Gun that killed 3-year-old... (1 Viewer)

[Chaka]

I do consider it in need of improvement. The criminal records are being uploaded to the system. Where the states are falling down is in uploading mental health records.

Story from the Boston Globe on the issue

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/01/28/massachusetts-among-worst-sharing-mental-health-data-for-gun-background-checks/WmvEKsnUWsQWxvvsXwLY5O/story.html

Massachusetts has submitted 1 mental health record to NICS since 1999 and it was a test record.

While I agree that we should be extremely clear about what mental health records are submitted. People who are involuntarily commited should be allowed to buy a gun for at least some period of time. I also dont know if it should be a permanent exclusion or if it should sunset if no additional records are added to the system.

So you are okay with private medical records being put in an national database but against a comprehensive gun registry?

Well the cat is already out of the bag on that one. Pretty sure the law that created the NICS system has been challeneged legally and has withstood the challenge. The law requires that states provide the records. I guess with the passage of HIPAA the law could be challenged again.

Somehow I think that if a similar gun registry law was passed you would not accept it so readily as you seem to for those whose medical records are being put into a national database.

 

[Spanky267]

I do consider it in need of improvement. The criminal records are being uploaded to the system. Where the states are falling down is in uploading mental health records.

Story from the Boston Globe on the issue

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/01/28/massachusetts-among-worst-sharing-mental-health-data-for-gun-background-checks/WmvEKsnUWsQWxvvsXwLY5O/story.html

Massachusetts has submitted 1 mental health record to NICS since 1999 and it was a test record.

While I agree that we should be extremely clear about what mental health records are submitted. People who are involuntarily commited should be allowed to buy a gun for at least some period of time. I also dont know if it should be a permanent exclusion or if it should sunset if no additional records are added to the system.

So you are okay with private medical records being put in an national database but against a comprehensive gun registry?

Well the cat is already out of the bag on that one. Pretty sure the law that created the NICS system has been challeneged legally and has withstood the challenge. The law requires that states provide the records. I guess with the passage of HIPAA the law could be challenged again.

Somehow I think that if a similar gun registry law was passed you would not accept it so readily as you seem to for those whose medical records are being put into a national database.

Yeah. Youve got me thinking there. But to me the difference is that the NICS is a useful tool that keeps guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. I just really dont find a national gun registry all that useful. But thats me. Going to have to ponder this for a while.

 

[Chaka]

Here is another angle. People that get rejected on background checks arent being prosecuted for providing false information. At least they arent being prosecuted in significant enough numbers to deter people from attempting.

http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2013/mar/22/kelly-ayotte/most-people-trying-buy-gun-illegally-us-senator-ke/

Great. More problems for an already ineffective system.

Any idea why they aren't being prosecuted? Could it be budget and manpower issues? Although the fact that they were denied in the first place is a pretty good start however.

 

[Chaka]

Somehow I think that if a similar gun registry law was passed you would not accept it so readily as you seem to for those whose medical records are being put into a national database.

Yeah. Youve got me thinking there. But to me the difference is that the NICS is a useful tool that keeps guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. I just really dont find a national gun registry all that useful. But thats me. Going to have to ponder this for a while.

Fair enough. I personally think the idea of being able to track a weapon from manufacture to distributor to original and all subsequent owners would be a huge boon to law enforcement. It will lead to identification and, God willing, prosecution of corrupt FFL holders and gun purchasers who either illegally sell their weapons or fail to report it when they are stolen.

I don't see how that isn't a net benefit for society.

 

[Spanky267]

Here is another angle. People that get rejected on background checks arent being prosecuted for providing false information. At least they arent being prosecuted in significant enough numbers to deter people from attempting.

http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2013/mar/22/kelly-ayotte/most-people-trying-buy-gun-illegally-us-senator-ke/

Great. More problems for an already ineffective system.

Any idea why they aren't being prosecuted? Could it be budget and manpower issues? Although the fact that they were denied in the first place is a pretty good start however.

No I havent read an article on why they arent being prosecuted. Providing false information on these documents is a federal offense. State and Locals seem to be making arrests on these offenses but only in the low thousands and those are arrests not prosecutions.

I think its lack of interest. I dont know why we wouldnt look into every single attempt. It seems that would be the place to start. If crooks knew they would be investigated and prosecuted for simply submitting a background check then it would dry up one avenue that they try to use. We have to aggressively go after straw purchasers but that is going to take undercover work. We also have to go after the FFLs who circumvent the system by selling guns around the background check system.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Please explain to me how a national gun registry would stop crime. Create a senario where a gun registry keeps someone from being killed within the limitation of our current law set.

 

[Chaka]

Here is another angle. People that get rejected on background checks arent being prosecuted for providing false information. At least they arent being prosecuted in significant enough numbers to deter people from attempting.

http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2013/mar/22/kelly-ayotte/most-people-trying-buy-gun-illegally-us-senator-ke/

Great. More problems for an already ineffective system.

Any idea why they aren't being prosecuted? Could it be budget and manpower issues? Although the fact that they were denied in the first place is a pretty good start however.

No I havent read an article on why they arent being prosecuted. Providing false information on these documents is a federal offense. State and Locals seem to be making arrests on these offenses but only in the low thousands and those are arrests not prosecutions.

I think its lack of interest. I dont know why we wouldnt look into every single attempt. It seems that would be the place to start. If crooks knew they would be investigated and prosecuted for simply submitting a background check then it would dry up one avenue that they try to use. We have to aggressively go after straw purchasers but that is going to take undercover work. We also have to go after the FFLs who circumvent the system by selling guns around the background check system.

Sure I would like to see some punitive action taken against those failing background checks. Not sure what punishment would be appropriate as our jails are already pretty much a failed profit driven system. But it seems like it would require a huge allocation of resources and so long as the system is actually preventing them from getting guns in the first place then it is at least working on some level. Definitely could be working better though.

And a national registry along with actually demanding regular accounting of inventories with FFL holders (something that we currently only give lip service to, TYVM NRA) would go along way towards keeping those illegal guns off the streets. If a gun was acquired from a straw purchase or directly from a d-bag FFL holder and used in a crime it would be able to be traced to that purchaser or FFL holder. And we would all be safer for it. We need a fast, efficient, comprehensive national gun registry.

It won't prevent you from owning as many guns as you want and it will help reduce gun violence. Isn't that something we should all strive for?

 

[Chaka]

Please explain to me how a national gun registry would stop crime. Create a senario where a gun registry keeps someone from being killed within the limitation of our current law set.

I have set this up several times already.

If you can track the entire lifespan of a gun you can find out how it was put into a situation to be used in a crime and prosecute everyone involved, not just the shooter. That keeps more guns from getting into the hands of criminals and does no harm to legal, responsible gun owners.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Please explain to me how a national gun registry would stop crime. Create a senario where a gun registry keeps someone from being killed within the limitation of our current law set.

I have set this up several times already.If you can track the entire lifespan of a gun you can find out how it was put into a situation to be used in a crime and prosecute everyone involved, not just the shooter. That keeps more guns from getting into the hands of criminals and does no harm to legal, responsible gun owners.

Prosecute everyone involved? What are you going to charge them with? It's not illegal to sell a firearm..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So now everyone who has ever owned the firearm, that was eventually used in a crime by someone else completely, is going to be prosecuted including the gun manufacturer.... This is getting good... And you were trying to convince us that gun registry was a good thing?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

And knowing who owned a firearm previously has nothing to do with the crime that it was used in by the current owner. Typically the gun is not what the police have. Typically what the police have a dead body. or maybe they have a robbery victim. How is gun registry going to help them with that?

 

[Chaka]

so now everyone who is ever on the firearm that was eventually used in a crime by someone else completely is going to be prosecuted including the gun manufacturer.... this is getting good... and you were trying to convince us that gun registry was a good thing?

Not what I said at all but keep spinning it that way.

 

[Chaka]

Please explain to me how a national gun registry would stop crime. Create a senario where a gun registry keeps someone from being killed within the limitation of our current law set.

I have set this up several times already.If you can track the entire lifespan of a gun you can find out how it was put into a situation to be used in a crime and prosecute everyone involved, not just the shooter. That keeps more guns from getting into the hands of criminals and does no harm to legal, responsible gun owners.

prosecute everyone involved? What are you going to charge them with? it's not illegal to sell a firearm..

