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

[Clifford]

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...

Let me make this completely clear: your questions are a waste of everyone's time and I will not answer them. It is not my fault you have no reading comprehension. It is not my fault you respond to posts without reading them. It is not my fault that you are incapable of actually carrying on a conversation.

If you want to go back and do some reading and then respond to one of my posts, I at least allow the possibility that you might raise an intelligent objection or argument and if that actually happens I will respond.

BTW, I do not hold an opinion that white gun owners are an increasing problem. And I don't see any sort of statistical trend (there is more than one kind of trend). You would know both these things if you had bothered to read the posts you are responding to.

Please put me on ignore as well.

 

[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...

Let me make this completely clear: your questions are a waste of everyone's time and I will not answer them. It is not my fault you have no reading comprehension. It is not my fault you respond to posts without reading them. It is not my fault that you are incapable of actually carrying on a conversation.

If you want to go back and do some reading and then respond to one of my posts, I at least allow the possibility that you might raise an intelligent objection or argument and if that actually happens I will respond.

BTW, I do not hold an opinion that white gun owners are an increasing problem. And I don't see any sort of statistical trend (there is more than one kind of trend). You would know both these things if you had bothered to read the posts you are responding to.

Please put me on ignore as well.

You made an ignorant statement, I wasn't the only one who noticed it or called you on it. You can pretend that you didn't make that statement now, or that it didn't mean what it sounded like, but you said it, and you continue to try reinforcing it. (citing 3 situations where the shooter was white, neglecting the % of white shooters in the grand scheme)

If you want to make such ignorant statements, that's your prerogative, but don't expect that you won't be taken to task when you keep trying to reinforce such ignorance.

The theme of your recent posts:

Increasing trend (problem) of angry white, middle class, gun owners, hell bent on "taking back America"

Ridiculous...

 

[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.

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.

I'd much more inclined to forgive if it weren't posted in black and white exactly what I was conversing with Spanky about. If you're going to butt in on our conversations, that's fine. Just read what we're talking about rather than copying/pasting from your daily "NRA Talking Points" memo. It's annoying and mostly why folks really aren't engaging you in any sort of meaningful discussion.

 

[Clifford]

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...

Let me make this completely clear: your questions are a waste of everyone's time and I will not answer them. It is not my fault you have no reading comprehension. It is not my fault you respond to posts without reading them. It is not my fault that you are incapable of actually carrying on a conversation.

If you want to go back and do some reading and then respond to one of my posts, I at least allow the possibility that you might raise an intelligent objection or argument and if that actually happens I will respond.

BTW, I do not hold an opinion that white gun owners are an increasing problem. And I don't see any sort of statistical trend (there is more than one kind of trend). You would know both these things if you had bothered to read the posts you are responding to.

Please put me on ignore as well.

You made an ignorant statement, I wasn't the only one who noticed it or called you on it. You can pretend that you didn't make that statement now, or that it didn't mean what it sounded like, but you said it, and you continue to try reinforcing it. (citing 3 situations where the shooter was white, neglecting the % of white shooters in the grand scheme)

If you want to make such ignorant statements, that's your prerogative, but don't expect that you won't be taken to task when you keep trying to reinforce such ignorance.

The theme of your recent posts:

Increasing trend (problem) of angry white, middle class, gun owners, hell bent on "taking back America"

Ridiculous...

If you refuse to read I can't help you. And I really don't know where you sense of entitlement comes from, thinking everyone's opinions should conform to your limited understanding of the world.

 

[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.

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 agree completely on this point. There should be severe punishments doled out for events like the one that precipitated this thread.

 

[Clifford]

Let's say both parents in this thread get 20 years for negligent homicide: do we really think that has a deterrent effect? I just don't think you can reach people who are stupid enough to leave a loaded gun around a toddler.

I don't think there is a chance to effect behavior if you are already that careless and stupid. I think if you have people like that with guns something bad happening because of carelessness is a matter of time. Even though there is no way to accomplish it right now, the only way to protect kids like the ones in this thread is making sure their parents, who are obviously unfit to own guns, don't have them.

 

[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...

Let me make this completely clear: your questions are a waste of everyone's time and I will not answer them. It is not my fault you have no reading comprehension. It is not my fault you respond to posts without reading them. It is not my fault that you are incapable of actually carrying on a conversation.

If you want to go back and do some reading and then respond to one of my posts, I at least allow the possibility that you might raise an intelligent objection or argument and if that actually happens I will respond.

BTW, I do not hold an opinion that white gun owners are an increasing problem. And I don't see any sort of statistical trend (there is more than one kind of trend). You would know both these things if you had bothered to read the posts you are responding to.

Please put me on ignore as well.

You made an ignorant statement, I wasn't the only one who noticed it or called you on it. You can pretend that you didn't make that statement now, or that it didn't mean what it sounded like, but you said it, and you continue to try reinforcing it. (citing 3 situations where the shooter was white, neglecting the % of white shooters in the grand scheme)

If you want to make such ignorant statements, that's your prerogative, but don't expect that you won't be taken to task when you keep trying to reinforce such ignorance.

The theme of your recent posts:

Increasing trend (problem) of angry white, middle class, gun owners, hell bent on "taking back America"

Ridiculous...

If you refuse to read I can't help you. And I really don't know where you sense of entitlement comes from, thinking everyone's opinions should conform to your limited understanding of the world.

lol, just own your ignorant statement and move on...

Citing 3 cases out of millions where the shooter was white, does not equate to a trend..

 

[Clifford]

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...

Let me make this completely clear: your questions are a waste of everyone's time and I will not answer them. It is not my fault you have no reading comprehension. It is not my fault you respond to posts without reading them. It is not my fault that you are incapable of actually carrying on a conversation.

If you want to go back and do some reading and then respond to one of my posts, I at least allow the possibility that you might raise an intelligent objection or argument and if that actually happens I will respond.

BTW, I do not hold an opinion that white gun owners are an increasing problem. And I don't see any sort of statistical trend (there is more than one kind of trend). You would know both these things if you had bothered to read the posts you are responding to.

Please put me on ignore as well.

You made an ignorant statement, I wasn't the only one who noticed it or called you on it. You can pretend that you didn't make that statement now, or that it didn't mean what it sounded like, but you said it, and you continue to try reinforcing it. (citing 3 situations where the shooter was white, neglecting the % of white shooters in the grand scheme)

If you want to make such ignorant statements, that's your prerogative, but don't expect that you won't be taken to task when you keep trying to reinforce such ignorance.

The theme of your recent posts:

Increasing trend (problem) of angry white, middle class, gun owners, hell bent on "taking back America"

Ridiculous...

If you refuse to read I can't help you. And I really don't know where you sense of entitlement comes from, thinking everyone's opinions should conform to your limited understanding of the world.

lol, just own your ignorant statement and move on...

Citing 3 cases out of millions where the shooter was white, does not equate to a trend..

Are you really this dumb? Do you really not realize I was never talking about a statistical trend that relates to society as a whole? Good God you are an insufferable troll.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Let's say both parents in this thread get 20 years for negligent homicide: do we really think that has a deterrent effect? I just don't think you can reach people who are stupid enough to leave a loaded gun around a toddler.

I don't think there is a chance to effect behavior if you are already that careless and stupid. I think if you have people like that with guns something bad happening because of carelessness is a matter of time. Even though there is no way to accomplish it right now, the only way to protect kids like the ones in this thread is making sure their parents, who are obviously unfit to own guns, don't have them.

'people can't be taught healthy and/or smart habits, so lets take away their rights instead of trying to teach them'

 

[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...

