Gun lobby wins: no new background checks.

[AlpsStranger]

One of them was reasonable (the second to last one) but I also don't understand why they proposed it at all, considering their goals.

I think this is your greatest weakness when thinking through things. You tend to demonize your opponents. They think they're right and you think you're right. I don't think anybody on this forum has their opinion on this issue in bad faith.

EDIT: I recognize this flaw in myself, so I'm not trying to act innocent or put it all on you.

 

[Kaitzilla]

I'm glad to hear more gun control failed.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/10/survey-shows-law-enforcement-united-against-gun-control/

A new online survey suggests that the vast majority of active and former police officers adamantly oppose President Barack Obama’s proposed bans on so-called “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines.

The study, conducted by first-responder community website PoliceOne.com, included more than 15,000 self-identified active and retired law enforcement officers, with 99 percent of respondents saying that policies other than an assault-weapons ban are most important in preventing future mass shootings.

Here are the rest of the survey’s results:

99 percent said policies other than an “assault weapons” ban are most important to prevent mass shootings.
Almost 96 percent said that a ban on standard capacity magazines would not reduce violent crime.
More than 91 percent stated that the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime should have stiff, mandatory sentences, and no plea-bargains.
More than 91 percent stated they supported the Right-to-Carry by law abiding Americans.
More than 81 percent said that “gun buy-backs” do not reduce gun violence.
80 percent believe legally armed citizens can reduce casualties in incidents of mass violence.
Nearly 80 percent said that a ban on private transfers of firearms between law-abiding citizens would not reduce violent crime.
More than 76 percent indicated that legally armed citizens are important to reducing crime.
More than 76 percent support the arming of trained and qualified teachers or administrators who volunteer to carry a firearm.
More than 70 percent said that a ban on “assault weapons” would not reduce violent crime.
More than 70 percent opposed the idea of a national registry of legal gun sales.
Nearly 68 percent said magazine capacity restrictions would negatively affect them personally.
More than 60 percent said that the passage of Obama’s gun control legislation would not improve officer safety.

 

[FriendlyFire]

"Left" and "Right" are meaningless positions. Its authoritarianism VS liberty that matters. At least nine of those proposals are fundamentally anti-liberty. One of them was reasonable (the second to last one) but I also don't understand why they proposed it at all, considering their goals.

So did I, so did I.

So having drivers test, drivers permits, drivers ID, driving regulations, registering your car every year, paying taxes to drive, goverment regulations on vehicles is OK

But having gun test, gun permits, gun ID, gun regulations, registering your gun every year, pay gun tax, and government restrictions on guns is NOT OK.

LINO

I find it beyond ironic that advocates of a national right to carry concealed weapons describe it as no different than every state honoring the drivers licenses from every state. They, of course, don't dare to mention that drivers are licensed, that they have to pass a test before they are allowed to drive a car, that their vehicles have to be registered and insured, and that their right to drive can be revoked or suspended if they do not meet certain standards. If only we could duplicate these standards when it comes to firearms.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/u...rol.html?hp&target=comments#commentsContainer

 

[Patroklos]

he reports revealed for the first time that 1.2% of federally licensed gun dealers supply 57% of the guns used in crime.

50% of all guns used in crime can be traced back to 4 gun shops, with DEA straw buying laws good luck with that.

The first is your source (which is ridiculous but we will run with it), in the second you specifically stated 4 shops. For your two claims to not contradict each other there needs to be only 333 licenced dealers in the entire US.

Is that what you want to go with?

Well actually, only 6 states require them on all purchases and 7 of the states require permits, not background checks.

Read my link, in order to get those permits you get a background check. It makes sense as it saves time and money to get checked once and then be an authorized buyer instead of repeating it over and over again when 99.9 percent of the time there will be no change. I assume you lose the permit if you are involved in a major crime.

And the 52% population stat isn't really accurate as you probably know. Just because it's 52% of the population, doesn't mean they own 52% of the guns or more importantly, have 52% of the gun shows. I think it's reasonable to assume that the states with the most gun owners would also be the states with the most gun shows so it's likely that a pretty big majority are in the non-regulated states which just so happen to be the states with the most gun owners. I don't have any stats for gun shows per state though. And yes, many of the people at gun shows are licensed gun dealers, but at gun shows, they do not have to do background checks so that's not really relevant to the discussion.

1.) yes, I doubt gun shows correspond exactly to population distribution but the idea that states like CA and NY do not have a good percentage of them would be going to the extreme in the opposite direction. Dealers sell to buyers, those states have lots of buyers.

2.) And here we see the effects of Democratic deceit on this topic, an obviously informed poster such as yourself having fallen victim. Federally licenced dealers have to do background checks regardless of where they do buisness including gun shows. I can only assume the confusion comes from the fact that until 1986 licenced dealers could not sell at gun shows as their licence only authorized sales at their listed address. After the passage of FOPA they could enter the shows, but they still have to comply with all regulations including background checks.