How is that relevant to a system that does not exist?

Perhaps we could, y'know, create the laws along with the system?

Who cares you would oppose it based on...honestly I have no idea why anyone would oppose knowing the chain of custody on firearms.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

A national firearm registry doesn't deter or solve crime unless you make new laws... Once you make it a criminal offense to sell a weapon to someone who eventually uses it in a crime, you will then be able to use the registry to find the person that broke that new law. But first you'd have to solve the original crime, find the murderer, find the gun, prove it was the gun used in the crime, and then convict the murderer. Then once you can prove a certain firearm was used in a crime, you could use the registry to find the previous owner. But in no way does a national gun registry help solve or deter the murder.

And there are a million reasons why a law that would convict someone for simply selling a firearm that was eventually used in a crime by someone else, is a bad idea.

If someone sells you a knife, and you kill someone with it, should then then be convicted of a crime as well?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Why don't you lay out a scenario for us that shows us how at national gun registry would help solve a crime based on laws that are currently on the books

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Please explain to me how a national gun registry would stop crime. Create a senario where a gun registry keeps someone from being killed within the limitation of our current law set.

I have set this up several times already.If you can track the entire lifespan of a gun you can find out how it was put into a situation to be used in a crime and prosecute everyone involved, not just the shooter. That keeps more guns from getting into the hands of criminals and does no harm to legal, responsible gun owners.

prosecute everyone involved? What are you going to charge them with? it's not illegal to sell a firearm..

How is that relevant to a system that does not exist?

Perhaps we could, y'know, create the laws along with the system?

Who cares you would oppose it based on...honestly I have no idea why anyone would oppose knowing the chain of custody on firearms.

"You should want a national registry for all firearms"

Why would I want that?

"Because it would help law enforcement solve crimes and/or deter law breakers"

Based on which laws?

"The ones that do not exist yet.. But it will be great, you just wait and see.. Trust me on this"

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Whole lot of insanity on this page wow! Glad to see racism and "kill everyone" get trotted out. Way to destroy any ground you might have had in this debate.

Schlzm

ETA: And you get upset when called hysterical and panicky...

Actually I really don't give a crap. I find it ####### hilarious that a crowd the believes their ####### pea shooters are going to hold off the NWO feel fit to call anyone panicky. I see a trend. It's not all gun owners and it's not all white men, but the cases I see are mostly white men and they seem to be striking out against the world, not the people they shoot.Also, do you know what the word panic means? Or hysterical? I have suggested two things: a long-term solution to accidental gun deaths based on emerging technology, and that certain members of the gun crowd are using their concealed carry permits as a way to feel like they are still in control.

Which of those two seem hysterical or panicky to you? And which one seems more panicky than thinking your entire government is out to get you and the only thing standing between you and total enslavement is your trusty AR-15?

Whole lot of insanity on this page wow! Glad to see racism and "kill everyone" get trotted out. Way to destroy any ground you might have had in this debate.

Schlzm

ETA: And you get upset when called hysterical and panicky...

Actually I really don't give a crap. I find it ####### hilarious that a crowd the believes their ####### pea shooters are going to hold off the NWO feel fit to call anyone panicky. I see a trend. It's not all gun owners and it's not all white men, but the cases I see are mostly white men and they seem to be striking out against the world, not the people they shoot.Also, do you know what the word panic means? Or hysterical? I have suggested two things: a long-term solution to accidental gun deaths based on emerging technology, and that certain members of the gun crowd are using their concealed carry permits as a way to feel like they are still in control.

Which of those two seem hysterical or panicky to you? And which one seems more panicky than thinking your entire government is out to get you and the only thing standing between you and total enslavement is your trusty AR-15?

Do you read what you type? You like to talk about the meanings of words and try to convey what other people are doing but I am only addressing you and how you are acting. Maybe it's your avatar, but you seem shrill and rediculous.Schlzm

Well if it's in what I wrote should be easy to come up with some shrill and ridiculous things I have posted. I've posted on two subjects, and really only one in depth.1: If there is something you find shrill and ridiculous about the long-term strategy involving existing tech post it.

On the second, I realize it is unpopular to call out the paranoia and delusions that some concealed carry holders show. It's unpopular to express that recent shootings we have discussed on this board all seem to have a central theme. That doesn't make the assertion that they all carry a similar theme shrill or ridiculous. Far-fetched would at least fit for an opposing view saying there is no central theme or connection.

Seems like a common refrain to say that anyone actually challenging the established notions and positions that have led this country to where it is on guns is being panicky or crazy. Having lived outside this country, I can say that this view is unique to the US and probably much more prevalent in people who have never lived outside of it. The rest of the world views us as completely bat#### ####### crazy on this issue. Hopelessly mentally deranged. Given that our gun violence level per capita in on par with third-world republics rather than our first-world economic counterparts, I think we are the ones in need of self-examination. Realizing that the gun lobby is so entrenched in our politics, and gun culture so entrenched as a national value, I feel the need to try and find some points of common ground with the opposition.

If this is viewed as shrill and panicky or "losing it" so be it, I'm not going to change my views unless someone actually presents a good argument. Name calling is not going to get it done.

ETA: Just want to add in my defense I have not gone after magazine clips, semi-auto or "scary" looking guns, and I have not suggested any type of ban. I have suggested government action to spur investment in better technology to make guns safer.

1: You mean the item I agreed with you on ultimately?As to the rest of your post, it's all in your writing. Your posts have a tone of a scared person screaming about things they don't understand. Of course a country that has more personally owned firearms than pretty much anywhere is going to have more firearm related violence so attempting to compare other countries in this area is mostly pointless. Pointing out three recent events where "angry white men" killed "innocent black kids" as some terrifying trend pointing to the inevitable, oh wait what was your point other than "angry white men" owning guns is bad?, while barely giving lip service to the countless other violent acts commited by people of all walks of life also comes off as pretty shrill. Finally I don't expect you to ever conede any argument good enough to change your point of view on the subject. You are entrenched, and that's fine, but at least except it. I'm just pointing out that your tone isn't going to win over anyone.

Schlzm

I understand the opposing arguments, I just don't find them compelling

More education: more of what already isn't working all that well.

Any new solution has to be 100% effective: Current solutions aren't 100% effective

Guns are a separate class because of the 2nd amendment: I agree that guns can not be rendered useless or ineffective, but I do not agree that there is anything in the 2nd amendment that makes them a protected class of product that our government can not regulate. They just can't impose regulations that render guns ineffective or useless.

As to the trends I see they are my opinion and have more to feelings of marginalization than race. However that relates more to whites than other races. And it relates more to the middle class than any other class. I realize I am connecting dots here, but I don't see anything wrong with that. It has striking similarities with the whole "take back America" movement coming from the right, which is predominantly lower and middle-class whites. Sorry, that's just how the racial demographics fall. I don't see being white as a causal factor for being angry or unhinged. It has more to do with worldview and demographics.

lmao at 'Angry white men with guns trend'

You've lost your mind...

 

[Chaka]

Please explain to me how a national gun registry would stop crime. Create a senario where a gun registry keeps someone from being killed within the limitation of our current law set.

I have set this up several times already.If you can track the entire lifespan of a gun you can find out how it was put into a situation to be used in a crime and prosecute everyone involved, not just the shooter. That keeps more guns from getting into the hands of criminals and does no harm to legal, responsible gun owners.

prosecute everyone involved? What are you going to charge them with? it's not illegal to sell a firearm..

How is that relevant to a system that does not exist?

Perhaps we could, y'know, create the laws along with the system?

Who cares you would oppose it based on...honestly I have no idea why anyone would oppose knowing the chain of custody on firearms.

"You should want a national registry for all firearms"

Why would I want that?

"Because it would help law enforcement solve crimes and/or deter law breakers"

Based on which laws?

"The ones that do not exist yet.. But it will be great, you just wait and see.. Trust me on this"

Oh I don't know. How about the first time they track a gun that was sold illegally by a FFL holder THEY ARREST HIM? If there is no law on the books then, y'know, WRITE A NEW ONE!

You honestly think if they found someone selling guns illegally they wouldn't be able to find an existing law to prosecute them under? And if somehow there was no charge that they could make stick, which is highly unlikely, then MAKE A NEW LAW!

My goodness.