Let me make this completely clear: your questions are a waste of everyone's time and I will not answer them. It is not my fault you have no reading comprehension. It is not my fault you respond to posts without reading them. It is not my fault that you are incapable of actually carrying on a conversation.

If you want to go back and do some reading and then respond to one of my posts, I at least allow the possibility that you might raise an intelligent objection or argument and if that actually happens I will respond.

BTW, I do not hold an opinion that white gun owners are an increasing problem. And I don't see any sort of statistical trend (there is more than one kind of trend). You would know both these things if you had bothered to read the posts you are responding to.

Please put me on ignore as well.

You made an ignorant statement, I wasn't the only one who noticed it or called you on it. You can pretend that you didn't make that statement now, or that it didn't mean what it sounded like, but you said it, and you continue to try reinforcing it. (citing 3 situations where the shooter was white, neglecting the % of white shooters in the grand scheme)

If you want to make such ignorant statements, that's your prerogative, but don't expect that you won't be taken to task when you keep trying to reinforce such ignorance.

The theme of your recent posts:

Increasing trend (problem) of angry white, middle class, gun owners, hell bent on "taking back America"

Ridiculous...

If you refuse to read I can't help you. And I really don't know where you sense of entitlement comes from, thinking everyone's opinions should conform to your limited understanding of the world.

lol, just own your ignorant statement and move on...

Citing 3 cases out of millions where the shooter was white, does not equate to a trend..

Are you really this dumb? Do you really not realize I was never talking about a statistical trend that relates to society as a whole? Good God you are an insufferable troll.

No not society as a whole, just the ones you can cite that fit your narrative..

 

[Spanky267]

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.

Seriously, animal rights groups are worried about pigeons? The rats of the avian world?

 

[Clifford]

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...

Let me make this completely clear: your questions are a waste of everyone's time and I will not answer them. It is not my fault you have no reading comprehension. It is not my fault you respond to posts without reading them. It is not my fault that you are incapable of actually carrying on a conversation.

If you want to go back and do some reading and then respond to one of my posts, I at least allow the possibility that you might raise an intelligent objection or argument and if that actually happens I will respond.

BTW, I do not hold an opinion that white gun owners are an increasing problem. And I don't see any sort of statistical trend (there is more than one kind of trend). You would know both these things if you had bothered to read the posts you are responding to.

Please put me on ignore as well.

You made an ignorant statement, I wasn't the only one who noticed it or called you on it. You can pretend that you didn't make that statement now, or that it didn't mean what it sounded like, but you said it, and you continue to try reinforcing it. (citing 3 situations where the shooter was white, neglecting the % of white shooters in the grand scheme)

If you want to make such ignorant statements, that's your prerogative, but don't expect that you won't be taken to task when you keep trying to reinforce such ignorance.

The theme of your recent posts:

Increasing trend (problem) of angry white, middle class, gun owners, hell bent on "taking back America"

Ridiculous...

If you refuse to read I can't help you. And I really don't know where you sense of entitlement comes from, thinking everyone's opinions should conform to your limited understanding of the world.

lol, just own your ignorant statement and move on...

Citing 3 cases out of millions where the shooter was white, does not equate to a trend..

Are you really this dumb? Do you really not realize I was never talking about a statistical trend that relates to society as a whole? Good God you are an insufferable troll.

No not society as a whole, just the ones you can cite that fit your narrative..

Ok so I have a confession...I can't figure out how to put you on ignore...so this will be the last time I ever respond. Good luck and I'm glad you like your new phrase.

 

[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.

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.

I dont dispute the findings of the 1995 study that found that 57% of the guns could be traced back to 1% of FFL holders. But keep in mind that the link only establishes that the gun was orignally purchased legally. That doesnt immediately indicate that the FFL holder did something wrong. But it does bear further study. Are these FFL's not being diligent enough? Have straw purchasers realized that these FFL's are easy marks? Are these FFL's really flaunting the laws and selling to prohibited individuals?

I dont like that the ATF data is being hidden and I will call my congressman and senators and ask them to repeal the amendment. If the 1995 numbers are true and going after 1000 FFL holders could keep almost 60% of guns of the street and reduce crime while not really having an appreciable impact on lawful gun owners then I say go for it. Prosecute the crap out of those dealers.

 

[The Commish]

Let's say both parents in this thread get 20 years for negligent homicide: do we really think that has a deterrent effect? I just don't think you can reach people who are stupid enough to leave a loaded gun around a toddler.

I don't think there is a chance to effect behavior if you are already that careless and stupid. I think if you have people like that with guns something bad happening because of carelessness is a matter of time. Even though there is no way to accomplish it right now, the only way to protect kids like the ones in this thread is making sure their parents, who are obviously unfit to own guns, don't have them.

Well, sometimes it's not about ignorance. It's about education. It's my belief that guns/weapons don't get the respect/attention they should. People don't know what they don't know. So it goes back to Spanky's point regarding education being a component in all this. To you and me, it's common sense. That's not the case for others. For whatever reason some believe that ignorance IS a defense. So, to fix that little loophole have mandatory education classes and a "best practices" event of some sort. You educate them and hope they do the right thing (like locking up the gun) AND you legislate some very stiff penalties if they don't lock up the gun in hopes that they will lock up the gun.

 

[Spanky267]

Let's say both parents in this thread get 20 years for negligent homicide: do we really think that has a deterrent effect? I just don't think you can reach people who are stupid enough to leave a loaded gun around a toddler.

I don't think there is a chance to effect behavior if you are already that careless and stupid. I think if you have people like that with guns something bad happening because of carelessness is a matter of time. Even though there is no way to accomplish it right now, the only way to protect kids like the ones in this thread is making sure their parents, who are obviously unfit to own guns, don't have them.

Couldnt we use the punishment and harsh sentencing coupled with wide publicity of the crime and sentence/punishment to elicit some sort of pavlovian response in the wider populace of the ignorant. If they are that dumb would it really be that much harder than training or retraining a dog?

I think harsh sentences for careless storage coupled with wide publicity and a campaign to educate the wider populace on proper handling and storage could bear as much fruit as some of the tech that you are hoping will be a partial answer. Perhaps those things all coupled together could yield real results. As I said earlier in the thread. We change behavior and attitudes through conditioning and education.

In Florida I dont know why we couldnt use the 10-20-Life statute we have in place to punish parents whose children are injured or killed due to their negligence. Just like we charge the driver of the getaway car in a robbbery/murder as if he pulled the trigger himself.

 

[Clifford]

Let's say both parents in this thread get 20 years for negligent homicide: do we really think that has a deterrent effect? I just don't think you can reach people who are stupid enough to leave a loaded gun around a toddler.

I don't think there is a chance to effect behavior if you are already that careless and stupid. I think if you have people like that with guns something bad happening because of carelessness is a matter of time. Even though there is no way to accomplish it right now, the only way to protect kids like the ones in this thread is making sure their parents, who are obviously unfit to own guns, don't have them.

Well, sometimes it's not about ignorance. It's about education. It's my belief that guns/weapons don't get the respect/attention they should. People don't know what they don't know. So it goes back to Spanky's point regarding education being a component in all this. To you and me, it's common sense. That's not the case for others. For whatever reason some believe that ignorance IS a defense. So, to fix that little loophole have mandatory education classes and a "best practices" event of some sort. You educate them and hope they do the right thing (like locking up the gun) AND you legislate some very stiff penalties if they don't lock up the gun in hopes that they will lock up the gun.

All of which should be done immediately, I am not arguing that. I just don't think that we have a chance of reaching a substantial portion of the populace if we had them in firearm training twice a week. Some people simply refuse to learn anything. If we are going to let people like that own guns, then I think we need to be real about what the true potential for educating some people is.

