Gun in nightstand

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Mykl


Yes, exactly, the problem is the person. We agree.

When you combine people who are a problem with easy to access tools designed to kill, you end with... people getting killed. Suicide, homicide, accidental, whatever.

Then, enter the NRA/GOA, that work hard to block almost any attempt to keep guns out of the hands of the people who are the problem, and we end up with more people getting killed than if we approached the problem in a way that acknowledges that death happens when guns get into the wrong person's hands.

Obviously we can't go all Minority Report on this, but with gun shows and private transfers happening without any sort of vetting process, the wrong people are going to keep getting guns.

We aren't even trying to keep guns out of the hands of the people who are the problem.


No, we are not trying.

But it's not the NRA that determines trying, it's the DOJ, who has been focused on making more things illegal. While embarking on such pointless programs as giving automatic weapons to criminals...and then losing track of them. Automatic weapons that are already illegal for all of us private citizens to own, by the way. But it's OK for DOJ to give them to criminal gangs?

Your misrepresentation of the NRA is completely specious. The NRA supported the NFA in 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968.

It's already illegal for felons to own guns. It's already illegal for all of the classes of people that you mention to purchase guns. So, what do you propose? More laws enforcing the same thing?

When I lived in Colorado, Columbine happened. Dylan and Klebold broke over 17 state and Federal laws in the acquisition of their weapons. Did anyone look at enforcement? Nope. Legislators railed against the crime, invoked "the children" and "public safety" and then proposed what they really wanted: MORE LEGISLATION. Look, If someone is willing to break over a dozen laws, then passing another law meets Einstein's definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

And what does the BATFE do with the number of declined background checks? Follow up? Nope, over 60,000 declined purchases through the NICS last year, and the BATFE follows up on, about 2...leaving all the others uninvestigated...

But more laws supported by utterly non-existent enforcement will make a difference?

Only to the law-abiding.

And that's where the "simple logic" fails again...because it's predicated on inaccurate information. Everything you suggest has already been done, but enforcement is lax...so...why propose that same approach?

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Mykl


Yes, exactly, the problem is the person. We agree.

When you combine people who are a problem with easy to access tools designed to kill, you end with... people getting killed. Suicide, homicide, accidental, whatever.

Then, enter the NRA/GOA, that work hard to block almost any attempt to keep guns out of the hands of the people who are the problem, and we end up with more people getting killed than if we approached the problem in a way that acknowledges that death happens when guns get into the wrong person's hands.

Obviously we can't go all Minority Report on this, but with gun shows and private transfers happening without any sort of vetting process, the wrong people are going to keep getting guns.

We aren't even trying to keep guns out of the hands of the people who are the problem.


No, we are not trying.

But it's not the NRA that determines trying, it's the DOJ, who has been focused on making more things illegal. While embarking on such pointless programs as giving automatic weapons to criminals...and then losing track of them. Automatic weapons that are already illegal for all of us private citizens to own, by the way. But it's OK for DOJ to give them to criminal gangs?

Your misrepresentation of the NRA is completely specious. The NRA supported the NFA in 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968.

It's already illegal for felons to own guns. It's already illegal for all of the classes of people that you mention to purchase guns. So, what do you propose? More laws enforcing the same thing?

When I lived in Colorado, Columbine happened. Dylan and Klebold broke over 17 state and Federal laws in the acquisition of their weapons. Did anyone look at enforcement? Nope. Legislators railed against the crime, invoked "the children" and "public safety" and then proposed what they really wanted: MORE LEGISLATION. Look, If someone is willing to break over a dozen laws, then passing another law meets Einstein's definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

And what does the BATFE do with the number of declined background checks? Follow up? Nope, over 60,000 declined purchases through the NICS last year, and the BATFE follows up on, about 2...leaving all the others uninvestigated...

But more laws supported by utterly non-existent enforcement will make a difference?

Only to the law-abiding.

And that's where the "simple logic" fails again...because it's predicated on inaccurate information. Everything you suggest has already been done, but enforcement is lax...so...why propose that same approach?


It's not illegal for felons to own guns. Georgia allows it now.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: Mykl
There's a crime report from the FBI that was published in 2011 floating around out there somewhere (I'm having a difficult time finding it) that suggests that a majority of homicides by gun are committed by people who are already convicted felons.

