What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Until we do something about guns, don’t expect things to change overni (1 Viewer)

There's violence in Chicago because there are criminals aspiring to be the Top Dogs in their field. They're going to try to kill each other regardless.
Tim, like many thoughtul people and the majority of law enforcement around this nation thinks one of the big reasons for shootings in Chicago America is the NRA and also the fact they don't require background checks on private gun sales.
fixed
Just let the Chicago PD crack skulls left and right; setting forth a doctrine that it's alright to shoot your rivals in the crime business....but if any civilians get hurt...its over.
Round up all the tough guy gangbangers, put them all together in a secluded area and let them work out their issues with all the guns they want. And the ones that survive, let the cops have at them.

 
I wrote that it is ONE big reason, not THE big reason. And later on I clarified that it was not specific to Chicago. You are correct that if you interpreted my statement as you did, then it would indeed be clueless. But hopefully now that I have clarified it you won't interpret it the same way.
But you actually think that ONE of the big reasons for all the gun violence in Chicago is because of the NRA and the lack of background checks on private transactions. That is clueless Tim.
I think it's one of the big reasons for gun violence everywhere, not specific to Chicago. And if I am clueless about this then so is most law enforcement.
You speak for law enforcement and cite law enforcement frequently. I understand that for instance the IACP may take that position, but they are politicians seeking federal funds. They are willing to fight a battle if it keeps them in office and well funded. They are nominally law enforcement, but more precisely they are politicians

Certainly there are examples of private sales putting guns in the hands of eventual criminals, though when I look into those matters they often do not control for whether the person may have been a criminal at the time of purchase or later. That acknowledged, guns are frequently stolen. They are frequently acquired through straw purchases, they are frequently lent out from one criminal to another. I work in law enforcement and I have never encountered any criminal who feels that closing the gun show or private sale loophole will in any way restrict their access to guns. Street Officers and criminals would dispute your premise.

Whether that means your goal should not be pursued, I take no position. I am, however, confident it will have no effect in reducing gun violence and that it will only be a distraction, a waste of time, money and effort while the real root causes go unaddressed. You will become part of a tragic play, the distraction preventing efforts going to correcting the real problem.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good morning. Not surprised that so many of you disagree with me, but I'm a bit surprised by the level of vitriol. Oh well.

Vitriol or not, I stand by my comments. Would closing the private sales loophole make it impossible for bad guys to purchase guns? Of course not. But it would make it much more difficult, and thus reduce gun violence. That's what most law enforcement says, and I find their arguments on this compelling.

Is the NRA responsible in part for greater gun violence in this country? Well, they spend millions of dollars fighting reasonable proposals like removing the private sales loophole. And though they are always saying that the existing laws need to be enforced, they spend more millions attempting (successfully I might add) to weaken the ATF. So yes, I believe they are in part responsible. If that makes me asinine, so be it.
Why do you always take everything someone in any position of authority says at face value?

Law enforcement also says that legalizing marijuana will be a catastrophe of biblical proportions, and we know that's pure BS. And need we even bring up the NRA and its lies? Face it, what "law enforcement" tells you is no more valid than what any jerk off the street tells you.
It's not like the "authority" in question is stating some fact that I can accept or reject- in this case they're making an argument, one that I find compelling. The argument is this:

Most people who own guns, and sell guns privately, are law-abiding. They don't knowingly sell guns to convicted felons. The felon implicitly lies by purchasing the gun, and since no background check is carried out, the seller never learns that he did, in fact, break the law by selling a weapon to a felon. But- if you remove this loophole, then most private gun sellers will run background checks- not everyone will of course, but enough will that felons will have to find other, more dangerous ways to purchase guns. Of course some will still ultimately be able to obtain them, but we've put a huge hurdle in their path, and by doing so there should be a significant reduction in gun violence.

To me, that argument at least on paper seems very reasonable, and I don't really see the drawbacks. If we try it out, and after a few years it doesn't work, then scrap it. But I think it will work.
Here is the problem. there is no real hurdle at all. Felons always know a few non-felons, girls,wannabees, juniors, future felons who as of yet do not have a record. They simply and easily arrange for a straw purchase. See felons are just like that. The huge hurdle you see is not even a bump in the road to felons.