Here is another source to confirm this:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/14/us/universal-background-checks

I will repeat that according to the ATF 50-75% of gun show venders are federally licenced thus must conduct background checks.

So having drivers test, drivers permits, drivers ID, driving regulations, registering your car every year, paying taxes to drive, goverment regulations on vehicles is OK

But having gun test, gun permits, gun ID, gun regulations, registering your gun every year, pay gun tax, and government restrictions on guns is NOT OK.

What is this, amateur hour? When driving has its own Constitutional amendment get back to us.

BTW, since you brought it up concealed gun permit holders are 13 times less likely to commit any crime than non holders, including gun crimes.

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

 

[woody60707]

So having drivers test, drivers permits, drivers ID, driving regulations, registering your car every year, paying taxes to drive, goverment regulations on vehicles is OK

But having gun test, gun permits, gun ID, gun regulations, registering your gun every year, pay gun tax, and government restrictions on guns is NOT OK.

LINO

You understand one of those are a constitutional right, the other isn't. Would you be ok with having a voting test? A free speech tax?

 

[FriendlyFire]

You understand one of those are a constitutional right, the other isn't. Would you be ok with having a voting test? A free speech tax?

How come criminals cant buy guns, if its a consitutional right ?

Constitutional rights have never been unlimited. Like freedom of speech when it causes more harm than good, such as in the case of libel, pornography, and incitements to violence, it is outlawed. Assault weapons? More harm than good. Sale to violent criminals? More harm than good. Magazine clips with hundreds of bullets so entire classrooms of little children can be mowed down in seconds? More harm than good.

 

[FriendlyFire]

The first is your source (which is ridiculous but we will run with it), in the second you specifically stated 4 shops. For your two claims to not contradict each other there needs to be only 333 licenced dealers in the entire US.

Is that what you want to go with?

I will go with the made up fantasy WMDs numbers please.

 

[Patroklos]

For the same reason we can put them in prison.

 

[woody60707]

How come criminals cant buy guns, if its a consitutional right ?

Felons are kept from voting in some states, there are some (BUT VERY FEW) limits to free speech.

I do not believe that a do more harm than good test is part of US law in respect to constitutional rights. We are talking about constitutional rights, not a state privilege. I don't want to derail the topic, but I was just pointing out that it is unfair to compare constitutional rights to a state privilege. Now it would be fair to compared one constitutional right to other constitutional rights.

Also I'm a big believer in "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

 

[ace99]

You understand one of those are a constitutional right, the other isn't. Would you be ok with having a voting test? A free speech tax?

Don't be hysterical. Courts create reasonable tests to circumscribe all manner of constitutional rights, free speech can be subject to reasonable time, place and manner restriction, voting rights can be stripped from felons and so forth.

There's been no SCOTUS cases that have ruled assault weapon bans, background checks, mental health screening etc... unconstitutional. Heller and McDonald both had to do with individual rights to bear arms, with Heller applying to the federal government and McDonald incorporating it against the states. Though to be fair, some gun rack requirement thing was struck down.

There's no reason to believe that the 2nd A unlike any other constitutional right can't be subject to limits. That would be bizarre. The Court has declined to provide us with a test to determine what limits are acceptable and what are not leaving it to lower courts to determine that. The Court recently declined another 2nd A that might have clarified it, I believe it had to do with NY's regulations(not sure?) indicating they have no interest in taking the issue up for the foreseeable future.

So until shown otherwise I don't see why the government can't ban assault weapons and implement other measures.

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

It's 2013. Blackstone belongs in those dusty books in the law library that no one ever looks at or as an occasional footnote as the bottom of a crim law case.

 

[woody60707]

... We are talking about constitutional rights, not a state privilege. I don't want to derail the topic, but I was just pointing out that it is unfair to compare constitutional rights to a state privilege. Now it would be fair to compared one constitutional right to other constitutional rights....

Bold. 5char

 

[ace99]

No reason to turn down an opportunity to ejaculate unwarranted and partially baked legal opinions into a thread on a computer game forum. What else would I do with it?

 

[woody60707]

No reason to turn down an opportunity to ejaculate unwarranted and partially baked legal opinions into a thread a computer game forum. What else would I do with it?

...So I was rereading The Count of Monte Cristo on the train. The part where the priest/abbe was ejaculating about something. ... Why is that word coming up so much today...

 

[Goodfella]

2.) And here we see the effects of Democratic deceit on this topic, an obviously informed poster such as yourself having fallen victim. Federally licenced dealers have to do background checks regardless of where they do buisness including gun shows. I can only assume the confusion comes from the fact that until 1986 licenced dealers could not sell at gun shows as their licence only authorized sales at their listed address. After the passage of FOPA they could enter the shows, but they still have to comply with all regulations including background checks.

