting closer. Guns being demonized? That's something.

So logically it is harder to get a gun now. It's harder to get one in school. You're punished far worse for showing any violent tendencies now. Yet mass shooting have increased.

Is it the guns? Logically you would have to be a moron to think so.

 

In reality, it is the product of a concerted effort by the NRA to make it difficult for background checks to be done in many cases. The NRA actively lobbies on state and local levels to deprive law enforcement of funding for modern databases and personell to do this work.

They have been doing this for years, and they boast about their efforts on their website.

This has been going on ever since before the Brady Bill was passed, and it was clear that the NRA was going to lose its years long fight to prevent any sort of background checks for gun purchases. When they knew they weren't going to win that battle, the pivoted to trying to make the background checks laws weak and as unenforcable as posslble.

The real "hacks" are in a big glass building off I-66.

 

There are several things wrong with your straw man.

First, guns and gun violence have been an issue since the late 1960's.

Second, you must have been asleep when someone tried to kill Ronald Reagan, and put his press secretary James Brady in a wheelchair.

Passing the Brady bill (the one that requires background checks) was one of the biggest legislative battles of the decade. The NRA fought it tooth and nail, and when they didn't succeed totally, they decided to work the back rooms to make sure that assualt weapons ban, and background checks were as weak as possible (all the while yelling that all you need to do is enforce existing laws, laws that they worked hard to be sure were as weak as possible).

Drugs have also been a problem since the late 1960's.

As for guns. There are far more guns in the US now than there were then, and they're not the same. Few people even thought about owning an assault rifle, automatic or semi automatic weapon before then.

In the 1970's the big hue and cry was over the "Saturday Night Special", cheap 22 calibre pistols.

It's quite a different world in terms of guns today than it was then.

 

More "no funding" rhetoric crapola? How about between 2009 and 2011 when the Democrats owned Congress and the White House? They couldn't get it done then? They passed Obama care without a single Republican vote in that time frame. They couldn't pass the funding and changes for background checks then? Thanks, but no thanks.....you need to refrigerate that Red Herring it's starting to stink.

- - - Updated - - -

Table 10 Number of deaths from 113 selected causes, Enterocolitis due to Clostridium difficile, drug-induced causes, alcohol-induced causes, and injury by firearms, by age: United States, 2013

Accidental discharge of firearms (W32-W34) - 505
Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms (X72-X74) - 21,175
Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms (*U01.4,X93-X95) - 11,208
Discharge of firearms, undetermined intent (Y22-Y24) - 281

Total: 33,168

Drug-induced deaths (2,3): 46,471

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

There are 13,303 MORE drug induced deaths than folks dying as a result firearms. However, the left advocates a war on guns (restrictions and bans) and pushes to legalize drugs spending $10 billion to combat substance abuse 'epidemic'. So would you be in favor of removing gun laws and spending $10 billion on gun safety and mental health considering suicide it the largest cause of gun deaths? If not, why not be specific please.

 

The 2A guarantees them that right. The only viable answer is to identify them before they do it, strip them of their rights, and lock them away. We, in the "land of the free" cannot do that either. So, we have what we have: potentially violent people, at large in our society, with easy access to lethal weaponry (guns, bombs, gasoline, battery acid, knives, etc.)

Depends on the felony. Should a felon who was charged for building a house without a permit be denied his 2A right? A tax-evader? An embezzler? A Greenpeace activist? A "felony" designation alone is the wrong criteria with which to judge the advisability to possess a firearm. I'd pose this question: If a person who is being released from prison upon the public cannot be trusted to possess a firearm, then why in the world is he being released at all? A person who would use a firearm in a future crime WILL be able to acquire one, regardless of legal eligibility.

UBCs cannot be practically implemented nor enforced in the US. The main reason is this: For UBCs to be effective, there needs to be an accurate and complete registry of every single firearm that exists in the country. Even if you put aside the Constitutional barriers to implementing such a registry (which will never happen), it is not physically possible to compile such a list. It would take searching every square mile of the the entire country, to include every home, for firearms. If you can suggest some way to register every single firearm into a UBC database, without your government stormtroopers tearing my home apart, I'd be interested to know it.

 

If they are a convicted felon, they do not have 2nd amendment rights. Once they have served their time, they are out in society. They aren't going to be locked away, because their sentence has been served. They know they aren't legally allowed to possess a gun, but they are criminals, after all. If they are not required to pass a background check in a private sale, the seller has no idea that they are a felon, and they are not required to ask. The way the law is written, it does not hold anyone accountable for selling a gun to a convicted felon, unless they suspect the person is a felon. How in the world does anyone prove you suspected someone of being a felon, if you aren't even required to know their name? Anyway, if no one is held accountable, there is no deterrent to prod them not to sell something they want to sell… to anyone that wants to buy it, including people that don't have 2nd amendment rights any more.