 

[The Commish]

Let's say both parents in this thread get 20 years for negligent homicide: do we really think that has a deterrent effect? I just don't think you can reach people who are stupid enough to leave a loaded gun around a toddler.

I don't think there is a chance to effect behavior if you are already that careless and stupid. I think if you have people like that with guns something bad happening because of carelessness is a matter of time. Even though there is no way to accomplish it right now, the only way to protect kids like the ones in this thread is making sure their parents, who are obviously unfit to own guns, don't have them.

Well, sometimes it's not about ignorance. It's about education. It's my belief that guns/weapons don't get the respect/attention they should. People don't know what they don't know. So it goes back to Spanky's point regarding education being a component in all this. To you and me, it's common sense. That's not the case for others. For whatever reason some believe that ignorance IS a defense. So, to fix that little loophole have mandatory education classes and a "best practices" event of some sort. You educate them and hope they do the right thing (like locking up the gun) AND you legislate some very stiff penalties if they don't lock up the gun in hopes that they will lock up the gun.

All of which should be done immediately, I am not arguing that. I just don't think that we have a chance of reaching a substantial portion of the populace if we had them in firearm training twice a week. Some people simply refuse to learn anything. If we are going to let people like that own guns, then I think we need to be real about what the true potential for educating some people is.

They'd learn one way or the other. They either take the classes and abide by the laws, or they go to prison for a very long time and learn that way. It's their choice.

 

[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.

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

You are mixing up issues here, it doesn't need to be a gun registry to deal with the FFL holder problem.

They used to try and trace the weapons but it has become increasingly difficult for the ATF to do it's job thanks to the people who say "We don't need more gun laws we just need to enforce the ones we have." Unfortunately those guys, like James Senenbrenner and Todd Tiahrt, have enacted legislation (as riders to the Patriot Act and an Omnibus spending bill) that effectively castrated the ATF.

But before we get into all of that I need to know if you see any sort of problem that should be addressed by the fact that 57% of guns used in crimes came from 1% of FFL holders?

Isn't that something that maybe we should try to do something about? Maybe under current laws or, if that isn't possible, maybe make a few more to help address the issue? Would that really be so bad?

 

[Clifford]

Let's say both parents in this thread get 20 years for negligent homicide: do we really think that has a deterrent effect? I just don't think you can reach people who are stupid enough to leave a loaded gun around a toddler.

I don't think there is a chance to effect behavior if you are already that careless and stupid. I think if you have people like that with guns something bad happening because of carelessness is a matter of time. Even though there is no way to accomplish it right now, the only way to protect kids like the ones in this thread is making sure their parents, who are obviously unfit to own guns, don't have them.

Couldnt we use the punishment and harsh sentencing coupled with wide publicity of the crime and sentence/punishment to elicit some sort of pavlovian response in the wider populace of the ignorant. If they are that dumb would it really be that much harder than training or retraining a dog?

I think harsh sentences for careless storage coupled with wide publicity and a campaign to educate the wider populace on proper handling and storage could bear as much fruit as some of the tech that you are hoping will be a partial answer. Perhaps those things all coupled together could yield real results. As I said earlier in the thread. We change behavior and attitudes through conditioning and education.

In Florida I dont know why we couldnt use the 10-20-Life statute we have in place to punish parents whose children are injured or killed due to their negligence. Just like we charge the driver of the getaway car in a robbbery/murder as if he pulled the trigger himself.

If you are talking about a campaign similar to what we have seen on smoking, as in multiple-decade spanning, hugely funded campaign, then maybe after about a decade we could see an effect. I like the idea of getting both that and the tech investment going.

I've been thinking a good deal about what you have said about a mandatory requirement. I don't agree it should be optional but I want to posit something to you:

What if, instead of our government mandating smart-gun firing tech on every gun sold, the mandate was that if gun manufacturers did not have a working, effective smart gun line by, say, 2020, that they would not be able to legally sell any guns in the American market. This would preserve the freedom of choice in whether a person buys a smart gun or not, and at the same time force the R&D investment from the manufacturers needed to perfect the technology. Then, our government could offer a 20% tax incentive for people who opt for smart gun technology, at the same time increasing penalties for accidents caused by guns without the tech after the options have been in market for three or so years.

Then, after the tech has been in a wide market for a long time, and if it has proved viable and reliable, you could follow that up with regulations that all new guns sold have the technology?

Would that be something you could get behind?

• Preserves individual choice
• Provides safer alternatives for those that want it
• Drives R&D on the tech further in shorter period of time by spurring investment
• R&D Does not cost taxpayers anything, tax incentive would
• Does not in any way limit anyone's 2nd amendment rights

 

[The Commish]

Let's say both parents in this thread get 20 years for negligent homicide: do we really think that has a deterrent effect? I just don't think you can reach people who are stupid enough to leave a loaded gun around a toddler.

I don't think there is a chance to effect behavior if you are already that careless and stupid. I think if you have people like that with guns something bad happening because of carelessness is a matter of time. Even though there is no way to accomplish it right now, the only way to protect kids like the ones in this thread is making sure their parents, who are obviously unfit to own guns, don't have them.

Couldnt we use the punishment and harsh sentencing coupled with wide publicity of the crime and sentence/punishment to elicit some sort of pavlovian response in the wider populace of the ignorant. If they are that dumb would it really be that much harder than training or retraining a dog?

I think harsh sentences for careless storage coupled with wide publicity and a campaign to educate the wider populace on proper handling and storage could bear as much fruit as some of the tech that you are hoping will be a partial answer. Perhaps those things all coupled together could yield real results. As I said earlier in the thread. We change behavior and attitudes through conditioning and education.

In Florida I dont know why we couldnt use the 10-20-Life statute we have in place to punish parents whose children are injured or killed due to their negligence. Just like we charge the driver of the getaway car in a robbbery/murder as if he pulled the trigger himself.

If you are talking about a campaign similar to what we have seen on smoking, as in multiple-decade spanning, hugely funded campaign, then maybe after about a decade we could see an effect. I like the idea of getting both that and the tech investment going.

I've been thinking a good deal about what you have said about a mandatory requirement. I don't agree it should be optional but I want to posit something to you:

What if, instead of our government mandating smart-gun firing tech on every gun sold, the mandate was that if gun manufacturers did not have a working, effective smart gun line by, say, 2020, that they would not be able to legally sell any guns in the American market. This would preserve the freedom of choice in whether a person buys a smart gun or not, and at the same time force the R&D investment from the manufacturers needed to perfect the technology. Then, our government could offer a 20% tax incentive for people who opt for smart gun technology, at the same time increasing penalties for accidents caused by guns without the tech after the options have been in market for three or so years.

Then, after the tech has been in a wide market for a long time, and if it has proved viable and reliable, you could follow that up with regulations that all new guns sold have the technology?

Would that be something you could get behind?

• Preserves individual choice
• Provides safer alternatives for those that want it
• Drives R&D on the tech further in shorter period of time by spurring investment
• Does not cost taxpayers anything
• Does not in any way limit anyone's 2nd amendment rights

I'm not opposed to the solution, but I'm not sure the bold is correct. You mentioned a tax incentive...who'd be paying that gap? If I were you, I'd remove that comment all together as the usual suspects will focus on that missing the forest for the trees.

 

[Clifford]

Let's say both parents in this thread get 20 years for negligent homicide: do we really think that has a deterrent effect? I just don't think you can reach people who are stupid enough to leave a loaded gun around a toddler.

