The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[TheMeInTeam]

Guns are expensive and stolen guns have a ready market in people who do not want to use a gun that can be traced to them. That's what fuels gun theft. What we need to do is mass produce about a billion handguns and put them in vending machines. That way anyone who wants to shoot somebody can just pick one up real quick and do their killing, then just throw it away.

It's true that would almost certainly cut into the theft numbers substantially.

 

[rah]

And add to the numbers of those killed by guns.

 

[Broken_Erika]

And add to the numbers of those killed by guns.

Not if you make each bullet cost $5,000.

 

[Lexicus]

And add to the numbers of those killed by guns.

Nah, those deaths are unpreventable. If the guns weren't there, the murderers would just use other highly lethal tools like vegetable peelers and Taylor Swift CDs.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

And add to the numbers of those killed by guns.

Yep. Unless we're saturated already.

 

[rah]

I believe it won't get saturated until everyone has a gun and can kill on a whim.
Which is a good reason to make it more difficult.

 

[El_Machinae]

If you abuse a right, it should be taken away from you. You'll notice I didn't say all felons.

Then you think of it as a privilege. That's fine, I think of gun ownership as a privilege as well, but I wouldn't call it a right if I wanted to take it away from someone

 

[rah]

No different than the right for the pursuit of happiness can be taken away if that person commits murder. It's a gray area but I believe rights can be removed for certain things.

 

[Lexicus]

Then you think of it as a privilege. That's fine, I think of gun ownership as a privilege as well, but I wouldn't call it a right if I wanted to take it away from someone

So you don't call "being outside of jail" a right because it can be taken away from convicted criminals?

 

[El_Machinae]

So you don't call "being outside of jail" a right because it can be taken away from convicted criminals?

Well, show me in the Constitution what you're referring to. We'll compare that to "shall not be infringed". Mind, rah is talking about a conviction that has a component of a life sentence, in the permanent removal of a constitutional right.

We live in a complicated world. There's usually language to suspend a right. But there's nearly never language to remove a right.

 

[rah]

Public safety has been taken into consideration in other rights also. I see using a gun to infringe on some one else's rights to be a valid reason to remove their right to a gun.

 

[GamezRule]

Public safety has been taken into consideration in other rights also. I see using a gun to infringe on some one else's rights to be a valid reason to remove their right to a gun.

Aren't felons already banned from owning or possessing guns?

 

[cardgame]

Yes, they are. I'm not positive, but I think they cannot even be in immediacy to other people's guns (like if they live with a girlfriend who isn't a felon and she owns guns, the felon can get in trouble even if they're not his).

 

[rah]

Each state can make their own rules.

 

[Commodore]

That would surely make everything better. A bunch of unaccountable gun-owners.

Private sellers aren't required to do background checks or keep records because it is considered an unreasonable burden to place on someone who is just looking to get rid of a gun and is not really "in the business" of selling firearms. This is especially true when it comes to background checks since running a proper background check on someone can be pretty expensive. That's why your local gun shop is required to do a background check on you, but the widow who gets a booth at a gun show to get rid of her late husband's guns to help cover the cost of his death and pay the bills doesn't have to do a background check on you.

Each state can make their own rules.

Yes, correct. And I am perfectly fine with that. I may criticize and disagree with the laws of the anti-gun states out there, but if the people in those states want to vote their rights away, then so be it. I can just choose not to live there. However, the anti-gun crowd is trying to take gun control to the national level and take away the right of the states to make their own decisions on the matter.

 

[rah]

but the widow who gets a booth at a gun show to get rid of her late husband's guns to help cover the cost of his death and pay the bills

You know people are desperate when they have to use a grieving widow to support their stance.
That widow could just go to her local gun shop or others in the area to sell his collection. Which would probably be faster and easier than finding a gun show and setting up a booth and sitting around for days in her grief hoping someone will come along and take them off her hands.

 

[Estebonrober]

Private sellers aren't required to do background checks or keep records because it is considered an unreasonable burden to place on someone who is just looking to get rid of a gun and is not really "in the business" of selling firearms. This is especially true when it comes to background checks since running a proper background check on someone can be pretty expensive. That's why your local gun shop is required to do a background check on you, but the widow who gets a booth at a gun show to get rid of her late husband's guns to help cover the cost of his death and pay the bills doesn't have to do a background check on you.



Yes, correct. And I am perfectly fine with that. I may criticize and disagree with the laws of the anti-gun states out there, but if the people in those states want to vote their rights away, then so be it. I can just choose not to live there. However, the anti-gun crowd is trying to take gun control to the national level and take away the right of the states to make their own decisions on the matter.

Private sellers of firearms maybe shouldn;t be a thing, maybe you should be required to sell your firearms back to a authorized vendor. You can try to throw out a sympathetic story like you did, but in her case her husband should have looked after his finances instead of playing with guns (toys basically). I've seen this exact story before and I have little sympathy for it.

Regarding the states thing, this goes both ways. Right now in MO the legislature is trying to make the fed make IL recognize MO licenses as a right to carry through the state of IL. That's asinine and goes completely against the right wings "state's rights" motto. Of course that motto is just a guide really and only applies when its on their side of the argument.

 

[Commodore]

That widow could just go to her local gun shop or others in the area to sell his collection.

No, because the gun shop is going to low-ball her because they have to turn around and resell the guns for a profit. So the only way she's getting fair market value for the guns is to sell them directly.

Which would probably be faster and easier than finding a gun show and setting up a booth and sitting around for days in her grief hoping someone will come along and take them off her hands

You're taking my example too literally, there are plenty of other ways to conduct private sales of firearms. Hell, there's even a website called Armslist that is essentially a Craigslist for guns.

 

[rah]

And the background check should be part of the cost for doing business. Whatever the method used. Even for a grieving widow.
When my father died, my mother had to dispose of all of his collections. She sold to dealers that didn't give her full value but it was easier and faster than selling them piece meal. I see no difference here. IF selling guns to a dealer for a little less to avoid paying for and taking the time for background checks, just part of cost of doing business.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes, correct. And I am perfectly fine with that. I may criticize and disagree with the laws of the anti-gun states out there, but if the people in those states want to vote their rights away, then so be it. I can just choose not to live there. However, the anti-gun crowd is trying to take gun control to the national level and take away the right of the states to make their own decisions on the matter.

How do you feel about Mexico 'letting' people cross the border? Should the pro-gun state have any obligation to help stem the illegal flow?