The California and New York thing doesn't really matter since I'm sure we both know that most of the gun shows are in places like Texas and Nevada, but not to say there aren't gun shows in blue states too. But I actually read a similar stat to the 50-75% one you gave about the number of licensed dealers at gun shows so I'm not really arguing about that and it's actually a good point that I didn't really consider fully. And the fact that you just brought up, that exceptions to the Brady Bill are only made to non-commercial gun dealers, escaped me. So you were probably right from the beginning about the majority of gun show sales occurring with background checks. Though not to crawl into a corner or take the last breath, but the other 25% of sales that are occurring void of background checks still needs to be accounted for. And I don't necessarily think that this action alone will result in a significant drop in crime, if any (I'm not going to pretend that drug dealers in South Side Chicago are getting their glocks from gun conventions), it's more so that it's a reasonable step in an entire process of necessary reforms, part of which includes mental health as you've mentioned earlier.

 

[ace99]

...So I was rereading The Count of Monte Cristo on the train. The part where the priest/abbe was ejaculating about something. ... Why is that word coming up so much today...

I'm a fan of P.G. Wodehouse and he uses ejaculate a lot.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Ask a cop on the beat how criminals get guns and you're likely to hear this hard boiled response: "They steal them." But this street wisdom is wrong, according to one frustrated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent who is tired of battling this popular misconception. An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal.

In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

The Chicago Police Department traced the origins of about 50,000 guns that it recovered between 2001 and March 2012. More than half of those guns came from outside the state.

More than a quarter of the firearms seized on the streets here by the Chicago Police Department over the past five years were bought just outside city limits in Cook County suburbs, according to an analysis by the University of Chicago Crime Lab. Others came from stores around Illinois and from other states, like Indiana, less than an hour’s drive away. Since 2008, more than 1,300 of the confiscated guns, the analysis showed, were bought from just one store, Chuck’s Gun Shop in Riverdale, Ill., within a few miles of Chicago’s city limits

Among seized guns that had moved from purchase to the streets of Chicago in a year’s time or less, nearly 20 percent came from Chuck’s, the analysis found. Other guns arrived here that rapidly from gun shops in other parts of this state, Indiana, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Mississippi, Georgia, Iowa and more.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/29/us/where-50000-guns-in-chicago-came-from.html?_r=0

I'll see if I can link the ATF report.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Gun lobby wins: no new background checks.

What do you mean? We already have background checks.

• Feinstein amendment: would ban assault weapons and impose an ammunition magazine limit of 10 rounds
• Lautenberg-Blumenthal amendment: would impose a limit of 10 rounds in ammunition magazines

Anyway, I already mentioned before that new gun legislation is probably going to fail due to Feinstein and co. shoehorning their failed "assault weapons ban" in even though supporters of the bill told them it was a bad idea!

Yeah gun bans aren't going to fair well in DC these days. Why can't they see that? The authors of this bill will only have themselves to blame.

 

[MobBoss]

But having gun test, gun permits, gun ID, gun regulations, registering your gun every year, pay gun tax, and government restrictions on guns is NOT OK.

Well, not exactly.

1. Gun test. Not sure what this means. Do you mean a safety exam prior to ownership? Many states already require this; especially as a prerequsite for a hunting license.

2. Gun permits. Already done.

3. Gun ID. Already done.

4. Gun regulations. Got plenty. Already done.

5. Registering your gun every year. Uhm. Why? Under the 2nd amendment, as currently interpreted, gun ownership is a right, not a priviledge. If something is a right, you shouldnt have to register it yearly. For example, I don't have to register to vote every year. If I did, that'd be a big pain in the ass.

6. Gun tax. Again, why? Especially if it's a right under the consitution. Again, I don't have to pay a poll tax to vote do I? Nope. Sales tax and initial licensing fees are enough thank you very much.

7. Gun restrictions havent worked historically. Why would they work now?

 

[Bugfatty300]

Cars are registered to individuals for tax and insurance purposes. Public roads are hella expensive and traffic accidents cost billions and billions of dollars.

Guns should be registered for ummm... because people sometimes have accidents with them? Errr well cars a registered so guns should be too! That's all the logic I need!

Don't forget to register your knifes, space heaters, pets, video games, RC toys, swimming pools, toasters, or anything that could possibly be public safety hazard and cost tax payers money.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Cars are registered to individuals for tax and insurance purposes. Public roads are hella expensive and traffic accidents cost billions and billions of dollars.

Guns should be registered for ummm... because people sometimes have accidents with them? Errr well cars a registered so guns should be too! That's all the logic I need!

Don't forget to register your knifes, space heaters, pets, video games, RC toys, swimming pools, toasters, or anything that could possibly be public safety hazard and cost tax payers money.

How about regulating strawmen when they display excessive stupidity?