Correct me if I'm wrong.... but I was under the impression that convicted felons are not allowed to have firearms.


You've pretty much hit the nail on the head in terms of demonstrating why "gun control" regulations that seek to keep guns out of the hands of a certain selection set generally don't work. You're right -- in MOST jurisdictions (I'd venture to say the majority of them), convicted felons are not allowed to possess firearms. I'd venture to say that a great majority of the convicted felons involved in firearm-related homicides in that FBI report were not allowed to possess them to begin with.

It's very difficult to enforce a regulation that says, "you can't have something." Folks possess, consume, and distribute illegal drugs all the time. Folks possess, use, and sell firearms they're not allowed to have all the time. Folks who have revoked driver licenses continue to drive (and often times injure or kill others while under the influence, which is often why their license was revoked to begin with).

I don't have the answers. In fact, to the contrary, I think the issue is far more complex than some allow. I'm not saying that you're part of this crowd, but there are some who say, "it's simple: just don't let anyone have guns!" Just looking at it from the pragmatic standpoint, and setting aside the 2nd Amendment issues with that, we already know that you-can't-have-it regulations are very difficult or impossible to effectively enforce.

 

[Mykl]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: Mykl
There's a crime report from the FBI that was published in 2011 floating around out there somewhere (I'm having a difficult time finding it) that suggests that a majority of homicides by gun are committed by people who are already convicted felons.

Correct me if I'm wrong.... but I was under the impression that convicted felons are not allowed to have firearms.


You've pretty much hit the nail on the head in terms of demonstrating why "gun control" regulations that seek to keep guns out of the hands of a certain selection set generally don't work.


I can't respond to every post, I'm sorry. So I'm just picking this one.

I don't believe I suggested "why" they don't work, I just said that bad people are getting guns.

I think it's more a matter that we're just not trying, look at what was just pointed out about Georgia and felons. How is that good for anybody other than gun manufacturers that want to sell more product?

The drug analogy doesn't work for me. Most of the drugs you're referencing are completely illegal everywhere, meaning there is no possibility that a system could be put in place to tell sellers who they shouldn't sell to are.

Guns aren't completely illegal everywhere, there is a system for verifying someone is allowed to own a weapon, and while it is impossible to keep a determined and resourceful bad person from getting what they want, the bar can be raised to make weapons more difficult for less determined bad people.

 

[Astro14]

The Georgia example is an interesting one, from a philosophical and legal perspective...

It's not just "felons can get guns"...sadly, the sound-bite media doesn't give you more than that. If a felon can demonstrate a need, and a clean record for several years, then the felon can PETITION to get their guns rights reinstated...and it will be considered.

The restoration of a felon's rights, any rights, including the right to vote, strikes right at the heart of how we define punishment, and whether we believe in the rehabilitation of criminals. Ironically, those in favor of gun control are often in favor of the restoration of rights in the case of a convicted felon who has paid their debt to society...

 

[Mykl]

^ yeah, I've done no research on the Georgia thing, just going off of what I'm being told here.

I think that we should try harder to rehabilitate people versus just punishing them. So I could be convinced that it's fair to restore a felon's right to own a firearm or vote (with exceptions depending on the nature of the crime, of course), but the "rehabilitation program" is going to have to be more comprehensive than "he did his time in gen-pop."

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Mykl


I can't respond to every post, I'm sorry. So I'm just picking this one.

I don't believe I suggested "why" they don't work, I just said that bad people are getting guns.

I think it's more a matter that we're just not trying, look at what was just pointed out about Georgia and felons. How is that good for anybody other than gun manufacturers that want to sell more product?

The drug analogy doesn't work for me. Most of the drugs you're referencing are completely illegal everywhere, meaning there is no possibility that a system could be put in place to tell sellers who they shouldn't sell to are.

Guns aren't completely illegal everywhere, there is a system for verifying someone is allowed to own a weapon, and while it is impossible to keep a determined and resourceful bad person from getting what they want, the bar can be raised to make weapons more difficult for less determined bad people.


And how would you propose "raising the bar"?

Since straw purchases (buying a gun for someone who is not legally able to buy a gun) are already a felony, and a federal offense, and punishable by several years in prison...isn't the bar already pretty high?

But the BATFE doesn't prosecute...so, what point is a "high bar" if no one will prosecute offenses against the law?