I don't think there is a chance to effect behavior if you are already that careless and stupid. I think if you have people like that with guns something bad happening because of carelessness is a matter of time. Even though there is no way to accomplish it right now, the only way to protect kids like the ones in this thread is making sure their parents, who are obviously unfit to own guns, don't have them.

Couldnt we use the punishment and harsh sentencing coupled with wide publicity of the crime and sentence/punishment to elicit some sort of pavlovian response in the wider populace of the ignorant. If they are that dumb would it really be that much harder than training or retraining a dog?

I think harsh sentences for careless storage coupled with wide publicity and a campaign to educate the wider populace on proper handling and storage could bear as much fruit as some of the tech that you are hoping will be a partial answer. Perhaps those things all coupled together could yield real results. As I said earlier in the thread. We change behavior and attitudes through conditioning and education.

In Florida I dont know why we couldnt use the 10-20-Life statute we have in place to punish parents whose children are injured or killed due to their negligence. Just like we charge the driver of the getaway car in a robbbery/murder as if he pulled the trigger himself.

If you are talking about a campaign similar to what we have seen on smoking, as in multiple-decade spanning, hugely funded campaign, then maybe after about a decade we could see an effect. I like the idea of getting both that and the tech investment going.

I've been thinking a good deal about what you have said about a mandatory requirement. I don't agree it should be optional but I want to posit something to you:

What if, instead of our government mandating smart-gun firing tech on every gun sold, the mandate was that if gun manufacturers did not have a working, effective smart gun line by, say, 2020, that they would not be able to legally sell any guns in the American market. This would preserve the freedom of choice in whether a person buys a smart gun or not, and at the same time force the R&D investment from the manufacturers needed to perfect the technology. Then, our government could offer a 20% tax incentive for people who opt for smart gun technology, at the same time increasing penalties for accidents caused by guns without the tech after the options have been in market for three or so years.

Then, after the tech has been in a wide market for a long time, and if it has proved viable and reliable, you could follow that up with regulations that all new guns sold have the technology?

Would that be something you could get behind?

• Preserves individual choice
• Provides safer alternatives for those that want it
• Drives R&D on the tech further in shorter period of time by spurring investment
• Does not cost taxpayers anything
• Does not in any way limit anyone's 2nd amendment rights

I'm not opposed to the solution, but I'm not sure the bold is correct. You mentioned a tax incentive...who'd be paying that gap?

Good point, fixed post

 

[The Commish]

Let's say both parents in this thread get 20 years for negligent homicide: do we really think that has a deterrent effect? I just don't think you can reach people who are stupid enough to leave a loaded gun around a toddler.

I don't think there is a chance to effect behavior if you are already that careless and stupid. I think if you have people like that with guns something bad happening because of carelessness is a matter of time. Even though there is no way to accomplish it right now, the only way to protect kids like the ones in this thread is making sure their parents, who are obviously unfit to own guns, don't have them.

Couldnt we use the punishment and harsh sentencing coupled with wide publicity of the crime and sentence/punishment to elicit some sort of pavlovian response in the wider populace of the ignorant. If they are that dumb would it really be that much harder than training or retraining a dog?

I think harsh sentences for careless storage coupled with wide publicity and a campaign to educate the wider populace on proper handling and storage could bear as much fruit as some of the tech that you are hoping will be a partial answer. Perhaps those things all coupled together could yield real results. As I said earlier in the thread. We change behavior and attitudes through conditioning and education.

In Florida I dont know why we couldnt use the 10-20-Life statute we have in place to punish parents whose children are injured or killed due to their negligence. Just like we charge the driver of the getaway car in a robbbery/murder as if he pulled the trigger himself.

If you are talking about a campaign similar to what we have seen on smoking, as in multiple-decade spanning, hugely funded campaign, then maybe after about a decade we could see an effect. I like the idea of getting both that and the tech investment going.

I've been thinking a good deal about what you have said about a mandatory requirement. I don't agree it should be optional but I want to posit something to you:

What if, instead of our government mandating smart-gun firing tech on every gun sold, the mandate was that if gun manufacturers did not have a working, effective smart gun line by, say, 2020, that they would not be able to legally sell any guns in the American market. This would preserve the freedom of choice in whether a person buys a smart gun or not, and at the same time force the R&D investment from the manufacturers needed to perfect the technology. Then, our government could offer a 20% tax incentive for people who opt for smart gun technology, at the same time increasing penalties for accidents caused by guns without the tech after the options have been in market for three or so years.

Then, after the tech has been in a wide market for a long time, and if it has proved viable and reliable, you could follow that up with regulations that all new guns sold have the technology?

Would that be something you could get behind?

• Preserves individual choice
• Provides safer alternatives for those that want it
• Drives R&D on the tech further in shorter period of time by spurring investment
• Does not cost taxpayers anything
• Does not in any way limit anyone's 2nd amendment rights

I'm not opposed to the solution, but I'm not sure the bold is correct. You mentioned a tax incentive...who'd be paying that gap?

Good point, fixed post

Damn...you're quick

 

[Spanky267]

Let's say both parents in this thread get 20 years for negligent homicide: do we really think that has a deterrent effect? I just don't think you can reach people who are stupid enough to leave a loaded gun around a toddler.

I don't think there is a chance to effect behavior if you are already that careless and stupid. I think if you have people like that with guns something bad happening because of carelessness is a matter of time. Even though there is no way to accomplish it right now, the only way to protect kids like the ones in this thread is making sure their parents, who are obviously unfit to own guns, don't have them.

Couldnt we use the punishment and harsh sentencing coupled with wide publicity of the crime and sentence/punishment to elicit some sort of pavlovian response in the wider populace of the ignorant. If they are that dumb would it really be that much harder than training or retraining a dog?

I think harsh sentences for careless storage coupled with wide publicity and a campaign to educate the wider populace on proper handling and storage could bear as much fruit as some of the tech that you are hoping will be a partial answer. Perhaps those things all coupled together could yield real results. As I said earlier in the thread. We change behavior and attitudes through conditioning and education.

In Florida I dont know why we couldnt use the 10-20-Life statute we have in place to punish parents whose children are injured or killed due to their negligence. Just like we charge the driver of the getaway car in a robbbery/murder as if he pulled the trigger himself.

If you are talking about a campaign similar to what we have seen on smoking, as in multiple-decade spanning, hugely funded campaign, then maybe after about a decade we could see an effect. I like the idea of getting both that and the tech investment going.

I've been thinking a good deal about what you have said about a mandatory requirement. I don't agree it should be optional but I want to posit something to you:

What if, instead of our government mandating smart-gun firing tech on every gun sold, the mandate was that if gun manufacturers did not have a working, effective smart gun line by, say, 2020, that they would not be able to legally sell any guns in the American market. This would preserve the freedom of choice in whether a person buys a smart gun or not, and at the same time force the R&D investment from the manufacturers needed to perfect the technology. Then, our government could offer a 20% tax incentive for people who opt for smart gun technology, at the same time increasing penalties for accidents caused by guns without the tech after the options have been in market for three or so years.

Then, after the tech has been in a wide market for a long time, and if it has proved viable and reliable, you could follow that up with regulations that all new guns sold have the technology?

Would that be something you could get behind?

• Preserves individual choice
• Provides safer alternatives for those that want it
• Drives R&D on the tech further in shorter period of time by spurring investment
• R&D Does not cost taxpayers anything, tax incentive would
• Does not in any way limit anyone's 2nd amendment rights

Take out the bold and with some minor changes to the deadline for developing a line of products, while keeping the purchase of this type of weapon optional and I think it could be something that is workable. I would liken a framework like this to what the government did in regards to CAFE standards for the auto manufacturers.