I had a case some time back where a pawn store had sold over 5000 guns in one year to a group of 5 women. The sales were cash transactions. The women were girlfriends of some gang members. The gang members could not legally buy firearms as they were felons, but their girlfriends sure could. The gang went to some lengths to hire the most expensive attorneys around whenever those girls got sideways with the law as they really had a substantial interest in keeping their records clean. Over time, when one of the girlfriends would get a felony conviction she was rotated out of this enterprise. She lost substantial status in the gang, but she was always easily replaced. Here's the thing. Criminals are well ahead of the curve you seem to want to ride. I have no objection to you riding it. If your desire was magically granted it might actually save a live or two, perhaps. It will, however, in no way stem the tide. You are grasping at straws. You are perhaps trimming our constitutional freedoms while on an errand which will absolutely not have the impact you imagine. Whether your efforts are worth the time with a correct understanding of the situation I cannot say. I will not try to dissuade you from your position, I will only state that you may want to examine some of your premises, or not if your mind is closed on this matter.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not reading this thread since Tim has junked it up but has anyone touched on the tremendous part chicagos open door policy on illegal immigrants has played in this crisis?

 
And once again, one of Tim's arguments....

(•_•)







( •_•)>⌐■-■







...........gets shot down.





(⌐■_■)


YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Ditkaless Wonders, I appreciate your arguments. In fact, you have had a huge effect on me. There was a time when I was in favor of all sorts of gun control measures. A few years back you wrote some very good posts which caused me to reconsider several of my positions. That put me on the road to learning more about this issue. As a result, I changed my mind on most of my positions. The strongest arguments I have ever heard against gun control is essentially that these laws just don't work. I buy into that. Just about the only gun control position I have left is believing that the private sales loophole should be removed. That's why it amuses me when some people around here regard me as a poster boy for gun control. Truly I'm not.

That being said, I don't accept your arguments on this one. I already stated why I found the law enforcement arguments (those that are in favor) compelling. I'm not going to repeat them. I simply disagree with you. As I wrote before, if the private sales loophole is removed and crime doesn't go down, then I'll concede that I was wrong about this. But we won't know until we try.

However, I do want to comment on your statement that:

You are perhaps trimming our constitutional freedoms

Maybe you're right about it being uneffective; I acknowledge that possibility. But trimming constitutional freedoms? That's bull####. That's the NRA paranoid line in the sand, and I think you know that, which is why you carefully inserted the word "perhaps."

 
How do bad guys get guns, when the laws say they're not supposed to? One major way is the private sales loophole. Convicted felons are supposed to go through background checks, and these checks should, theoretically, prevent them from buying guns. But there are no background checks for private transactions. Those of us who think this loophole is absolute insanity have tried again and again and again and again to get rid of it, but each and every time we are stopped by the NRA and its fanatic supporters. And that is one big reason why there is so much gun violence in Chicago.
And so little in New York. (43 per 100k in Chi, 4 per 100k in NY).

You usually post b#######, but this is prime, steaming stuff, even by your standards.
Yep. That post is awful even by Tim's standards.

 
Good morning. Not surprised that so many of you disagree with me, but I'm a bit surprised by the level of vitriol. Oh well.

Vitriol or not, I stand by my comments. Would closing the private sales loophole make it impossible for bad guys to purchase guns? Of course not. But it would make it much more difficult, and thus reduce gun violence. That's what most law enforcement says, and I find their arguments on this compelling.

Is the NRA responsible in part for greater gun violence in this country? Well, they spend millions of dollars fighting reasonable proposals like removing the private sales loophole. And though they are always saying that the existing laws need to be enforced, they spend more millions attempting (successfully I might add) to weaken the ATF. So yes, I believe they are in part responsible. If that makes me asinine, so be it.
You really think most guns acquired by criminals are through private sales? You are either fishing, an idiot with no grasp of simple logic, someone posts on subjects after doing absolutely zero research, or all three.

 
Good morning. Not surprised that so many of you disagree with me, but I'm a bit surprised by the level of vitriol. Oh well.

Vitriol or not, I stand by my comments. Would closing the private sales loophole make it impossible for bad guys to purchase guns? Of course not. But it would make it much more difficult, and thus reduce gun violence. That's what most law enforcement says, and I find their arguments on this compelling.

Is the NRA responsible in part for greater gun violence in this country? Well, they spend millions of dollars fighting reasonable proposals like removing the private sales loophole. And though they are always saying that the existing laws need to be enforced, they spend more millions attempting (successfully I might add) to weaken the ATF. So yes, I believe they are in part responsible. If that makes me asinine, so be it.
You really think most guns acquired by criminals are through private sales? You are either fishing, an idiot with no grasp of simple logic, someone posts on subjects after doing absolutely zero research, or all three.
 
