chbare Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 Let us also not forget that the very nature of doing a transaction without a background check will typically mean that said transaction is probably going to be difficult to document when it comes to publishing statistics. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask how accurate the sale without background check statistics really are? It is probably reasonable to suspect the number may be much higher.
Secouriste Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 I'm sorry I should have put in some comment with the link. Anyway, it was about a 5-yo kid who killed his little sister with his own rifle. Yes, his own "kid" rifle which is something I find unbelievable. Beside the problem that "guns for kids" exist I think there is something missing here. People say "a gun doesn't kill people, people kill people". Right, if u put a gun on a table, it won't kill anyone. It's a tool. YET, it's a tool designed to make a lot of damages, in a very short amount of time and quite easily. Minimum effort => maximum damages. So a gun isn't just an item like any other. If guns were regular tools, soldiers would use hammers and nails to fight. Guns can give small acts huge consequences. Of course, one can always kill or wound with about anything. But it will take more effort to the criminal and offers more chances to the targets. I told you about that event in China, when a crazy man attacked a school with a knife. Result : 2 kids wounded. Had he used a machine-gun, what toll could haven been expected? I understand people saying: "I have a gun, I'm not crazy, I'm not stupid, why would you take away my gun?" I agree, there are people who are no danger with a gun. But if you want to have your gun, it means you allow everybody else to own one, thus allowing all the events that make big news. You can't have your cake and eat it. Now, if you like the beauty of guns: buy collectible empty guns. If you like to shoot things: register at a shooting club with sport weapons. If you like to shoot living things with friends: get a non-automatic hunting rifle If you want to defend yourself: get a teargaz can. I mean it's not the government alone that will change things. Only people can change things. If people can still believe what says the NRA clips, we're not anywhere close to seing any change. In my humble opinion, the abstract "freedom to bear arms" cannot balance the gruesome, actual, sound, death of innocent kids.
Bullets Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 Bullets tell me this then My brother has police officer friends who own quite a few weapons, not sure how they got them but they sell those guns from time to time. My father is actually going to meet with one or two of them in the next month or two and they are going to sell my father a AR15 and another couple of guns. There will be no background check of my father, no reporting to the FBI or the ATF on the sale of these guns. They in fact will be travelling across state lines to sell these guns. These are cops selling these guns and they are saying that this is legal. Your thoughts to this? Blatantly illegal ATF Title 27 § 478.30 Out-of-State disposition of firearms by nonlicensees. No nonlicensee shall transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any other nonlicensee, who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides Only way it can be done is through an FFL, which would require a NICS check Bullets, maybe you can correct me if I am wrong, but the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 allows FFLs to sell weapons at a show as long as they do a background check. However, the ATF states that only 50-75% of all vendors at shows are FFLs. The FOPA (1986) also allows those individuals who are "not engaged in the business" of selling firearms or those who only make "occasional" sales to sell any weapons without a background check. This would mean that 25-50% of all gun show sales are conducted without a background check. That's a pretty big loophole if you ask me. An FFL must complete a NICS check if they are selling a firearm. The gunshows i go to, eastern PA, require vendors to have a FFL or they wont give them space and this in the norm in this area. There are guys who are selling one gun, but these guys are not renting table space to sell a single rifle, unless its a Class 3 item. The guys who a renting tables are either in the business of selling guns or ammo, military surplus, reloading supplies, and beef jerky. I was at Oaks, PA a few weeks back and it is the largest gun show in the area, 1000 tables. Every one of them required an NICS check and advertised this clearly. Let us also not forget that the very nature of doing a transaction without a background check will typically mean that said transaction is probably going to be difficult to document when it comes to publishing statistics. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask how accurate the sale without background check statistics really are? It is probably reasonable to suspect the number may be much higher. How do you enforce background checks between private individuals? How do you regulate any commerce between two private individuals? Sales of cars, guns, potatoes ect. Its physically impossible to regulate that unless you require registration of every firearm also logistically impossible. If it occurs intrastate some would say its unconstitutional for the federal government to attempt to regulate intrastate commerce. And i will say, even when background checks occur, only a tiny fraction of states report mental health records to NICS. NJ does an internal check, so if you have been in the NJ mental health system it would come up, but otherwise there is no record. Either states dont keep this info or they dont report it, both of which are unacceptable but would thin out the applicant pool. And as previously noted, face to face transactions can only occur between residents of the same state
chbare Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 I never said anything about how to regulate anything nor should should you assume or imply that I have presented an official opinion, I only said the statistics in regards to some of the topics probably have large uncertainties.
chbare Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 "I understand people saying: "I have a gun, I'm not crazy, I'm not stupid, why would you take away my gun?" I agree, there are people who are no danger with a gun. But if you want to have your gun, it means you allow everybody else to own one, thus allowing all the events that make big news. You can't have your cake and eat it." I am not sure I understand your argument. You seem to take an all or nothing approach? You seem to recognise that at least some people are safe gun owners but that nobody should have a gun because other people are unsafe owners, or everybody should be allowed to have a gun regardless?
scubanurse Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 I have many guns and enjoy hunting and utilizing them for sport with friends. I am all for more stringent gun laws as long as I can keep mine as long as I am of sound mind. I am for mandatory waiting periods, more intensive background checks, and psych testing.