 

[Spanky267]

We should all run for political office. While our ideologies are somewhat divergent it seems we are capable of dialoging and working to solve some of our nations issues. What topic should we address next?

 

[Clifford]

Let's say both parents in this thread get 20 years for negligent homicide: do we really think that has a deterrent effect? I just don't think you can reach people who are stupid enough to leave a loaded gun around a toddler.

I don't think there is a chance to effect behavior if you are already that careless and stupid. I think if you have people like that with guns something bad happening because of carelessness is a matter of time. Even though there is no way to accomplish it right now, the only way to protect kids like the ones in this thread is making sure their parents, who are obviously unfit to own guns, don't have them.

Couldnt we use the punishment and harsh sentencing coupled with wide publicity of the crime and sentence/punishment to elicit some sort of pavlovian response in the wider populace of the ignorant. If they are that dumb would it really be that much harder than training or retraining a dog?

I think harsh sentences for careless storage coupled with wide publicity and a campaign to educate the wider populace on proper handling and storage could bear as much fruit as some of the tech that you are hoping will be a partial answer. Perhaps those things all coupled together could yield real results. As I said earlier in the thread. We change behavior and attitudes through conditioning and education.

In Florida I dont know why we couldnt use the 10-20-Life statute we have in place to punish parents whose children are injured or killed due to their negligence. Just like we charge the driver of the getaway car in a robbbery/murder as if he pulled the trigger himself.

If you are talking about a campaign similar to what we have seen on smoking, as in multiple-decade spanning, hugely funded campaign, then maybe after about a decade we could see an effect. I like the idea of getting both that and the tech investment going.

I've been thinking a good deal about what you have said about a mandatory requirement. I don't agree it should be optional but I want to posit something to you:

What if, instead of our government mandating smart-gun firing tech on every gun sold, the mandate was that if gun manufacturers did not have a working, effective smart gun line by, say, 2020, that they would not be able to legally sell any guns in the American market. This would preserve the freedom of choice in whether a person buys a smart gun or not, and at the same time force the R&D investment from the manufacturers needed to perfect the technology. Then, our government could offer a 20% tax incentive for people who opt for smart gun technology, at the same time increasing penalties for accidents caused by guns without the tech after the options have been in market for three or so years.

Then, after the tech has been in a wide market for a long time, and if it has proved viable and reliable, you could follow that up with regulations that all new guns sold have the technology?

Would that be something you could get behind?

• Preserves individual choice
• Provides safer alternatives for those that want it
• Drives R&D on the tech further in shorter period of time by spurring investment
• R&D Does not cost taxpayers anything, tax incentive would
• Does not in any way limit anyone's 2nd amendment rights

Take out the bold and with some minor changes to the deadline for developing a line of products, while keeping the purchase of this type of weapon optional and I think it could be something that is workable. I would liken a framework like this to what the government did in regards to CAFE standards for the auto manufacturers.

Well I figured that last bit would be a stretch but hey, we have agreement on a federal mandate so I'll stop there. Maybe after the tech proves viable in the market it wouldn't be needed, but I think there are few out there that would oppose it on nothing more than old habit.

So we have a workable plan. Now all we have to do is find politicians with enough courage to stand up to the gun lobby. That should be easy.

 

[The Commish]

We should all run for political office. While our ideologies are somewhat divergent it seems we are capable of dialoging and working to solve some of our nations issues. What topic should we address next?

Most of us anyway

 

[[icon]]

Heading to the range at lunch to put a box or two through my Glock 26 carry piece. Nice way to decompress mid day.

 

[timschochet]

I've always considered it ironic that many of the same people who are terrified of the intrusive possibilities of a national gun registry have no problem with laws like Arizona's immigration law in which anyone who appears suspicious can be questioned as to whether or not they are illegal.

 

[Spanky267]

I've always considered it ironic that many of the same people who are terrified of the intrusive possibilities of a national gun registry have no problem with laws like Arizona's immigration law in which anyone who appears suspicious can be questioned as to whether or not they are illegal.

Tim

I dont like Arizona's Immigration Law as written. But you have to admit that the federal government has done a piss poor job in regards to curbing illegal immigration. Their inaction has led to knee jerk reacions like the one that led to the Arizona law.

I also am not sure that LEOs in Arizona can stop you solely to verify your residency status. I believe it has to be in connection with another issue, traffic stop or domestic issue.

But this isnt the place for this debate. WE ARE TALKING BOUT GUNS UP IN HERE!!!

 

[Clifford]

Heading to the range at lunch to put a box or two through my Glock 26 carry piece. Nice way to decompress mid day.

Thanks for the info. I'm going to scratch my ### for a bit.

 

[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..

You are mixing up issues here, it doesn't need to be a gun registry to deal with the FFL holder problem.

They used to try and trace the weapons but it has become increasingly difficult for the ATF to do it's job thanks to the people who say "We don't need more gun laws we just need to enforce the ones we have." Unfortunately those guys, like James Senenbrenner and Todd Tiahrt, have enacted legislation (as riders to the Patriot Act and an Omnibus spending bill) that effectively castrated the ATF.

But before we get into all of that I need to know if you see any sort of problem that should be addressed by the fact that 57% of guns used in crimes came from 1% of FFL holders?

Isn't that something that maybe we should try to do something about? Maybe under current laws or, if that isn't possible, maybe make a few more to help address the issue? Would that really be so bad?

If 57% of gun violence or gun crimes, can be narrowed down to 1% of gun dealers, it should be relatively easy for law enforcement to find and convict the ones who are breaking the law shouldn't it?

One of the problems with your statement is, we don't know what percentage of those crimes were committed by people who couldn't legally buy a firearm. If we are talking about people who purchase firearms who aren't legally allowed to purchase firearms, then with the laws we have on the books already, we should be able to make some arrests and prosecutions. If we are talking about crimes that are committed by people who would pass a background check anywhere, then it's hard to fault the firearm dealer there...

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I've always considered it ironic that many of the same people who are terrified of the intrusive possibilities of a national gun registry have no problem with laws like Arizona's immigration law in which anyone who appears suspicious can be questioned as to whether or not they are illegal.

link?

I disagree with national gun registration because no one can explain how it will make a positive impact.

"Having a national registry/list of every gun/gun transfer/gun owner and all their information is just a good idea" <that doesn't cut the mustard...

Why is it a good idea? And your answer should be more than a 1 line answer, lets dive in if you are going to make an attempt. How exactly will this list be used, and is the list necessary to that end.

I also disagree with Arizona's immigration laws.

And I disagree with your insinuation that Arizona's immigration laws were designed to discriminate against someone based on their appearance.

 

[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.

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

You are mixing up issues here, it doesn't need to be a gun registry to deal with the FFL holder problem.

They used to try and trace the weapons but it has become increasingly difficult for the ATF to do it's job thanks to the people who say "We don't need more gun laws we just need to enforce the ones we have." Unfortunately those guys, like James Senenbrenner and Todd Tiahrt, have enacted legislation (as riders to the Patriot Act and an Omnibus spending bill) that effectively castrated the ATF.

But before we get into all of that I need to know if you see any sort of problem that should be addressed by the fact that 57% of guns used in crimes came from 1% of FFL holders?

Isn't that something that maybe we should try to do something about? Maybe under current laws or, if that isn't possible, maybe make a few more to help address the issue? Would that really be so bad?

If 57% of gun violence or gun crimes, can be narrowed down to 1% of gun dealers, it should be relatively easy for law enforcement to find and convict the ones who are breaking the law shouldn't it?