I don't make the law or enforce it. I'm just a citizen.

Criminals are going to break the law. What has to be done is a change in the law to hold the SELLER accountable because… you can't trust criminals to do the right thing.

Your argument there is basically, it's too hard to do, therefore we can't do it. Rubbish! If we can put a man on he moon, we can do some paperwork here on Earth. That's what we're talking about here… paperwork.

Please note, I'm not advocating rounding up all guns and gun owners to enter them into some data base. What I do advocate is that EVERY GUN SALE requires a background check on the potential buyer. If you are a responsible citizen, you have no problem passing a background check and have every right to purchase a gun. If you can't pass a background check, then you have something in your past that makes you ineligible to own a gun, but only a licensed dealer is required to find out. Licensed dealers are held accountable. If you are a criminal and you want to buy a gun, it needs to be as hard as possible for you to get one. As of now, criminals can buy a gun through a private sale and no one is held accountable.

Criminals don't usually keep guns long. Once the gun has been used in a crime, it's often discarded. To commit another crime, they usually have to buy another gun. Let's not make it easy on them to do so. Let's hold the private sellers accountable so they can't sell to criminals, just like the licensed sellers are accountable.

I do understand the fear. Guns represent safety and autonomy to many. Forcing all sellers to require a background check on all sales won't cause anyone to come storm troop through your house. Beefing up this law won't do a thing to a gun OWNER. It only applies to gun SELLERS. Relax.

 

No, my argument is, it's impossible to do it so that it will produce the required and desired results. Impossible. Can not be done. Not that it's "too difficult"... it's impossible.

You can not ensure or enforce a law that says that EVERY GUN SALE requires a background check, unless you have a complete database of EVERY GUN. Relying on the 'honor system' does nothing to affect criminals, because it presupposes that the participants are honorable.

You cannot reliably or effectively track private gun sales unless you have a database of private guns and their owners. You cannot hold private sellers accountable unless you know who it was that sold an individual gun. You must have a database, or none of this can be effectively implemented. Relying on the "honor system" requires that the participants are honorable. Honorable people are not the ones you need to target!

Mostly untrue. Guns are rarely discarded, per-se; they find new owners. An individual criminal might not keep an individual gun for long, but that gun will be sold to someone else if the heat gets too hot.

You cannot hold private gun sellers accountable if you do not know who sold an individual gun, and to whom. And to do that, you need an accurate database of gun owners, and of every gun. A database that cannot possibly be compiled.

I have no fear, because what you propose cannot possibly be implemented. Not that it's too difficult.... it's that it is impossible.

 

If you had taken the time to read my postings, you would have read where I have maintained that the elimination of handguns would not totally eliminate access to the criminally insane, but would help to reduce killings. Human lives may not be of value to you, however even if one life is saved I think it is totally worth it.

That remains to be seen. At some point we'll have enough mass shootings and American's will demand extremely strict gun control measures. And I'll say it again, I support the removal of all handguns/assault weapons (excepting police and other law enforcement officials) but allow shotguns, bolt action rifles and musketry, so try to remember this the next time you try to excoriate my gun control viewpoints.

- - - Updated - - -

You are certainly entitled to your opinion as am I. We'll both have to agree to disagree on this thread.

 

We disagree. Several states have already implemented universal background checks on all gun purchases and have seen gun crimes decline, and that is with the loophole. It's not too difficult. It is ALREADY being done, just not in every state.

This is not about TRACKING guns. This is about selling guns to people that are unqualified to own one with no accountability. The gun is not the issue. The SELLER is the issue. I agree that the honor system does nothing. Therefore we need the law to be fixed so no unauthorized buyer can buy a gun, especially through a legal process.

No, you just need to require a background check on every buyer. They either qualify or don't. If they qualify, then you can sell them one. If they don't, you don't sell them one.

Yes, you're right, except it is true. You actually agreed with me. They don't keep them long, but they do get another.

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/7/71/915770/university-chicago-survey-finds-crooks-get-guns-from-pals-dont-keep-them-long

The seller does not need to know every American that owns a gun. They only need to know if the person buying the gun they are selling is qualified- NICS. If you require sellers to have a background check done on the buyer, they will know who they are selling the gun to and whether or not they are qualified. There is no requirement on that now.

Again, it is already BEING DONE in some states, even though the loophole makes it less effective. When the law changes and all 50 states have universal background checks… because 87% of Americans want it.. I hope you don't develop fear. You don't need to either way.