island emt Posted May 3, 2013 Posted May 3, 2013 despite you owning firearms, you clearly have no knowledge of firearms law Any sale of firearms that occurs across state line must go through an FFL, a persons with a license from the ATF to sell firearms. Before the FFL can release the fireamr to the buy they must conduct a background check The gun show loophole is a lie. 99.99999% of sellers at a gunshow are businesses. These people must conduct a background check before they can sell their inventory to a buyer. They also must record who they sold it to and keep a log of all their inventory that can be reviewed by the ATF at any time. Can a private individual sell a firearm to another in a face to face transaction? Yes, but this is rare at a gunshow. Hundreds of people, some get thousands attending, and maybe 1 or 2 will have a private sale. This is why i find it difficult to have reasonable debates with liberals and Democrats and other anti-gun owners. If you do not have a knowledge of the law as it currently exists, how can you speak authoritatively about the topic? Many have no idea about what the NFA says. Many have no idead what the AWB did (ban cosmetic features, no impact on functionality). This makes it difficult to have a discussion when you are operating on different levels of knowledge Actually I do understand the laws concerning firearms sale transactions. there are many times that firearms are sold through ads in shopper news or uncle henry's or whatever they call it in your neck of the woods without the transaction going through a FFL. We were out at the range last evening with a state police firearms instructor and a county sheriifs' deputy who is a FFL. We were trying out some new pistols and qualifying with some of them. We were talking about how easy it is to skirt the laws regarding firearm sales. I was up country last week and saw a sign" Sporting goods" show. Being in the market for another magazine for my 1908 colt , i figured it was worth a stop. There were half a dozen sellers set up in a hall and not one of them was a licensed dealer. I saw several transactions . all cash or check and no paperwork was done on any of them. Didn't find what I was looking for & left. The law requires legally operating firearms dealers to follow it , not the private sellers who do sell at small shows and over the web. Yes it is supposed to be followed in intrastate transactions , but the reality is many don't, and there is no one checking to see if they are doing those transactions legally. Back in the mid 80's we worked a section of a major Northeast city where anything you wanted could be bought within 15 minutes of putting out a feeler through the hood network. since we often took care of the gang members we got to know the who, what & where of the underworld of illegal gun sales. All cash and no questions asked. Last I heard things haven't changed much according to the state troopers we know that still work there. Go ahead and pretend the laws are getting the job done. talk about sticking your head in the sand and pretending all is good.
Kiwiology Posted May 3, 2013 Posted May 3, 2013 By controlling guns all we are doing is attempting to control a symptom of a much wider problem; thus failing to actually fix the underlying problem. By all means sensible gun controls are not a bad idea; just like sensible controls on who can drive or operate a boat or perform heart surgery are not bad ideas but to say that guns are the problem is not true. If some dude flips out and wastes some people then what is really to blame; the gun? or whatever led him to flip out in the first place?
Bullets Posted May 3, 2013 Posted May 3, 2013 Actually I do understand the laws concerning firearms sale transactions. there are many times that firearms are sold through ads in shopper news or uncle henry's or whatever they call it in your neck of the woods without the transaction going through a FFL. We were out at the range last evening with a state police firearms instructor and a county sheriifs' deputy who is a FFL. We were trying out some new pistols and qualifying with some of them. We were talking about how easy it is to skirt the laws regarding firearm sales. I was up country last week and saw a sign" Sporting goods" show. Being in the market for another magazine for my 1908 colt , i figured it was worth a stop. There were half a dozen sellers set up in a hall and not one of them was a licensed dealer. I saw several transactions . all cash or check and no paperwork was done on any of them. Didn't find what I was looking for & left. The law requires legally operating firearms dealers to follow it , not the private sellers who do sell at small shows and over the web. Yes it is supposed to be followed in intrastate transactions , but the reality is many don't, and there is no one checking to see if they are doing those transactions legally. Back in the mid 80's we worked a section of a major Northeast city where anything you wanted could be bought within 15 minutes of putting out a feeler through the hood network. since we often took care of the gang members we got to know the who, what & where of the underworld of illegal gun sales. All cash and no questions asked. Last I heard things haven't changed much according to the state troopers we know that still work there. Go ahead and pretend the laws are getting the job done. talk about sticking your head in the sand and pretending all is good. My argument isnt for carte blanche sale and trade of firearms. That is unreasonable and irresponsible. My argument is that the laws that currently exist are sufficient but require enforcement and require mandatory reporting of psych records as we have with criminal records If by your admission, the current laws arent being enforced, how will passing new laws change that? Without having a cop in every bedroom, parking lot, bathroom and rest stop? How do you regulate sales between private individuals without registering every single firearm? Which is logistically and practically impossible
Secouriste Posted May 4, 2013 Posted May 4, 2013 (edited) Chbare: Yes. I think that if you really want to decrease gun violence you have to ban guns from civil society. Of course there should be exceptions, but owning a loaded lethal weapon shouldn't be allowed. Background checks wouldn't change anything really. When one wants to acquire a gun, one finds ways. A "background check" would be easily bypassed. Moreover, no offense but I'd never trust the american administration to set up such a big system and run it efficiently. And who to pay for it? If you allow only a certain caliber with a certain amount of ammo per charger, and if you limit the overall number of ammo's one can own you automatically decrease the potential damages. Moreover, if the state were to perform regular controls, it would generate money and free equipment for the police. Well, I'm quite aware this is never going to happen. Thus my position is quite simple: ban every automatic or semi-auto weapon. Only the police and the army should own such guns. There is absolutely no reason for a random civilian to own a war weapon. Or maybe I'm missing something... Edited May 4, 2013 by Secouriste
Recommended Posts