Now how does a gun registry hurt you? Anything other than the paranoid and irrational fear that the government is going to kick down your door and take them away?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Please explain to me how a national gun registry would stop crime. Create a senario where a gun registry keeps someone from being killed within the limitation of our current law set.

I have set this up several times already.If you can track the entire lifespan of a gun you can find out how it was put into a situation to be used in a crime and prosecute everyone involved, not just the shooter. That keeps more guns from getting into the hands of criminals and does no harm to legal, responsible gun owners.

prosecute everyone involved? What are you going to charge them with? it's not illegal to sell a firearm..

How is that relevant to a system that does not exist?

Perhaps we could, y'know, create the laws along with the system?

Who cares you would oppose it based on...honestly I have no idea why anyone would oppose knowing the chain of custody on firearms.

"You should want a national registry for all firearms"

Why would I want that?

"Because it would help law enforcement solve crimes and/or deter law breakers"

Based on which laws?

"The ones that do not exist yet.. But it will be great, you just wait and see.. Trust me on this"

Oh I don't know. How about the first time they track a gun that was sold illegally by a FFL holder THEY ARREST HIM? If there is no law on the books then, y'know, WRITE A NEW ONE!

You honestly think if they found someone selling guns illegally they wouldn't be able to find an existing law to prosecute them under? And if somehow there was no charge that they could make stick, which is highly unlikely, then MAKE A NEW LAW!

My goodness.

Now how does a gun registry hurt you? Anything other than the paranoid and irrational fear that the government is going to kick down your door and take them away?

Sold illegally how? lol, wtf are you talking about..

Please do 2 things,

1) lay out a scenario for us, explain the situation, whats the crime, and how the police use gun registry to solve it...

2) Explain the new law you are proposing. It's illegal to sell a gun to someone who after you sell it to them commits a crime with it? That sounds ridiculous so I hope that's not what you have in mind..

You've already explained that you want the people who sold the criminal the gun to be prosecuted. There is no way someone could know what this person will eventually use this gun for. So what could it hurt? If the government produces ridiculous laws like that one, it could hurt alot.. innocent people will be subjected to criminal charges for something done with the weapon when they no longer own it. Also, gun confiscations already occur, a registry would only make that situation worse..

 

[Spanky267]

Please explain to me how a national gun registry would stop crime. Create a senario where a gun registry keeps someone from being killed within the limitation of our current law set.

I have set this up several times already.If you can track the entire lifespan of a gun you can find out how it was put into a situation to be used in a crime and prosecute everyone involved, not just the shooter. That keeps more guns from getting into the hands of criminals and does no harm to legal, responsible gun owners.

prosecute everyone involved? What are you going to charge them with? it's not illegal to sell a firearm..

How is that relevant to a system that does not exist?

Perhaps we could, y'know, create the laws along with the system?

Who cares you would oppose it based on...honestly I have no idea why anyone would oppose knowing the chain of custody on firearms.

"You should want a national registry for all firearms"

Why would I want that?

"Because it would help law enforcement solve crimes and/or deter law breakers"

Based on which laws?

"The ones that do not exist yet.. But it will be great, you just wait and see.. Trust me on this"

Oh I don't know. How about the first time they track a gun that was sold illegally by a FFL holder THEY ARREST HIM? If there is no law on the books then, y'know, WRITE A NEW ONE!

You honestly think if they found someone selling guns illegally they wouldn't be able to find an existing law to prosecute them under? And if somehow there was no charge that they could make stick, which is highly unlikely, then MAKE A NEW LAW!

My goodness.

Now how does a gun registry hurt you? Anything other than the paranoid and irrational fear that the government is going to kick down your door and take them away?

Chaka

I understand your scenario. But in regards to the unscrupulous FFL holder if he is currently skirting the background check system and selling guns to people who shouldnt have them. Dont you think he'll find a way to skirt the registry? Its not like he's going to sell the gun to Freddy the Felon and then enter the gun in the national registry. Also when it comes to the registration of guns currently in circulation, the guys who arent supposed to have guns but do arent going to suddenly register them. So the registry might not be as helpful in solving crimes as you might think it will be. What you may come across are the honest individuals who have unwittingly sold a gun to someone who isnt supposed to have one. Even if you close that loophole by mandating background checks for private sales then unscrupulous private sellers will just not report their transactions. So in essence you'll have a registry of guns that is largely made up of honest people who follow the rules. Then you'll have a subculture of illegal and blackmarket guns that arent registered and their owners arent vetted. So basically what we have now but with a nice tidy list of all the legally owned guns in America.

 

[[icon]]

Bottom line is....

1) some in this thread think it's 100% inconceivable that the government would ever use a gun registry to confiscate guns. There are others in this thread that hope that would never come to pass, but lack the same faith in the government.

2) There are some in this thread that think enacting laws to control gun distribution will have a significant impact on firearms getting into the hands of those who mean to do harm. There are others in this thread who feel the black and grey market will be impossible to overcome and no matter what legislation is enacted, weapons will be readily available to "bad guys".

3) There are some in this thread that think that the desire/need by some to carry a firearm for the purposes of self defense is being paranoid and think the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to that right anyway. There are others in this thread who hold the rights afforded by the constitution dear, and think carrying a firearm for purposes of self defense is an unlikely-to-be-needed but appreciated last line of self defense.

And no amount of debate will change that.

 

[The Commish]

Please explain to me how a national gun registry would stop crime. Create a senario where a gun registry keeps someone from being killed within the limitation of our current law set.

I have set this up several times already.If you can track the entire lifespan of a gun you can find out how it was put into a situation to be used in a crime and prosecute everyone involved, not just the shooter. That keeps more guns from getting into the hands of criminals and does no harm to legal, responsible gun owners.

prosecute everyone involved? What are you going to charge them with? it's not illegal to sell a firearm..

How is that relevant to a system that does not exist?

Perhaps we could, y'know, create the laws along with the system?

Who cares you would oppose it based on...honestly I have no idea why anyone would oppose knowing the chain of custody on firearms.

"You should want a national registry for all firearms"

Why would I want that?

"Because it would help law enforcement solve crimes and/or deter law breakers"

Based on which laws?

"The ones that do not exist yet.. But it will be great, you just wait and see.. Trust me on this"

Oh I don't know. How about the first time they track a gun that was sold illegally by a FFL holder THEY ARREST HIM? If there is no law on the books then, y'know, WRITE A NEW ONE!

You honestly think if they found someone selling guns illegally they wouldn't be able to find an existing law to prosecute them under? And if somehow there was no charge that they could make stick, which is highly unlikely, then MAKE A NEW LAW!

My goodness.

Now how does a gun registry hurt you? Anything other than the paranoid and irrational fear that the government is going to kick down your door and take them away?

Chaka

I understand your scenario. But in regards to the unscrupulous FFL holder if he is currently skirting the background check system and selling guns to people who shouldnt have them. Dont you think he'll find a way to skirt the registry? Its not like he's going to sell the gun to Freddy the Felon and then enter the gun in the national registry. Also when it comes to the registration of guns currently in circulation, the guys who arent supposed to have guns but do arent going to suddenly register them. So the registry might not be as helpful in solving crimes as you might think it will be. What you may come across are the honest individuals who have unwittingly sold a gun to someone who isnt supposed to have one. Even if you close that loophole by mandating background checks for private sales then unscrupulous private sellers will just not report their transactions. So in essence you'll have a registry of guns that is largely made up of honest people who follow the rules. Then you'll have a subculture of illegal and blackmarket guns that arent registered and their owners arent vetted. So basically what we have now but with a nice tidy list of all the legally owned guns in America.

This is a good question actually. What if we had a "certificate" for each firearm? WHen the gun company sells it to the retailer, that "certificate" is signed over to the retailer, when the retailer sells it, it's signed over to the purchaser and so on. Wouldn't it be clear where things went off the track if you had a chain of custody so to speak?

 

[The Commish]

Love all the nonsensical hyperbole on this page

 

[Spanky267]

Please explain to me how a national gun registry would stop crime. Create a senario where a gun registry keeps someone from being killed within the limitation of our current law set.

I have set this up several times already.If you can track the entire lifespan of a gun you can find out how it was put into a situation to be used in a crime and prosecute everyone involved, not just the shooter. That keeps more guns from getting into the hands of criminals and does no harm to legal, responsible gun owners.

prosecute everyone involved? What are you going to charge them with? it's not illegal to sell a firearm..