To date, what we have is a communications campaign...and "simple logic" will tell you that a criminal who isn't afraid of going to jail isn't likely to heed a spiffy poster in a gun store...

https://www.atf.gov/publications/factsheets/factsheet-dont-lie-campaign.html

Now, if you really want to "raise the bar" - then look at what the NRA endorsed and helped to develop in Richnmond, VA (where I have family): "Project Exile" which raised the use of a gun in a crime (already a felony in VA) to Federal court with mandatory minimum sentencing. The crime rate in Richmond dropped considerably.

The NRA is pro-education, and anti-crime, and against the use of firearms in a crime...not that they get credit for those efforts in the sound-bite world of the 24 hour news cycle...but they've taken an agressive stand against crime...ironically, the opposition to Project Exile was from the Democrats in Richmond, because of the rights of the criminal to receive "fair" sentencing...Democrats who then proposed more legislation restricting the gun rights of law-abiding Virginians as a way to reduce crime...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Exile

 

[Mykl]

Background checks for gun shows purchases and private purchases.

It doesn't restrict the rights of law abiding citizens, and it makes it more difficult for a bad person to acquire a weapon.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Mykl
Background checks for gun shows purchases and private purchases.

It doesn't restrict the rights of law abiding citizens, and it makes it more difficult for a bad person to acquire a weapon.


Oh, it sounds so reasonable when the media (including all the gun-control groups) spew it, "close the gunshow loophole!" Or "40% of firearms transactions don't go through background checks!". But both are specious...and don't actually represent what is going on.

ALL dealers selling at gunshows are subject to Federal Law. They MUST CONDUCT the background check through NICS. There is no "loophole".

The issue, overly simplified to suit people's agendas, is that private firearms transactions don't have to go through the NICS. So, when a private collector sells at a gunshow, it doesn't go through NICS, but it's still against the law for that private person to sell to a prohibited person (see my previous link to the ATF law). In addition, the study, from a single phone survey done in the early 90's, that claimed that 40% of transactions don't go through a dealer has been proven to be false, over and over, but because it was quoted once, it becomes canon...no longer subject to question.

But it's wrong, fewer than 10% of transactions are private. Further, it's a felony (there's that word again, the bar is pretty high) to give or sell a firearm to a person that you know, or have reason to believe, should not posses one. Again, the bar is high, but no one prosecutes...so, you've got the law on the books, but who uses it?

And by regulating all private transactions, as New York did, you create a lot of new felons. I let you try out my rifle at the range, the new one I just bought, and even though you're a law abiding citizen, you have come to "possess" my rifle and under the New York Safe Act, I AM NOW A FELON, because you've used my rifle. An innocent, and common, occurence. Even if, like me, you're a concealed carry permit holder, even if, like me, you're a member of the military, even if, like me, you're law abiding, that New York law prohibits all sorts of private actions.

"It doesn't restrict the rights of law abiding citizens" you said, well, if New York is any indication, it's a massive, Draconian restriction, and I've not even mentioned the 7 round limit on magazine capacity that made all New York cops felons, for a time, until they amended the law...

Again, it's already a felony to sell a gun to someone that shouldn't have one...isn't a felony law enough of a bar?

 

[Mykl]

How is a private seller going to know if someone is a prohibited person if they aren't required to check? Has there been any effort put forth by anybody to catch people who sell to people they're not supposed to? If not, then why?

That New York's law is poorly worded doesn't make this a bad idea. The idea that letting someone test your weapon on the range could make its owner a felon is ridiculous. The general idea isn't a bad one, it's the implementation that makes it broken.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Mykl
Background checks for gun shows purchases and private purchases.

It doesn't restrict the rights of law abiding citizens, and it makes it more difficult for a bad person to acquire a weapon.


Oh, it sounds so reasonable when the media (including all the gun-control groups) spew it, "close the gunshow loophole!" Or "40% of firearms transactions don't go through background checks!". But both are specious...and don't actually represent what is going on.

ALL dealers selling at gunshows are subject to Federal Law. They MUST CONDUCT the background check through NICS. There is no "loophole".