One of the problems with your statement is, we don't know what percentage of those crimes were committed by people who couldn't legally buy a firearm. If we are talking about people who purchase firearms who aren't legally allowed to purchase firearms, then with the laws we have on the books already, we should be able to make some arrests and prosecutions. If we are talking about crimes that are committed by people who would pass a background check anywhere, then it's hard to fault the firearm dealer there...

Unless you have changed your position in the last couple pages I thought the laws on the books don't do much to limit the legality of firearms sales. I would have thought that the 57% by 1% would be such an overwhelming number that those laws would have been strengthened, or enforced and I would have been wrong.

As far as whether or not those sales would have passed muster anywhere I can only say that 57% were tracked to 1%, in any situation that should be an enormous red flag. Whether they were gaming the system to get straw purchasers approved or were outright selling their guns out the back door who knows? Then again when you aren't required to keep strict inventory, and know the ATF isn't going to be able and reconcile your inventory but once every 17 years on average that becomes quite easy (the ATF can require an inventory once a year but with only 2,500 field agents to monitor such things and having them deal with alcohol and tobacco as well it gets kind of tough to monitor 100,000 FFL holders).

To me this seems like an enormous problem, how can you not see that as well? But for whatever reason we do nothing but limit our ability to do as you propose, enforce the laws we have. That can be tough when the ATF has been castrated by the very people who make statements like that. I am guessing you are familiar with Tiahrt and Sensenbrenner so I won't get into it.

 

[Chaka]

I've always considered it ironic that many of the same people who are terrified of the intrusive possibilities of a national gun registry have no problem with laws like Arizona's immigration law in which anyone who appears suspicious can be questioned as to whether or not they are illegal.

link?

I disagree with national gun registration because no one can explain how it will make a positive impact.

"Having a national registry/list of every gun/gun transfer/gun owner and all their information is just a good idea" <that doesn't cut the mustard...

Why is it a good idea? And your answer should be more than a 1 line answer, lets dive in if you are going to make an attempt. How exactly will this list be used, and is the list necessary to that end.

I also disagree with Arizona's immigration laws.

And I disagree with your insinuation that Arizona's immigration laws were designed to discriminate against someone based on their appearance.

For the who knows how manyeth time. It is a good idea because it will let us track where guns went from presumably responsible gun manufacturers, dealers and gun owners into the criminal underground that those, again presumably, responsible gun owners are buying guns to protect themselves from in the first place.

Whether or not the law will allow us to do anything about stopping that pipeline is another issue but we can't know if our current laws are sufficient or if we need to expand them until we find out what the real problems are.

Seriously how do you know if our laws are sufficient to stop the pipeline of guns used to commit criminal acts if you won't let us find out how the guns got into the hands of the criminals in the first place? Sorry if that means that the big bad government knows how many guns we (yes, we) responsible gun owners have but if you want to protect yourself from bad guys with guns that you probably want to know where the bad guys are getting their guns from and stop them.

Now tell me why it is a bad thing to register your guns and "Because the government might, maybe, one day come and take them" doesn't cut the mustard either.

 

[Chaka]

If you really want to help deal with gun violence without starting a registry why don't you tell your congressman to remove the clause from the Patriot Act that makes the director of the ATF a position requiring congressional confirmation? It's not a cabinet post or judge. Having an acting director for six years while he was also the US Attorney for Minnesota (kind of a full time job in itself) was a joke. That should never happen again.

Then tell them to staff more than 2,500 agents in the ATF to monitor the 100,000 FFL holders, as well as monitoring all alcohol and tobacco laws, so they can manage to do yearly inventories as they are allowed (instead of managing them once every 17 years on average as they do now). While you are at it tell them to change the laws so FFL holders are required to maintain strict inventories and submit them directly to the ATF every month. And remove the requirement that background check records be destroyed within 24 hours in case a mistake was made (a very legitimate possibility, particularly in the age where thousands of Social Security Numbers can be stolen in the blink of an eye). And let's mandate that FFL holders MUST COOPERATE with law enforcement during an active criminal investigation, which they currently are not required to do. And have them permanently open up all of the National Tracing Center's data (part of the ATF) to all law enforcement agencies, not just the limited amount they offer only when there is an active criminal investigation.

But don't just say "Let's enforce the laws we have." without being willing to remove the obstacles that make that virtually impossible to accomplish.

 

[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..

You are mixing up issues here, it doesn't need to be a gun registry to deal with the FFL holder problem.

They used to try and trace the weapons but it has become increasingly difficult for the ATF to do it's job thanks to the people who say "We don't need more gun laws we just need to enforce the ones we have." Unfortunately those guys, like James Senenbrenner and Todd Tiahrt, have enacted legislation (as riders to the Patriot Act and an Omnibus spending bill) that effectively castrated the ATF.

But before we get into all of that I need to know if you see any sort of problem that should be addressed by the fact that 57% of guns used in crimes came from 1% of FFL holders?

Isn't that something that maybe we should try to do something about? Maybe under current laws or, if that isn't possible, maybe make a few more to help address the issue? Would that really be so bad?

If 57% of gun violence or gun crimes, can be narrowed down to 1% of gun dealers, it should be relatively easy for law enforcement to find and convict the ones who are breaking the law shouldn't it?

One of the problems with your statement is, we don't know what percentage of those crimes were committed by people who couldn't legally buy a firearm. If we are talking about people who purchase firearms who aren't legally allowed to purchase firearms, then with the laws we have on the books already, we should be able to make some arrests and prosecutions. If we are talking about crimes that are committed by people who would pass a background check anywhere, then it's hard to fault the firearm dealer there...

Unless you have changed your position in the last couple pages I thought the laws on the books don't do much to limit the legality of firearms sales. I would have thought that the 57% by 1% would be such an overwhelming number that those laws would have been strengthened, or enforced and I would have been wrong.

As far as whether or not those sales would have passed muster anywhere I can only say that 57% were tracked to 1%, in any situation that should be an enormous red flag. Whether they were gaming the system to get straw purchasers approved or were outright selling their guns out the back door who knows? Then again when you aren't required to keep strict inventory, and know the ATF isn't going to be able and reconcile your inventory but once every 17 years on average that becomes quite easy (the ATF can require an inventory once a year but with only 2,500 field agents to monitor such things and having them deal with alcohol and tobacco as well it gets kind of tough to monitor 100,000 FFL holders).

To me this seems like an enormous problem, how can you not see that as well? But for whatever reason we do nothing but limit our ability to do as you propose, enforce the laws we have. That can be tough when the ATF has been castrated by the very people who make statements like that. I am guessing you are familiar with Tiahrt and Sensenbrenner so I won't get into it.

Again, if they already know that 57% of the guns used in crimes come from 1% of gun dealers, they found this information without a gun registry and/or a policed inventory, so, they can certainly crack down and/or at least investigate those dealers.

It is illegal for firearms dealers to sell firearms without doing background checks, but it is not illegal for a private owner to sell his personal firearm without a background check. So, if they have already pinpointed 1% of the dealers, who are selling firearms without background checks, then prosecute them. If there is a straw buyer, who is knowingly selling arms to criminals, he is then an accessory to the crime. Prosecute him...

Your following response will be to repeat your criticism of the NRA for writing a clause that was introduced in the patriot act. A clause that says a director for the ATF must be appointed by Congress. Which doesn't seem unreasonable to me, if Congress would do their job... Yes we need to enforce the laws that are on the books, and no that isn't me regurgitating a line from NRA affiliates. It's the truth, and it's the responsibility of our government. The problem is Washington, and the problem is on both sides.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

For the who knows how manyeth time. It is a good idea because it will let us track where guns went from presumably responsible gun manufacturers, dealers and gun owners into the criminal underground that those, again presumably, responsible gun owners are buying guns to protect themselves from in the first place.