How is that relevant to a system that does not exist?

Perhaps we could, y'know, create the laws along with the system?

Who cares you would oppose it based on...honestly I have no idea why anyone would oppose knowing the chain of custody on firearms.

"You should want a national registry for all firearms"

Why would I want that?

"Because it would help law enforcement solve crimes and/or deter law breakers"

Based on which laws?

"The ones that do not exist yet.. But it will be great, you just wait and see.. Trust me on this"

Oh I don't know. How about the first time they track a gun that was sold illegally by a FFL holder THEY ARREST HIM? If there is no law on the books then, y'know, WRITE A NEW ONE!

You honestly think if they found someone selling guns illegally they wouldn't be able to find an existing law to prosecute them under? And if somehow there was no charge that they could make stick, which is highly unlikely, then MAKE A NEW LAW!

My goodness.

Now how does a gun registry hurt you? Anything other than the paranoid and irrational fear that the government is going to kick down your door and take them away?

Chaka

I understand your scenario. But in regards to the unscrupulous FFL holder if he is currently skirting the background check system and selling guns to people who shouldnt have them. Dont you think he'll find a way to skirt the registry? Its not like he's going to sell the gun to Freddy the Felon and then enter the gun in the national registry. Also when it comes to the registration of guns currently in circulation, the guys who arent supposed to have guns but do arent going to suddenly register them. So the registry might not be as helpful in solving crimes as you might think it will be. What you may come across are the honest individuals who have unwittingly sold a gun to someone who isnt supposed to have one. Even if you close that loophole by mandating background checks for private sales then unscrupulous private sellers will just not report their transactions. So in essence you'll have a registry of guns that is largely made up of honest people who follow the rules. Then you'll have a subculture of illegal and blackmarket guns that arent registered and their owners arent vetted. So basically what we have now but with a nice tidy list of all the legally owned guns in America.

This is a good question actually. What if we had a "certificate" for each firearm? WHen the gun company sells it to the retailer, that "certificate" is signed over to the retailer, when the retailer sells it, it's signed over to the purchaser and so on. Wouldn't it be clear where things went off the track if you had a chain of custody so to speak?

That is basically what you'd have in the registry scenario. The certificate is the serial number of the gun. Each one has a unique serial number. Its a system that can be worked around. It happens now with cars, fake titles and altered VIN numbers.

 

[Chaka]

Please explain to me how a national gun registry would stop crime. Create a senario where a gun registry keeps someone from being killed within the limitation of our current law set.

I have set this up several times already.If you can track the entire lifespan of a gun you can find out how it was put into a situation to be used in a crime and prosecute everyone involved, not just the shooter. That keeps more guns from getting into the hands of criminals and does no harm to legal, responsible gun owners.

prosecute everyone involved? What are you going to charge them with? it's not illegal to sell a firearm..

How is that relevant to a system that does not exist?

Perhaps we could, y'know, create the laws along with the system?

Who cares you would oppose it based on...honestly I have no idea why anyone would oppose knowing the chain of custody on firearms.

"You should want a national registry for all firearms"

Why would I want that?

"Because it would help law enforcement solve crimes and/or deter law breakers"

Based on which laws?

"The ones that do not exist yet.. But it will be great, you just wait and see.. Trust me on this"

Oh I don't know. How about the first time they track a gun that was sold illegally by a FFL holder THEY ARREST HIM? If there is no law on the books then, y'know, WRITE A NEW ONE!

You honestly think if they found someone selling guns illegally they wouldn't be able to find an existing law to prosecute them under? And if somehow there was no charge that they could make stick, which is highly unlikely, then MAKE A NEW LAW!

My goodness.

Now how does a gun registry hurt you? Anything other than the paranoid and irrational fear that the government is going to kick down your door and take them away?

Chaka

I understand your scenario. But in regards to the unscrupulous FFL holder if he is currently skirting the background check system and selling guns to people who shouldnt have them. Dont you think he'll find a way to skirt the registry? Its not like he's going to sell the gun to Freddy the Felon and then enter the gun in the national registry. Also when it comes to the registration of guns currently in circulation, the guys who arent supposed to have guns but do arent going to suddenly register them. So the registry might not be as helpful in solving crimes as you might think it will be. What you may come across are the honest individuals who have unwittingly sold a gun to someone who isnt supposed to have one. Even if you close that loophole by mandating background checks for private sales then unscrupulous private sellers will just not report their transactions. So in essence you'll have a registry of guns that is largely made up of honest people who follow the rules. Then you'll have a subculture of illegal and blackmarket guns that arent registered and their owners arent vetted. So basically what we have now but with a nice tidy list of all the legally owned guns in America.

This is a good question actually. What if we had a "certificate" for each firearm? WHen the gun company sells it to the retailer, that "certificate" is signed over to the retailer, when the retailer sells it, it's signed over to the purchaser and so on. Wouldn't it be clear where things went off the track if you had a chain of custody so to speak?

What does it matter? Apparently it is never illegal to sell a firearm to anyone.

 

[Spanky267]

Please explain to me how a national gun registry would stop crime. Create a senario where a gun registry keeps someone from being killed within the limitation of our current law set.

I have set this up several times already.If you can track the entire lifespan of a gun you can find out how it was put into a situation to be used in a crime and prosecute everyone involved, not just the shooter. That keeps more guns from getting into the hands of criminals and does no harm to legal, responsible gun owners.

prosecute everyone involved? What are you going to charge them with? it's not illegal to sell a firearm..

How is that relevant to a system that does not exist?

Perhaps we could, y'know, create the laws along with the system?

Who cares you would oppose it based on...honestly I have no idea why anyone would oppose knowing the chain of custody on firearms.

"You should want a national registry for all firearms"

Why would I want that?

"Because it would help law enforcement solve crimes and/or deter law breakers"

Based on which laws?

"The ones that do not exist yet.. But it will be great, you just wait and see.. Trust me on this"

Oh I don't know. How about the first time they track a gun that was sold illegally by a FFL holder THEY ARREST HIM? If there is no law on the books then, y'know, WRITE A NEW ONE!

You honestly think if they found someone selling guns illegally they wouldn't be able to find an existing law to prosecute them under? And if somehow there was no charge that they could make stick, which is highly unlikely, then MAKE A NEW LAW!

My goodness.

Now how does a gun registry hurt you? Anything other than the paranoid and irrational fear that the government is going to kick down your door and take them away?

Chaka

I understand your scenario. But in regards to the unscrupulous FFL holder if he is currently skirting the background check system and selling guns to people who shouldnt have them. Dont you think he'll find a way to skirt the registry? Its not like he's going to sell the gun to Freddy the Felon and then enter the gun in the national registry. Also when it comes to the registration of guns currently in circulation, the guys who arent supposed to have guns but do arent going to suddenly register them. So the registry might not be as helpful in solving crimes as you might think it will be. What you may come across are the honest individuals who have unwittingly sold a gun to someone who isnt supposed to have one. Even if you close that loophole by mandating background checks for private sales then unscrupulous private sellers will just not report their transactions. So in essence you'll have a registry of guns that is largely made up of honest people who follow the rules. Then you'll have a subculture of illegal and blackmarket guns that arent registered and their owners arent vetted. So basically what we have now but with a nice tidy list of all the legally owned guns in America.

This is a good question actually. What if we had a "certificate" for each firearm? WHen the gun company sells it to the retailer, that "certificate" is signed over to the retailer, when the retailer sells it, it's signed over to the purchaser and so on. Wouldn't it be clear where things went off the track if you had a chain of custody so to speak?

What does it matter? Apparently it is never illegal to sell a firearm to anyone.

It is illegal. But has the illegality of an act stopped people from doing them? People get murdered everyday. People drive without a license. People steal and commit fraud everyday. Is it inconceivable that people currently committing illegal acts will continue to try to commit the same illegal act by circumventing some new system put in place as an effort to stop them?

 

[The Commish]

Please explain to me how a national gun registry would stop crime. Create a senario where a gun registry keeps someone from being killed within the limitation of our current law set.

I have set this up several times already.If you can track the entire lifespan of a gun you can find out how it was put into a situation to be used in a crime and prosecute everyone involved, not just the shooter. That keeps more guns from getting into the hands of criminals and does no harm to legal, responsible gun owners.

prosecute everyone involved? What are you going to charge them with? it's not illegal to sell a firearm..