The issue, overly simplified to suit people's agendas, is that private firearms transactions don't have to go through the NICS. So, when a private collector sells at a gunshow, it doesn't go through NICS, but it's still against the law for that private person to sell to a prohibited person (see my previous link to the ATF law). In addition, the study, from a single phone survey done in the early 90's, that claimed that 40% of transactions don't go through a dealer has been proven to be false, over and over, but because it was quoted once, it becomes canon...no longer subject to question.

But it's wrong, fewer than 10% of transactions are private. Further, it's a felony (there's that word again, the bar is pretty high) to give or sell a firearm to a person that you know, or have reason to believe, should not posses one. Again, the bar is high, but no one prosecutes...so, you've got the law on the books, but who uses it?

And by regulating all private transactions, as New York did, you create a lot of new felons. I let you try out my rifle at the range, the new one I just bought, and even though you're a law abiding citizen, you have come to "possess" my rifle and under the New York Safe Act, I AM NOW A FELON, because you've used my rifle. An innocent, and common, occurence. Even if, like me, you're a concealed carry permit holder, even if, like me, you're a member of the military, even if, like me, you're law abiding, that New York law prohibits all sorts of private actions.

"It doesn't restrict the rights of law abiding citizens" you said, well, if New York is any indication, it's a massive, Draconian restriction, and I've not even mentioned the 7 round limit on magazine capacity that made all New York cops felons, for a time, until they amended the law...

Again, it's already a felony to sell a gun to someone that shouldn't have one...isn't a felony law enough of a bar?


The problem is when conducting a private sale there is no requirement that the seller confirm that the buyer was eligible to buy the weapon. Because of the lack of paper trail the State can't prosecute a private seller. Personally I like private sellers being required to sell via FFL but too bad the country folk out West 86'd that part of the deal because they didn't want to travel the distances needed to conduct the transaction.

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: Mykl
Background checks for gun shows purchases and private purchases.

It doesn't restrict the rights of law abiding citizens, and it makes it more difficult for a bad person to acquire a weapon.


Bad people will always be able to easily acquire weapons as there are over 300 million firearms in circulation in the USA. As with drugs, there is a huge underground market for guns and every self-respecting gang member is well armed. There are already plenty of laws on the books designed to prevent bad guys from getting guns but, alas, bad guys do not obey laws.

Better enforcement of existing laws may help somewhat, but I think the ineffectiveness of alcohol prohibition laws in the 1920s shows how little power the legal system has on restricting what people want. It just drives such behavior underground.

New and tougher laws will have the effect of reducing firearms among law abiding citizens but have essentially no effect on criminals, thus shifting the power balance to the bad guys and increasing crime. I live in the rural Blue Ridge Mountains where it will take the local sheriff a good 15 minutes to get to my house, so virtually every household is armed for self protection. Even though very few people lock doors here, no bad guy with a tenth of a brain would consider breaking into an occupied house, and the crime rate here is very low.

Tom NJ

 

[Mykl]

The references to drugs and alcohol prohibition don't work. We're talking about regulating the legal transfer of legal items between individuals, not completely ban the existence of those items.

Also, the "bad people will always be able to..." argument is weak. Bad people will always be able to get into my home, but I still have locks on the doors to make it more difficult.

 

[stockrex]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: Mykl
Background checks for gun shows purchases and private purchases.

It doesn't restrict the rights of law abiding citizens, and it makes it more difficult for a bad person to acquire a weapon.


Bad people will always be able to easily acquire weapons as there are over 300 million firearms in circulation in the USA. As with drugs, there is a huge underground market for guns and every self-respecting gang member is well armed. There are already plenty of laws on the books designed to prevent bad guys from getting guns but, alas, bad guys do not obey laws.

Better enforcement of existing laws may help somewhat, but I think the ineffectiveness of alcohol prohibition laws in the 1920s shows how little power the legal system has on restricting what people want. It just drives such behavior underground.

New and tougher laws will have the effect of reducing firearms among law abiding citizens but have essentially no effect on criminals, thus shifting the power balance to the bad guys and increasing crime. I live in the rural Blue Ridge Mountains where it will take the local sheriff a good 15 minutes to get to my house, so virtually every household is armed for self protection. Even though very few people lock doors here, no bad guy with a tenth of a brain would consider breaking into an occupied house, and the crime rate here is very low.

Tom NJ


More feel good laws, maybe NJ can make it a law to require tin foil hat. You don't want all the harmful cellphone waves to give you brain cancer do you?