Whether or not the law will allow us to do anything about stopping that pipeline is another issue but we can't know if our current laws are sufficient or if we need to expand them until we find out what the real problems are.

Seriously how do you know if our laws are sufficient to stop the pipeline of guns used to commit criminal acts if you won't let us find out how the guns got into the hands of the criminals in the first place? Sorry if that means that the big bad government knows how many guns we (yes, we) responsible gun owners have but if you want to protect yourself from bad guys with guns that you probably want to know where the bad guys are getting their guns from and stop them.

Now tell me why it is a bad thing to register your guns and "Because the government might, maybe, one day come and take them" doesn't cut the mustard either.

And again, they already know which dealers received the guns. The manufacturers keep record of who is shipped which serial #'s, so national registry isn't needed for that. And you have posted several times now, proof that firearms can already be tracked back to their original dealer...

I don't have to tell you that there are many in Washington that have already attempted to ban firearms in one way or another. A few of them are looking for UK/Australia like firearms laws. You can pretend that it isn't a threat, but why isn't it? Rep. Dan Muhlbauer of Iowa wants government bans and confiscations. Sen. Dianne Feinstein as well. Our government passed a firearms ban in 1994 that prohibited firearms based on the way they looked. Which I think you should be able to agree, is ridiculous. And it doesn't stop there.. Leaves me with no faith in our federal government to have access to the information you're asking for, and use it in a fair and proper manner.

 

[Chaka]

Again, if they already know that 57% of the guns used in crimes come from 1% of gun dealers, they found this information without a gun registry and/or a policed inventory, so, they can certainly crack down and/or at least investigate those dealers.

It is illegal for firearms dealers to sell firearms without doing background checks, but it is not illegal for a private owner to sell his personal firearm without a background check. So, if the have already pinpointed 1% of the dealers, who are selling firearms without background checks, then prosecute them. If there is a straw buyer, who is knowingly selling arms to criminals, he is then an accessory to the crime. Prosecute him...

The Clinton administration seized on the findings to encourage police to request a trace on every gun they confiscated. In 2000, Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers, who oversaw the ATF, announced "intensive inspections" of the 1 percent - 1,012 gun stores.The inspections detected serious problems. Nearly half of the dealers could not account for all of their guns, for a total of 13,271 missing firearms. More than half were out of compliance with record-keeping. And they had made nearly 700 sales to potential traffickers or prohibited people. More than 450 dealers were sanctioned, and 20 were referred for license revocation.

450 sanctioned and 20 referred for license revocation (no idea how many actually had their license revoked.
Sufficient punishment?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Again, if they already know that 57% of the guns used in crimes come from 1% of gun dealers, they found this information without a gun registry and/or a policed inventory, so, they can certainly crack down and/or at least investigate those dealers.

It is illegal for firearms dealers to sell firearms without doing background checks, but it is not illegal for a private owner to sell his personal firearm without a background check. So, if the have already pinpointed 1% of the dealers, who are selling firearms without background checks, then prosecute them. If there is a straw buyer, who is knowingly selling arms to criminals, he is then an accessory to the crime. Prosecute him...

The Clinton administration seized on the findings to encourage police to request a trace on every gun they confiscated. In 2000, Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers, who oversaw the ATF, announced "intensive inspections" of the 1 percent - 1,012 gun stores.The inspections detected serious problems. Nearly half of the dealers could not account for all of their guns, for a total of 13,271 missing firearms. More than half were out of compliance with record-keeping. And they had made nearly 700 sales to potential traffickers or prohibited people. More than 450 dealers were sanctioned, and 20 were referred for license revocation.

450 sanctioned and 20 referred for license revocation (no idea how many actually had their license revoked.
Sufficient punishment?

It would be sufficient if it had happened sooner and more often right? If our government had been policing and enforcing the laws already on the books, a strong portion of that 57% could have been avoided wouldn't you say?

 

[Chaka]

Are there any FFL holders in here?

I need some clarification about form 4473. It's the form you fill out when you want to buy a gun.

As I understand it the information from this form is kept by the FFL holder for 20 years and is only surrendered to the ATF 1) upon retirement of the FFL holder and 2) when there is an active criminal investigation the ATF can view the record and request but only request a copy of the form as it pertains to that specific gun.

And the only form that is required to be sent to the ATF is the 3310.4 which is filed if an individual purchases more than one gun in a five day period.

Is that correct?

 

[Chaka]

Again, if they already know that 57% of the guns used in crimes come from 1% of gun dealers, they found this information without a gun registry and/or a policed inventory, so, they can certainly crack down and/or at least investigate those dealers.

It is illegal for firearms dealers to sell firearms without doing background checks, but it is not illegal for a private owner to sell his personal firearm without a background check. So, if the have already pinpointed 1% of the dealers, who are selling firearms without background checks, then prosecute them. If there is a straw buyer, who is knowingly selling arms to criminals, he is then an accessory to the crime. Prosecute him...

The Clinton administration seized on the findings to encourage police to request a trace on every gun they confiscated. In 2000, Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers, who oversaw the ATF, announced "intensive inspections" of the 1 percent - 1,012 gun stores.The inspections detected serious problems. Nearly half of the dealers could not account for all of their guns, for a total of 13,271 missing firearms. More than half were out of compliance with record-keeping. And they had made nearly 700 sales to potential traffickers or prohibited people. More than 450 dealers were sanctioned, and 20 were referred for license revocation.

450 sanctioned and 20 referred for license revocation (no idea how many actually had their license revoked.
Sufficient punishment?

It would be sufficient if it had happened sooner and more often right? If our government had been policing and enforcing the laws already on the books, a strong portion of that 57% could have been avoided wouldn't you say?

You ever going to address the whole castration of the ATF thing?

2,500 field agents to monitor 100,000 FFL holders along with the whole alcohol and tobacco thing. Seems like the deck is kind of stacked against the whole "just enforce the laws on the books" thing. Mind you I would probably be fine without a registry if we could actually enforce the laws on the books but it is quite clear that we cannot as the ATF is currently set up.

 

[Chaka]

Yes we need to enforce the laws that are on the books, and no that isn't me regurgitating a line from NRA affiliates. It's the truth, and it's the responsibility of our government. The problem is Washington, and the problem is on both sides.

That is a BS platitude that carries zero weight if they don't give the agencies responsible for the enforcement of those laws the ability to actually do their jobs. Even worse when they actively limit their ability to do so.

I know you are aware of how limited the ATF currently is so why do you keep saying that when you know it is effectively impossible?

 

[Chaka]

I could use some clarification regarding the National Tracing Center too.

If I understand correctly it contains the information from all the filed 3310.4 forms (filed when individuals buy more than one gun in a five day period) and information from guns confiscated at crime scenes. But does it contain information from all form 4473 or only those surrendered to the ATF upon the retirement of the FFL holder?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Again, if they already know that 57% of the guns used in crimes come from 1% of gun dealers, they found this information without a gun registry and/or a policed inventory, so, they can certainly crack down and/or at least investigate those dealers.

It is illegal for firearms dealers to sell firearms without doing background checks, but it is not illegal for a private owner to sell his personal firearm without a background check. So, if the have already pinpointed 1% of the dealers, who are selling firearms without background checks, then prosecute them. If there is a straw buyer, who is knowingly selling arms to criminals, he is then an accessory to the crime. Prosecute him...