How is that relevant to a system that does not exist?

Perhaps we could, y'know, create the laws along with the system?

Who cares you would oppose it based on...honestly I have no idea why anyone would oppose knowing the chain of custody on firearms.

"You should want a national registry for all firearms"

Why would I want that?

"Because it would help law enforcement solve crimes and/or deter law breakers"

Based on which laws?

"The ones that do not exist yet.. But it will be great, you just wait and see.. Trust me on this"

Oh I don't know. How about the first time they track a gun that was sold illegally by a FFL holder THEY ARREST HIM? If there is no law on the books then, y'know, WRITE A NEW ONE!

You honestly think if they found someone selling guns illegally they wouldn't be able to find an existing law to prosecute them under? And if somehow there was no charge that they could make stick, which is highly unlikely, then MAKE A NEW LAW!

My goodness.

Now how does a gun registry hurt you? Anything other than the paranoid and irrational fear that the government is going to kick down your door and take them away?

Chaka

I understand your scenario. But in regards to the unscrupulous FFL holder if he is currently skirting the background check system and selling guns to people who shouldnt have them. Dont you think he'll find a way to skirt the registry? Its not like he's going to sell the gun to Freddy the Felon and then enter the gun in the national registry. Also when it comes to the registration of guns currently in circulation, the guys who arent supposed to have guns but do arent going to suddenly register them. So the registry might not be as helpful in solving crimes as you might think it will be. What you may come across are the honest individuals who have unwittingly sold a gun to someone who isnt supposed to have one. Even if you close that loophole by mandating background checks for private sales then unscrupulous private sellers will just not report their transactions. So in essence you'll have a registry of guns that is largely made up of honest people who follow the rules. Then you'll have a subculture of illegal and blackmarket guns that arent registered and their owners arent vetted. So basically what we have now but with a nice tidy list of all the legally owned guns in America.

This is a good question actually. What if we had a "certificate" for each firearm? WHen the gun company sells it to the retailer, that "certificate" is signed over to the retailer, when the retailer sells it, it's signed over to the purchaser and so on. Wouldn't it be clear where things went off the track if you had a chain of custody so to speak?

That is basically what you'd have in the registry scenario. The certificate is the serial number of the gun. Each one has a unique serial number. Its a system that can be worked around. It happens now with cars, fake titles and altered VIN numbers.

Well sure...if there's a system, there's a work around. That's how things usually go. If our standard is to implement something that is foolproof, it's never going to happen, but I believe there is plenty of middle ground. If one wants to use the current paper system, I am fine with that as well provided they close the holes in it. I'm not much of a stickler when it comes to the "how" as long as it's a relatively sound system.

 

[The Commish]

Please explain to me how a national gun registry would stop crime. Create a senario where a gun registry keeps someone from being killed within the limitation of our current law set.

I have set this up several times already.If you can track the entire lifespan of a gun you can find out how it was put into a situation to be used in a crime and prosecute everyone involved, not just the shooter. That keeps more guns from getting into the hands of criminals and does no harm to legal, responsible gun owners.

prosecute everyone involved? What are you going to charge them with? it's not illegal to sell a firearm..

How is that relevant to a system that does not exist?

Perhaps we could, y'know, create the laws along with the system?

Who cares you would oppose it based on...honestly I have no idea why anyone would oppose knowing the chain of custody on firearms.

"You should want a national registry for all firearms"

Why would I want that?

"Because it would help law enforcement solve crimes and/or deter law breakers"

Based on which laws?

"The ones that do not exist yet.. But it will be great, you just wait and see.. Trust me on this"

Oh I don't know. How about the first time they track a gun that was sold illegally by a FFL holder THEY ARREST HIM? If there is no law on the books then, y'know, WRITE A NEW ONE!

You honestly think if they found someone selling guns illegally they wouldn't be able to find an existing law to prosecute them under? And if somehow there was no charge that they could make stick, which is highly unlikely, then MAKE A NEW LAW!

My goodness.

Now how does a gun registry hurt you? Anything other than the paranoid and irrational fear that the government is going to kick down your door and take them away?

Chaka

I understand your scenario. But in regards to the unscrupulous FFL holder if he is currently skirting the background check system and selling guns to people who shouldnt have them. Dont you think he'll find a way to skirt the registry? Its not like he's going to sell the gun to Freddy the Felon and then enter the gun in the national registry. Also when it comes to the registration of guns currently in circulation, the guys who arent supposed to have guns but do arent going to suddenly register them. So the registry might not be as helpful in solving crimes as you might think it will be. What you may come across are the honest individuals who have unwittingly sold a gun to someone who isnt supposed to have one. Even if you close that loophole by mandating background checks for private sales then unscrupulous private sellers will just not report their transactions. So in essence you'll have a registry of guns that is largely made up of honest people who follow the rules. Then you'll have a subculture of illegal and blackmarket guns that arent registered and their owners arent vetted. So basically what we have now but with a nice tidy list of all the legally owned guns in America.

This is a good question actually. What if we had a "certificate" for each firearm? WHen the gun company sells it to the retailer, that "certificate" is signed over to the retailer, when the retailer sells it, it's signed over to the purchaser and so on. Wouldn't it be clear where things went off the track if you had a chain of custody so to speak?

What does it matter? Apparently it is never illegal to sell a firearm to anyone.

Perhaps it should be? We have certification standards for things like scuba equipment (just the first example that came to mind). You take your gear into a dealer certified to fix it. Similarly, you buy your gear from a certified dealer as well. Yes, there are "black market" types that work for folks who know how to do the work themselves, but for the most part, you take it to a dealer if you give an ounce of credence to your life.

 

[Chaka]

It is illegal. But has the illegality of an act stopped people from doing them? People get murdered everyday. People drive without a license. People steal and commit fraud everyday. Is it inconceivable that people currently committing illegal acts will continue to try to commit the same illegal act by circumventing some new system put in place as an effort to stop them?

If perfection is the only standard that will satisfy anyone then nothing would ever get accomplished.

If an FFL holder cannot document where his inventory went then guess what? You take away their license and make laws that allow him to be thrown in jail for failure to control his deadly inventory. But according to Federal law they don't have to document their inventory. Instead, and this is well documented, we hamstring the ATF at every turn.

We have created a system that makes it all but impossible to monitor the inventories of FFL holders and even protects them from lawsuits. And we know that it is only a very small % of FFL holders who are ####### it up for everyone else. Yet we protect them too.

Of course people will continue to circumvent laws, does that mean we should have no laws at all? Should we just give up? Give everyone a gun and hope for the best?

We have around 10,000 gun homicides/year shouldn't we try to do something about that? It feels like whatever we are doing now isn't working.

 

[Spanky267]

Please explain to me how a national gun registry would stop crime. Create a senario where a gun registry keeps someone from being killed within the limitation of our current law set.

I have set this up several times already.If you can track the entire lifespan of a gun you can find out how it was put into a situation to be used in a crime and prosecute everyone involved, not just the shooter. That keeps more guns from getting into the hands of criminals and does no harm to legal, responsible gun owners.

prosecute everyone involved? What are you going to charge them with? it's not illegal to sell a firearm..

How is that relevant to a system that does not exist?

Perhaps we could, y'know, create the laws along with the system?

Who cares you would oppose it based on...honestly I have no idea why anyone would oppose knowing the chain of custody on firearms.

"You should want a national registry for all firearms"

Why would I want that?

"Because it would help law enforcement solve crimes and/or deter law breakers"

Based on which laws?

"The ones that do not exist yet.. But it will be great, you just wait and see.. Trust me on this"

Oh I don't know. How about the first time they track a gun that was sold illegally by a FFL holder THEY ARREST HIM? If there is no law on the books then, y'know, WRITE A NEW ONE!

You honestly think if they found someone selling guns illegally they wouldn't be able to find an existing law to prosecute them under? And if somehow there was no charge that they could make stick, which is highly unlikely, then MAKE A NEW LAW!

My goodness.

Now how does a gun registry hurt you? Anything other than the paranoid and irrational fear that the government is going to kick down your door and take them away?