 

[stockrex]

maybe your guys have skinny cops in the Northeast, here is MI:

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
The Georgia example is an interesting one, from a philosophical and legal perspective...

It's not just "felons can get guns"...sadly, the sound-bite media doesn't give you more than that. If a felon can demonstrate a need, and a clean record for several years, then the felon can PETITION to get their guns rights reinstated...and it will be considered.

The restoration of a felon's rights, any rights, including the right to vote, strikes right at the heart of how we define punishment, and whether we believe in the rehabilitation of criminals. Ironically, those in favor of gun control are often in favor of the restoration of rights in the case of a convicted felon who has paid their debt to society...
Defining groups of citizens without basic Rights is the first step in labeling all citizens such.

 

[Mykl]

Originally Posted By: hatt
Defining groups of citizens without basic Rights is the first step in labeling all citizens such.


So.... we should completely do away with the court system? Because that's exactly what it exists to do, and has done so for many centuries now.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: Mykl
Also, the "bad people will always be able to..." argument is weak. Bad people will always be able to get into my home, but I still have locks on the doors to make it more difficult.


Unfortunately, it's true. The proper analogy here isn't the physical lock on your door, it's the legal one. It's already illegal for someone to trespass in your home. Just as it's already illegal for a felon to own a gun (in most cases). Just as it's already the law in some areas (such as NC) that one cannot privately sell a handgun to someone who doesn't have a concealed carry permit or a pistol purchase permit.

You taking the physical measure of locking your door demonstrates your understanding that criminals don't follow the law (by definition!).

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: BMWTurboDzl


The problem is when conducting a private sale there is no requirement that the seller confirm that the buyer was eligible to buy the weapon. Because of the lack of paper trail the State can't prosecute a private seller. Personally I like private sellers being required to sell via FFL but too bad the country folk out West 86'd that part of the deal because they didn't want to travel the distances needed to conduct the transaction.


How could you read what I said and still get this so wrong?

There absolutely is a requirement that a private seller determine that the buyer not be a prohibited person. Because, to sell to a prohibited person is a FELONY.

The requirement that you state doesn't exist already does exist. You want to add the burden of going through an FFL. That's a separate requirement, a separate matter, but you're predicating this need for an FFL on a misunderstanding of current law.

The current law gets so distorted by gun control advocates, who twist the truth to suit their agenda, that we can't even have a discussion, because the truth isn't commonly known, as your post so clearly demonstrates.

 

[Mykl]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Unfortunately, it's true. The proper analogy here isn't the physical lock on your door, it's the legal one. It's already illegal for someone to trespass in your home. Just as it's already illegal for a felon to own a gun (in most cases). Just as it's already the law in some areas (such as NC) that one cannot privately sell a handgun to someone who doesn't have a concealed carry permit or a pistol purchase permit.

You taking the physical measure of locking your door demonstrates your understanding that criminals don't follow the law (by definition!).


I absolutely disagree.

Regulating a legal item is completely different than maintaining a ban on an illegal item.

You can change my analogy to that and it still stands. It's illegal for someone to enter my home, but I'm still going to keep locks on the doors. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean that people aren't going to try anyway, the point is to make it more difficult so fewer people will succeed.

The locks prevent anybody from just walking in and stealing my TV. The privacy locks prevent people who know how to use lockpicks. The grade 1 deadbolt and 3" screws make it extremely difficult to kick the door in (if not impossible). The security lights and window alarms tell any person who's casing my house that there's somebody in it who's paying attention.

Would somebody still try to break in? Yes, but it won't be the teenage neighbor walking into my house to take my video games while I'm at work. I've just raised the minimum threat to a more serious individual.

I work in security. We've established the fact that there will always be bad people who try to do bad things. But that doesn't mean you stop trying. That escalation of difficulty I've applied to my home works the same with criminals and guns. If, through smart legislation and years of effort, the loose gun supply dwindles to the point where the only option for a criminal is to break into a gun owner's house and steal their weapons, it's become a lot more difficult for criminals. Because now they have to go through you, the guy with the shotgun who probably knows how to use it, who has the law on his side.

It's been said that there are laws in place, and then pointed out that those laws are toothless and impossible to enforce. So how about we make it so that those laws are possible to enforce and that private parties selling to bad people are punished for doing so?