The Clinton administration seized on the findings to encourage police to request a trace on every gun they confiscated. In 2000, Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers, who oversaw the ATF, announced "intensive inspections" of the 1 percent - 1,012 gun stores.The inspections detected serious problems. Nearly half of the dealers could not account for all of their guns, for a total of 13,271 missing firearms. More than half were out of compliance with record-keeping. And they had made nearly 700 sales to potential traffickers or prohibited people. More than 450 dealers were sanctioned, and 20 were referred for license revocation.

450 sanctioned and 20 referred for license revocation (no idea how many actually had their license revoked.
Sufficient punishment?

It would be sufficient if it had happened sooner and more often right? If our government had been policing and enforcing the laws already on the books, a strong portion of that 57% could have been avoided wouldn't you say?

You ever going to address the whole castration of the ATF thing?

2,500 field agents to monitor 100,000 FFL holders along with the whole alcohol and tobacco thing. Seems like the deck is kind of stacked against the whole "just enforce the laws on the books" thing. Mind you I would probably be fine without a registry if we could actually enforce the laws on the books but it is quite clear that we cannot as the ATF is currently set up.

Address it in what way? Obviously there needs to be enforcement of existing laws before we add new laws.. What else is there to say? Congress needs to appoint a director and enable the ATF to do there jobs.

Another issue to address, There have been instances where the ATF had shown up in force and completely dismantled and shut down gun stores only to walk away with law suits to show for it. Couldn't those officers be doing something better with their time? No charges files but almost put the guy completely out of business.. Basically government sanctioned harassment for the sake of harassment..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Yes we need to enforce the laws that are on the books, and no that isn't me regurgitating a line from NRA affiliates. It's the truth, and it's the responsibility of our government. The problem is Washington, and the problem is on both sides.

That is a BS platitude that carries zero weight if they don't give the agencies responsible for the enforcement of those laws the ability to actually do their jobs. Even worse when they actively limit their ability to do so.

I know you are aware of how limited the ATF currently is so why do you keep saying that when you know it is effectively impossible?

Re-read it?

 

[Chaka]

For the who knows how manyeth time. It is a good idea because it will let us track where guns went from presumably responsible gun manufacturers, dealers and gun owners into the criminal underground that those, again presumably, responsible gun owners are buying guns to protect themselves from in the first place.

Whether or not the law will allow us to do anything about stopping that pipeline is another issue but we can't know if our current laws are sufficient or if we need to expand them until we find out what the real problems are.

Seriously how do you know if our laws are sufficient to stop the pipeline of guns used to commit criminal acts if you won't let us find out how the guns got into the hands of the criminals in the first place? Sorry if that means that the big bad government knows how many guns we (yes, we) responsible gun owners have but if you want to protect yourself from bad guys with guns that you probably want to know where the bad guys are getting their guns from and stop them.

Now tell me why it is a bad thing to register your guns and "Because the government might, maybe, one day come and take them" doesn't cut the mustard either.

And again, they already know which dealers received the guns. The manufacturers keep record of who is shipped which serial #'s, so national registry isn't needed for that. And you have posted several times now, proof that firearms can already be tracked back to their original dealer...

I don't have to tell you that there are many in Washington that have already attempted to ban firearms in one way or another. A few of them are looking for UK/Australia like firearms laws. You can pretend that it isn't a threat, but why isn't it? Rep. Dan Muhlbauer of Iowa wants government bans and confiscations. Sen. Dianne Feinstein as well. Our government passed a firearms ban in 1994 that prohibited firearms based on the way they looked. Which I think you should be able to agree, is ridiculous. And it doesn't stop there.. Leaves me with no faith in our federal government to have access to the information you're asking for, and use it in a fair and proper manner.

Yeah and I think you would have enough faith in the gun advocate members of our government to see that never happens.

BTW y'know the gun buyback program in Australia only related to semi-automatic and automatic rifles and since that time there has been over a 65% decrease in suicide by gun (without a rise in suicide by other means) and a 35-50% drop in homicides, although that homicide number is contested (you have to get into study methods and statistical determinations of significance to discuss that) so I'll just say a likely decline in homicides. The suicide reduction is not contested at all.

In that scenario I would not have to give up any of my guns. Oh the horror.

 

[Chaka]

Yes we need to enforce the laws that are on the books, and no that isn't me regurgitating a line from NRA affiliates. It's the truth, and it's the responsibility of our government. The problem is Washington, and the problem is on both sides.

That is a BS platitude that carries zero weight if they don't give the agencies responsible for the enforcement of those laws the ability to actually do their jobs. Even worse when they actively limit their ability to do so.

I know you are aware of how limited the ATF currently is so why do you keep saying that when you know it is effectively impossible?

Re-read it?

So, what? Not your job? Let's just accept it and move on? Status quo works?

You say you want the laws enforced how many letters have you written to your congressman? I guarantee you mine knows who I am, although he doesn't care (the NRA gives him an A).

Link

 

[Chaka]

So with a little more research it seems that the Feds learn through the background check that you are interested in buying a gun. They don't know what type beyond "hand gun, long gun or other" and they don't know any information about make, model or serial number.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

For the who knows how manyeth time. It is a good idea because it will let us track where guns went from presumably responsible gun manufacturers, dealers and gun owners into the criminal underground that those, again presumably, responsible gun owners are buying guns to protect themselves from in the first place.

Whether or not the law will allow us to do anything about stopping that pipeline is another issue but we can't know if our current laws are sufficient or if we need to expand them until we find out what the real problems are.

Seriously how do you know if our laws are sufficient to stop the pipeline of guns used to commit criminal acts if you won't let us find out how the guns got into the hands of the criminals in the first place? Sorry if that means that the big bad government knows how many guns we (yes, we) responsible gun owners have but if you want to protect yourself from bad guys with guns that you probably want to know where the bad guys are getting their guns from and stop them.

Now tell me why it is a bad thing to register your guns and "Because the government might, maybe, one day come and take them" doesn't cut the mustard either.

And again, they already know which dealers received the guns. The manufacturers keep record of who is shipped which serial #'s, so national registry isn't needed for that. And you have posted several times now, proof that firearms can already be tracked back to their original dealer...

I don't have to tell you that there are many in Washington that have already attempted to ban firearms in one way or another. A few of them are looking for UK/Australia like firearms laws. You can pretend that it isn't a threat, but why isn't it? Rep. Dan Muhlbauer of Iowa wants government bans and confiscations. Sen. Dianne Feinstein as well. Our government passed a firearms ban in 1994 that prohibited firearms based on the way they looked. Which I think you should be able to agree, is ridiculous. And it doesn't stop there.. Leaves me with no faith in our federal government to have access to the information you're asking for, and use it in a fair and proper manner.

Yeah and I think you would have enough faith in the gun advocate members of our government to see that never happens.

BTW y'know the gun buyback program in Australia only related to semi-automatic and automatic rifles and since that time there has been over a 65% decrease in suicide by gun (without a rise in suicide by other means) and a 35-50% drop in homicides, although that homicide number is contested (you have to get into study methods and statistical determinations of significance to discuss that) so I'll just say a likely decline in homicides. The suicide reduction is not contested at all.

In that scenario I would not have to give up any of my guns. Oh the horror.

The home invasion and violent crimes in Australia have skyrocketed since the weapons ban.. And btw, they banned more than just semi-automatic/automatic rifles...

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So with a little more research it seems that the Feds learn through the background check that you are interested in buying a gun. They don't know what type beyond "hand gun, long gun or other" and they don't know any information about make, model or serial number.

And at that point if you aren't legally allowed to buy a gun, they should snap into action..