Chaka

I understand your scenario. But in regards to the unscrupulous FFL holder if he is currently skirting the background check system and selling guns to people who shouldnt have them. Dont you think he'll find a way to skirt the registry? Its not like he's going to sell the gun to Freddy the Felon and then enter the gun in the national registry. Also when it comes to the registration of guns currently in circulation, the guys who arent supposed to have guns but do arent going to suddenly register them. So the registry might not be as helpful in solving crimes as you might think it will be. What you may come across are the honest individuals who have unwittingly sold a gun to someone who isnt supposed to have one. Even if you close that loophole by mandating background checks for private sales then unscrupulous private sellers will just not report their transactions. So in essence you'll have a registry of guns that is largely made up of honest people who follow the rules. Then you'll have a subculture of illegal and blackmarket guns that arent registered and their owners arent vetted. So basically what we have now but with a nice tidy list of all the legally owned guns in America.

This is a good question actually. What if we had a "certificate" for each firearm? WHen the gun company sells it to the retailer, that "certificate" is signed over to the retailer, when the retailer sells it, it's signed over to the purchaser and so on. Wouldn't it be clear where things went off the track if you had a chain of custody so to speak?

That is basically what you'd have in the registry scenario. The certificate is the serial number of the gun. Each one has a unique serial number. Its a system that can be worked around. It happens now with cars, fake titles and altered VIN numbers.

Well sure...if there's a system, there's a work around. That's how things usually go. If our standard is to implement something that is foolproof, it's never going to happen, but I believe there is plenty of middle ground. If one wants to use the current paper system, I am fine with that as well provided they close the holes in it. I'm not much of a stickler when it comes to the "how" as long as it's a relatively sound system.

Yeah. I am not trying to tear down your proposal. Just pointing out that the guys currently circumventing the system will continue to do so. So if the aim is to stop them this might not be the way to do it. Stepping up checks of FFLs and their inventories might help.

 

[Spanky267]

It is illegal. But has the illegality of an act stopped people from doing them? People get murdered everyday. People drive without a license. People steal and commit fraud everyday. Is it inconceivable that people currently committing illegal acts will continue to try to commit the same illegal act by circumventing some new system put in place as an effort to stop them?

If perfection is the only standard that will satisfy anyone then nothing would ever get accomplished.

If an FFL holder cannot document where his inventory went then guess what? You take away their license and make laws that allow him to be thrown in jail for failure to control his deadly inventory. But according to Federal law they don't have to document their inventory. Instead, and this is well documented, we hamstring the ATF at every turn.

We have created a system that makes it all but impossible to monitor the inventories of FFL holders and even protects them from lawsuits. And we know that it is only a very small % of FFL holders who are ####### it up for everyone else. Yet we protect them too.

Of course people will continue to circumvent laws, does that mean we should have no laws at all? Should we just give up? Give everyone a gun and hope for the best?

We have around 10,000 gun homicides/year shouldn't we try to do something about that? It feels like whatever we are doing now isn't working.

Chaka

I dont disagree. I think the first place to apply pressure is by requiring the FFLs to document their inventories. They should be doing that for insurance purposes anyway. This would dry up a small portion of the illegally purchased guns. The create a minimally invasive and almost free background check to close the "gun show loophole." Make it $1 or $5 and require the gun show promoters to require it. but also give them an easy method to make it happen. Could be pushed at the local, state or federal level. Since most of the venues they use for the shows are publicly owned. I went to our local show this past weekend. It costs $8 to get in. If if cost $10 and I knew that I got a free background check that was good for all my purchases at the show that day if I bought something I wouldnt bat an eye at paying the extra $2. Even if I wasnt buying a gun that weekend. FWIW Ive never purchased anything at one of these shows.

 

[The Commish]

Yeah. I am not trying to tear down your proposal. Just pointing out that the guys currently circumventing the system will continue to do so. So if the aim is to stop them this might not be the way to do it. Stepping up checks of FFLs and their inventories might help.

There are two different issues here IMO. One of them is the criminal element, I have no idea how to curtail other than limiting the flow of weapons to them. The other is the carelessness of the losers who don't respect guns or the responsibility of owning them. Harsher penalties/laws will would probably work on the latter, not so much on the former. No disagreement from me on that. But I don't buy the "well, you can't fix the former so screw the latter" argument. It's just dumb, shortsighted and lazy.

 

[Spanky267]

Yeah. I am not trying to tear down your proposal. Just pointing out that the guys currently circumventing the system will continue to do so. So if the aim is to stop them this might not be the way to do it. Stepping up checks of FFLs and their inventories might help.

There are two different issues here IMO. One of them is the criminal element, I have no idea how to curtail other than limiting the flow of weapons to them. The other is the carelessness of the losers who don't respect guns or the responsibility of owning them. Harsher penalties/laws will would probably work on the latter, not so much on the former. No disagreement from me on that. But I don't buy the "well, you can't fix the former so screw the latter" argument. It's just dumb, shortsighted and lazy.

I am with you there. I just dont see how a registry or titles for guns "fix" the carelessness of losers. I want to understand where you are coming from here.

 

[Clifford]

Whole lot of insanity on this page wow! Glad to see racism and "kill everyone" get trotted out. Way to destroy any ground you might have had in this debate.

Schlzm

ETA: And you get upset when called hysterical and panicky...

Actually I really don't give a crap. I find it ####### hilarious that a crowd the believes their ####### pea shooters are going to hold off the NWO feel fit to call anyone panicky. I see a trend. It's not all gun owners and it's not all white men, but the cases I see are mostly white men and they seem to be striking out against the world, not the people they shoot.Also, do you know what the word panic means? Or hysterical? I have suggested two things: a long-term solution to accidental gun deaths based on emerging technology, and that certain members of the gun crowd are using their concealed carry permits as a way to feel like they are still in control.

Which of those two seem hysterical or panicky to you? And which one seems more panicky than thinking your entire government is out to get you and the only thing standing between you and total enslavement is your trusty AR-15?

Whole lot of insanity on this page wow! Glad to see racism and "kill everyone" get trotted out. Way to destroy any ground you might have had in this debate.

Schlzm

ETA: And you get upset when called hysterical and panicky...

Actually I really don't give a crap. I find it ####### hilarious that a crowd the believes their ####### pea shooters are going to hold off the NWO feel fit to call anyone panicky. I see a trend. It's not all gun owners and it's not all white men, but the cases I see are mostly white men and they seem to be striking out against the world, not the people they shoot.Also, do you know what the word panic means? Or hysterical? I have suggested two things: a long-term solution to accidental gun deaths based on emerging technology, and that certain members of the gun crowd are using their concealed carry permits as a way to feel like they are still in control.

Which of those two seem hysterical or panicky to you? And which one seems more panicky than thinking your entire government is out to get you and the only thing standing between you and total enslavement is your trusty AR-15?

Do you read what you type? You like to talk about the meanings of words and try to convey what other people are doing but I am only addressing you and how you are acting. Maybe it's your avatar, but you seem shrill and rediculous.Schlzm

Well if it's in what I wrote should be easy to come up with some shrill and ridiculous things I have posted. I've posted on two subjects, and really only one in depth.1: If there is something you find shrill and ridiculous about the long-term strategy involving existing tech post it.

On the second, I realize it is unpopular to call out the paranoia and delusions that some concealed carry holders show. It's unpopular to express that recent shootings we have discussed on this board all seem to have a central theme. That doesn't make the assertion that they all carry a similar theme shrill or ridiculous. Far-fetched would at least fit for an opposing view saying there is no central theme or connection.

Seems like a common refrain to say that anyone actually challenging the established notions and positions that have led this country to where it is on guns is being panicky or crazy. Having lived outside this country, I can say that this view is unique to the US and probably much more prevalent in people who have never lived outside of it. The rest of the world views us as completely bat#### ####### crazy on this issue. Hopelessly mentally deranged. Given that our gun violence level per capita in on par with third-world republics rather than our first-world economic counterparts, I think we are the ones in need of self-examination. Realizing that the gun lobby is so entrenched in our politics, and gun culture so entrenched as a national value, I feel the need to try and find some points of common ground with the opposition.

If this is viewed as shrill and panicky or "losing it" so be it, I'm not going to change my views unless someone actually presents a good argument. Name calling is not going to get it done.

ETA: Just want to add in my defense I have not gone after magazine clips, semi-auto or "scary" looking guns, and I have not suggested any type of ban. I have suggested government action to spur investment in better technology to make guns safer.