 

Your BIAS warps all you had to say.

 

which is why I used the word "generally." There are extreme and rare cases where a child can be charged as an adult.

 

In the 1980's there were school districts, private schools, etc that did not allow guns. This occurred after the Ronald Reagan shooting as well as a couple of publicized cases where a kid brought a gun and intended to use it.

However, the availability of guns has always remained. What has happened is that the internet can be used to do this anomymously rather than in person or through a friend or through a friend of a friend like the good ole days.

 

Under that set of circumstances, that is not a felony. It is a civil violation, with a fine, but no criminal charges. However, how about the contractor who receives money to do a job, does part of the job, and disappears without completing the job and taking the money that was used for the job. That would be a felony if the money invovled as above $1500.

Actually they can. The issue is that there is a single background check with access to the available data that is required. It would prevent someone from attempting to purchase a firearm legally but being turned away because of the background check. At the very least, the incident would be delayed and hopefully that additional time would allow law enforcement to get involved. UBC's is one step, but it is not the only step.

 

I don't think we're connecting, but I do appreciate the respectful debate; devoid of the usual ad-hominem that usually accompanies these topics. Thanks for that.

My point is this: you cannot enforce UBCs, unless you can ensure the individual, private sellers are requiring background checks when they sell, in accordance with the law. Private sellers, like myself, might voluntarily do so... but that only accounts for a tiny fraction of transfers. And only a tiny fraction of THOSE are transfers to criminals. So a fraction of a fraction of transfers would be affected, and the reality is, NO criminal who is intent on purchasing a gun would be thwarted; he'd just keep trying until he hits a seller who does not comply.

Once he finds that seller and buys, there is no way for government to tie the gun back to the seller, unless there was a pre-existing record of it. Suppose the criminal uses that gun to commit a murder, and leaves it at the scene. Law enforcement would want to 'hold the seller accountable', under your proposal. But there is no trail back to the most previous seller, because there was no record of the sale.

So, how does any of this affect, in any way, a criminal's ability to purchase a gun, and use it in a crime? How does it create any accountability for the seller? And if this only affects honorable people, why is it an improvement over what we have?

 

Kick the drug offenders out and we'll probably have to start closing prisons, and opening rehabs to actually help them.

 

My point was that just because an individual has a felony conviction, does not mean he would be a menace to society if he were in possession of a firearm. Many felons are convicted of non-violent felonies.

To my understanding, UBCs primary goal is to get PRIVATE sellers into the background check loop. Folks like me, who have sold guns to folks like you in my driveway. I have bought and sold guns many times that way. What I'm trying to understand is how, without an accurate database of all guns and their owners, and some sort of 'transfer of ownership' requirement, can UBCs be enforced, and thereby have a positive effect on preventing CRIMINALS from purchasing guns.

 

So you dismissed my point without refuting it, and then you went on to a non sequiter. You could have saved yourself the time. Next time adress the point.

 

It wasn't liberals that passed the Tiahrt Amendment severely restricting the ATF's ability to track straw purchases and hold dealers responsible for the thousands of firearms that are "lost" from their inventory each year.

 

You mean like Fast and Furious?

 

The linked article details how numerous mass murderers were able to pass background checks, and even satisfy the requirements put in place by the state of New York. Your proposal that background checks be extended to private sales would yield no differing results, as they could be passed just the same. Since apparently none of the recent mass murderers had disqualifying records, your proposal would fail to do any good.

Your proposal is no different than a doctor continuing to prescribe a particular strain of antibiotics long after the disease has become immune to them.

 

No, I mean the law that prohibits the ATF from requiring firearms dealers to conduct annual physical inventories. It's hard to prevent the diversion of firearms to criminals when dealers can "lose" thousands of firearms a year with no repercussions.

But your partisan attempt at diversion is duly noted.

 

Show us the language of the tiahrt amendment that restricts the ability of the ATF to track straw purchases, and hold federally licensed dealers responsible.

The language of the amendment states that firearms trace data may not be released to the public, nor to police officers when the data pertains to areas outside of their legal jurisdiction, meaning police of the state of New York cannot access sales data for state like Texas or Nebraska.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22458.pdf

Your argument and position has been debunked. Do not repeat this falsehood again.

 

Mass murderers are not the primary source of gun violence in the US.

 

The nation of Canada learned the hard way that your proposal is impossible. They attempted to register every rifle and shotgun into a centralized database. The system was fraught with numerous errors, and cost billions of dollars just to maintain, and it was eventually destroyed, with the courts refusing to allow the data to be saved for future attempts. That was all with just a tiny percentage of the number of firearms the united states has to account for.[/QUOTE]