1: You mean the item I agreed with you on ultimately?As to the rest of your post, it's all in your writing. Your posts have a tone of a scared person screaming about things they don't understand. Of course a country that has more personally owned firearms than pretty much anywhere is going to have more firearm related violence so attempting to compare other countries in this area is mostly pointless. Pointing out three recent events where "angry white men" killed "innocent black kids" as some terrifying trend pointing to the inevitable, oh wait what was your point other than "angry white men" owning guns is bad?, while barely giving lip service to the countless other violent acts commited by people of all walks of life also comes off as pretty shrill. Finally I don't expect you to ever conede any argument good enough to change your point of view on the subject. You are entrenched, and that's fine, but at least except it. I'm just pointing out that your tone isn't going to win over anyone.

Schlzm

I understand the opposing arguments, I just don't find them compelling

More education: more of what already isn't working all that well.

Any new solution has to be 100% effective: Current solutions aren't 100% effective

Guns are a separate class because of the 2nd amendment: I agree that guns can not be rendered useless or ineffective, but I do not agree that there is anything in the 2nd amendment that makes them a protected class of product that our government can not regulate. They just can't impose regulations that render guns ineffective or useless.

As to the trends I see they are my opinion and have more to feelings of marginalization than race. However that relates more to whites than other races. And it relates more to the middle class than any other class. I realize I am connecting dots here, but I don't see anything wrong with that. It has striking similarities with the whole "take back America" movement coming from the right, which is predominantly lower and middle-class whites. Sorry, that's just how the racial demographics fall. I don't see being white as a causal factor for being angry or unhinged. It has more to do with worldview and demographics.

lmao at 'Angry white men with guns trend'

You've lost your mind...

You are not the arbiter of what is reasonable or not for someone else to believe nor are you smart enough for the job. Life is about connections, and connections are often a matter of perspective. I see a common thread in those cases and a few others. You don't. Great. Not surprising. But I'm not going to call you crazy because you have a different opinion.

 

[The Commish]

Yeah. I am not trying to tear down your proposal. Just pointing out that the guys currently circumventing the system will continue to do so. So if the aim is to stop them this might not be the way to do it. Stepping up checks of FFLs and their inventories might help.

There are two different issues here IMO. One of them is the criminal element, I have no idea how to curtail other than limiting the flow of weapons to them. The other is the carelessness of the losers who don't respect guns or the responsibility of owning them. Harsher penalties/laws will would probably work on the latter, not so much on the former. No disagreement from me on that. But I don't buy the "well, you can't fix the former so screw the latter" argument. It's just dumb, shortsighted and lazy.

I am with you there. I just dont see how a registry or titles for guns "fix" the carelessness of losers. I want to understand where you are coming from here.

My hope is that if these morons know that they are in deep crap should anything happen because of their carelessness they'll think twice about owning the gun, or at minimum securing the gun so the accidents are reduced. If they don't, then they can be thrown in jail (or shot themselves for all I care). Laws can't change behavior (regardless of subject), but they can attempt to influence it.

 

[Clifford]

If someone owns a gun, knows what it is, and still leaves it lying around loaded, you really think that they will A) be aware of the law (this likely requires reading)? and B) make the intelligent conclusion that if it happened to someone else it could happen to them?

I don't see it. Plus all you are doing is punishing a parent who just lost a kid. Why is this better than a solution that could conceivably save the child's life?

 

[Chaka]

Yeah. I am not trying to tear down your proposal. Just pointing out that the guys currently circumventing the system will continue to do so. So if the aim is to stop them this might not be the way to do it. Stepping up checks of FFLs and their inventories might help.

There are two different issues here IMO. One of them is the criminal element, I have no idea how to curtail other than limiting the flow of weapons to them. The other is the carelessness of the losers who don't respect guns or the responsibility of owning them. Harsher penalties/laws will would probably work on the latter, not so much on the former. No disagreement from me on that. But I don't buy the "well, you can't fix the former so screw the latter" argument. It's just dumb, shortsighted and lazy.

I am with you there. I just dont see how a registry or titles for guns "fix" the carelessness of losers. I want to understand where you are coming from here.

It's not just the carelessness of losers. In that regard I would love to see some mandatory firearms training requirement but, again, we all know that will never happen.

 

[Chaka]

Yeah. I am not trying to tear down your proposal. Just pointing out that the guys currently circumventing the system will continue to do so. So if the aim is to stop them this might not be the way to do it. Stepping up checks of FFLs and their inventories might help.

There are two different issues here IMO. One of them is the criminal element, I have no idea how to curtail other than limiting the flow of weapons to them. The other is the carelessness of the losers who don't respect guns or the responsibility of owning them. Harsher penalties/laws will would probably work on the latter, not so much on the former. No disagreement from me on that. But I don't buy the "well, you can't fix the former so screw the latter" argument. It's just dumb, shortsighted and lazy.

I am with you there. I just dont see how a registry or titles for guns "fix" the carelessness of losers. I want to understand where you are coming from here.

My hope is that if these morons know that they are in deep crap should anything happen because of their carelessness they'll think twice about owning the gun, or at minimum securing the gun so the accidents are reduced. If they don't, then they can be thrown in jail (or shot themselves for all I care). Laws can't change behavior (regardless of subject), but they can attempt to influence it.

I am all in favor of punishing gun owners who fail to report when their guns are stolen, which many suggest is a bug contributor to guns getting in the hands of criminals (I think it's the ####### FFL holders that are the bigger problem on that front but whatever).

What would you suggest for punishing those situations like in the OP or other accidental discharge situations (I'm looking at you **** Cheney)?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

It is illegal. But has the illegality of an act stopped people from doing them? People get murdered everyday. People drive without a license. People steal and commit fraud everyday. Is it inconceivable that people currently committing illegal acts will continue to try to commit the same illegal act by circumventing some new system put in place as an effort to stop them?

If perfection is the only standard that will satisfy anyone then nothing would ever get accomplished.

If an FFL holder cannot document where his inventory went then guess what? You take away their license and make laws that allow him to be thrown in jail for failure to control his deadly inventory. But according to Federal law they don't have to document their inventory. Instead, and this is well documented, we hamstring the ATF at every turn.

We have created a system that makes it all but impossible to monitor the inventories of FFL holders and even protects them from lawsuits. And we know that it is only a very small % of FFL holders who are ####### it up for everyone else. Yet we protect them too.

Of course people will continue to circumvent laws, does that mean we should have no laws at all? Should we just give up? Give everyone a gun and hope for the best?

We have around 10,000 gun homicides/year shouldn't we try to do something about that? It feels like whatever we are doing now isn't working.

We should just implement new rules that have no effect on the illegitimate and unscrupulous that you contest are the problem with our current system...

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Yeah. I am not trying to tear down your proposal. Just pointing out that the guys currently circumventing the system will continue to do so. So if the aim is to stop them this might not be the way to do it. Stepping up checks of FFLs and their inventories might help.

There are two different issues here IMO. One of them is the criminal element, I have no idea how to curtail other than limiting the flow of weapons to them. The other is the carelessness of the losers who don't respect guns or the responsibility of owning them. Harsher penalties/laws will would probably work on the latter, not so much on the former. No disagreement from me on that. But I don't buy the "well, you can't fix the former so screw the latter" argument. It's just dumb, shortsighted and lazy.

National gun registry doesn't fix the problem at all.. Mandatory background check for private sales would help..

National gun registry is a potentially dangerous tool that can be welded by the government like a big stick..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

You are not the arbiter of what is reasonable or not for someone else to believe nor are you smart enough for the job. Life is about connections, and connections are often a matter of perspective. I see a common thread in those cases and a few others. You don't. Great. Not surprising. But I'm not going to call you crazy because you have a different opinion.

I asked you 3 questions earlier directly related to your attack on white gun owners.. You should probably answer those before you continue your crusade...

Your opinion that white gun owners are an increasing problem, siting 3 incidences out of millions to bolster your proposed trend, is laughable...

 

[Carolina Hustler]

If someone owns a gun, knows what it is, and still leaves it lying around loaded, you really think that they will A) be aware of the law (this likely requires reading)? and B) make the intelligent conclusion that if it happened to someone else it could happen to them?

I don't see it. Plus all you are doing is punishing a parent who just lost a kid. Why is this better than a solution that could conceivably save the child's life?

What solution is that?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I am all in favor of punishing gun owners who fail to report when their guns are stolen, which many suggest is a bug contributor to guns getting in the hands of criminals (I think it's the ####### FFL holders that are the bigger problem on that front but whatever).

What would you suggest for punishing those situations like in the OP or other accidental discharge situations (I'm looking at you **** Cheney)?

A child endangerment charge, or neglect, for which we don't need new laws to prosecute...

Opps, I'm sorry, that question wasn't directed at me...

 

[Mister CIA]

Is my hypothetical wifi-enabled osprey-esque drone/gun/go-pro cam protected by the second amendment?

 

[Chaos Commish]

Is my hypothetical wifi-enabled osprey-esque drone/gun/go-pro cam protected by the second amendment?

By now many will have seen the news stories reporting how an animal rights group sent up a small drone with cameras attached to take video of a group of hunters out on a pigeon shoot. The hunters responded to the drone by shooting it down.

 

[Chaka]

It is illegal. But has the illegality of an act stopped people from doing them? People get murdered everyday. People drive without a license. People steal and commit fraud everyday. Is it inconceivable that people currently committing illegal acts will continue to try to commit the same illegal act by circumventing some new system put in place as an effort to stop them?

If perfection is the only standard that will satisfy anyone then nothing would ever get accomplished.

If an FFL holder cannot document where his inventory went then guess what? You take away their license and make laws that allow him to be thrown in jail for failure to control his deadly inventory. But according to Federal law they don't have to document their inventory. Instead, and this is well documented, we hamstring the ATF at every turn.

We have created a system that makes it all but impossible to monitor the inventories of FFL holders and even protects them from lawsuits. And we know that it is only a very small % of FFL holders who are ####### it up for everyone else. Yet we protect them too.

Of course people will continue to circumvent laws, does that mean we should have no laws at all? Should we just give up? Give everyone a gun and hope for the best?

We have around 10,000 gun homicides/year shouldn't we try to do something about that? It feels like whatever we are doing now isn't working.

We should just implement new rules that have no effect on the illegitimate and unscrupulous that you contest are the problem with our current system...

I think you meant contend, not contest, and I do not contend that unscrupulous FFL holders are the problem they are a huge part of the problem. There is no arguing that and I am surprised that you seem to be trying.

I wish there was more recent data unfortunately we have all but eliminated effective gun tracing still here is a nice article from the Washington Post one of the take home messages is that it turns out that 57% of guns used in crimes could be traced to 1% of FFL holders. Do you contend that is merely a coincidence? Unfortunately back then we lacked the will to do anything to deter them and sadly the only thing that has changed is that we have made it more difficult to track guns. Bravo. We should be really proud.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

It is illegal. But has the illegality of an act stopped people from doing them? People get murdered everyday. People drive without a license. People steal and commit fraud everyday. Is it inconceivable that people currently committing illegal acts will continue to try to commit the same illegal act by circumventing some new system put in place as an effort to stop them?

If perfection is the only standard that will satisfy anyone then nothing would ever get accomplished.

If an FFL holder cannot document where his inventory went then guess what? You take away their license and make laws that allow him to be thrown in jail for failure to control his deadly inventory. But according to Federal law they don't have to document their inventory. Instead, and this is well documented, we hamstring the ATF at every turn.

We have created a system that makes it all but impossible to monitor the inventories of FFL holders and even protects them from lawsuits. And we know that it is only a very small % of FFL holders who are ####### it up for everyone else. Yet we protect them too.

Of course people will continue to circumvent laws, does that mean we should have no laws at all? Should we just give up? Give everyone a gun and hope for the best?

We have around 10,000 gun homicides/year shouldn't we try to do something about that? It feels like whatever we are doing now isn't working.

We should just implement new rules that have no effect on the illegitimate and unscrupulous that you contest are the problem with our current system...

I think you meant contend, not contest, and I do not contend that unscrupulous FFL holders are the problem they are a huge part of the problem. There is no arguing that and I am surprised that you seem to be trying.

I wish there was more recent data unfortunately we have all but eliminated effective gun tracing still here is a nice article from the Washington Post one of the take home messages is that it turns out that 57% of guns used in crimes could be traced to 1% of FFL holders. Do you contend that is merely a coincidence? Unfortunately back then we lacked the will to do anything to deter them and sadly the only thing that has changed is that we have made it more difficult to track guns. Bravo. We should be really proud.

How does national gun registry fix that? Sounds like they've already traced the weapons..

 

[The Commish]

Yeah. I am not trying to tear down your proposal. Just pointing out that the guys currently circumventing the system will continue to do so. So if the aim is to stop them this might not be the way to do it. Stepping up checks of FFLs and their inventories might help.

There are two different issues here IMO. One of them is the criminal element, I have no idea how to curtail other than limiting the flow of weapons to them. The other is the carelessness of the losers who don't respect guns or the responsibility of owning them. Harsher penalties/laws will would probably work on the latter, not so much on the former. No disagreement from me on that. But I don't buy the "well, you can't fix the former so screw the latter" argument. It's just dumb, shortsighted and lazy.

I am with you there. I just dont see how a registry or titles for guns "fix" the carelessness of losers. I want to understand where you are coming from here.

My hope is that if these morons know that they are in deep crap should anything happen because of their carelessness they'll think twice about owning the gun, or at minimum securing the gun so the accidents are reduced. If they don't, then they can be thrown in jail (or shot themselves for all I care). Laws can't change behavior (regardless of subject), but they can attempt to influence it.

I am all in favor of punishing gun owners who fail to report when their guns are stolen, which many suggest is a bug contributor to guns getting in the hands of criminals (I think it's the ####### FFL holders that are the bigger problem on that front but whatever).

What would you suggest for punishing those situations like in the OP or other accidental discharge situations (I'm looking at you **** Cheney)?

I have no problem with some sort of manslaughter charge honestly. Again, I think gun ownership is a serious responsibility and not taking it seriously should yield serious consequences. These idiots are simple minded. I don't think the message has to be more than "owning a gun is serious business and if you screw that up you're in serious trouble".

 

[The Commish]

Yeah. I am not trying to tear down your proposal. Just pointing out that the guys currently circumventing the system will continue to do so. So if the aim is to stop them this might not be the way to do it. Stepping up checks of FFLs and their inventories might help.

There are two different issues here IMO. One of them is the criminal element, I have no idea how to curtail other than limiting the flow of weapons to them. The other is the carelessness of the losers who don't respect guns or the responsibility of owning them. Harsher penalties/laws will would probably work on the latter, not so much on the former. No disagreement from me on that. But I don't buy the "well, you can't fix the former so screw the latter" argument. It's just dumb, shortsighted and lazy.

National gun registry doesn't fix the problem at all.. Mandatory background check for private sales would help..

National gun registry is a potentially dangerous tool that can be welded by the government like a big stick..

I think you meant to reply to someone else or you just don't read what you're responding to because nowhere in the quoted post do I assert anything would be "fixed" (just the opposite actually) nor do I mention a "national gun registry". I also make clear I believe there are multiple problems (not just one). Please put me on ignore....I'm trying to have a conversation with Spanky here. He actually reads what is written.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Yeah. I am not trying to tear down your proposal. Just pointing out that the guys currently circumventing the system will continue to do so. So if the aim is to stop them this might not be the way to do it. Stepping up checks of FFLs and their inventories might help.

There are two different issues here IMO. One of them is the criminal element, I have no idea how to curtail other than limiting the flow of weapons to them. The other is the carelessness of the losers who don't respect guns or the responsibility of owning them. Harsher penalties/laws will would probably work on the latter, not so much on the former. No disagreement from me on that. But I don't buy the "well, you can't fix the former so screw the latter" argument. It's just dumb, shortsighted and lazy.

National gun registry doesn't fix the problem at all.. Mandatory background check for private sales would help..

National gun registry is a potentially dangerous tool that can be welded by the government like a big stick..

I think you meant to reply to someone else or you just don't read what you're responding to because nowhere in the quoted post do I assert anything would be "fixed" (just the opposite actually) nor do I mention a "national gun registry". I also make clear I believe there are multiple problems (not just one). Please put me on ignore....I'm trying to have a conversation with Spanky here. He actually reads what is written.

National gun registry has been the recent theme of this thread, forgive me if I assumed incorrectly that you are a proponent of the idea.