Good morning. Not surprised that so many of you disagree with me, but I'm a bit surprised by the level of vitriol. Oh well.

Vitriol or not, I stand by my comments. Would closing the private sales loophole make it impossible for bad guys to purchase guns? Of course not. But it would make it much more difficult, and thus reduce gun violence. That's what most law enforcement says, and I find their arguments on this compelling.

Is the NRA responsible in part for greater gun violence in this country? Well, they spend millions of dollars fighting reasonable proposals like removing the private sales loophole. And though they are always saying that the existing laws need to be enforced, they spend more millions attempting (successfully I might add) to weaken the ATF. So yes, I believe they are in part responsible. If that makes me asinine, so be it.
You really think most guns acquired by criminals are through private sales? You are either fishing, an idiot with no grasp of simple logic, someone posts on subjects after doing absolutely zero research, or all three.
I never wrote that most guns acquired by criminals are through private sales. We have no idea what the number is, because FEW RECORDS ARE KEPT OF PRIVATE SALES, which is, of course, the whole problem. Some experts project that at least 40% of all gun sales are performed through private means and thus without background checks, but there is no way to know how accurate that figure is. We can only guess that it is highly significant when it comes to making guns available to felons, as common sense would suggest. Your assertion that anyone who holds this position is either an idiot or fishing is yet another example of the bizarro world that many gun rights people seem to live in.

 
Good morning. Not surprised that so many of you disagree with me, but I'm a bit surprised by the level of vitriol. Oh well.

Vitriol or not, I stand by my comments. Would closing the private sales loophole make it impossible for bad guys to purchase guns? Of course not. But it would make it much more difficult, and thus reduce gun violence. That's what most law enforcement says, and I find their arguments on this compelling.

Is the NRA responsible in part for greater gun violence in this country? Well, they spend millions of dollars fighting reasonable proposals like removing the private sales loophole. And though they are always saying that the existing laws need to be enforced, they spend more millions attempting (successfully I might add) to weaken the ATF. So yes, I believe they are in part responsible. If that makes me asinine, so be it.
You really think most guns acquired by criminals are through private sales? You are either fishing, an idiot with no grasp of simple logic, someone posts on subjects after doing absolutely zero research, or all three.
I never wrote that most guns acquired by criminals are through private sales. We have no idea what the number is, because FEW RECORDS ARE KEPT OF PRIVATE SALES, which is, of course, the whole problem. Some experts project that at least 40% of all gun sales are performed through private means and thus without background checks, but there is no way to know how accurate that figure is. We can only guess that it is highly significant when it comes to making guns available to felons, as common sense would suggest. Your assertion that anyone who holds this position is either an idiot or fishing is yet another example of the bizarro world that many gun rights people seem to live in.
Wrong.....you wrote that one of the big reasons for all the gun deaths in Chicago is due to no background checks on private sales. That implies you do think most guns used in these deaths are acquired through private sales despite the fact that criminals, gang members and thugs are committing these crimes there. That is how your bizarro mind works.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think a significant number are purchased that way, yes. I don't know about most. But whatever the number, background checks would eliminate that avenue of obtaining guns.

 
I think a significant number are purchased that way, yes. I don't know about most. But whatever the number, background checks would eliminate that avenue of obtaining guns.
So thugs and criminals that don't have any regard for the law are going to make sure they do a background check when they buy a gun from someone in cases when they actually don't steal a gun?That is Timmy's bizzaro world.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think a significant number are purchased that way, yes. I don't know about most. But whatever the number, background checks would eliminate that avenue of obtaining guns.
They wouldn't, because what semi-intelligent criminal is going to submit to a background check, whether public or private? They'll either obtain the weapon via someone else buying it for them, stealing one, or obtaining one via a black market type source. Requiring background checks for private sales will not stop gun crime. The only logical step is to get rid of the criminal mentality somehow.

 
Ditkaless Wonders, I appreciate your arguments. In fact, you have had a huge effect on me. There was a time when I was in favor of all sorts of gun control measures. A few years back you wrote some very good posts which caused me to reconsider several of my positions. That put me on the road to learning more about this issue. As a result, I changed my mind on most of my positions. The strongest arguments I have ever heard against gun control is essentially that these laws just don't work. I buy into that. Just about the only gun control position I have left is believing that the private sales loophole should be removed. That's why it amuses me when some people around here regard me as a poster boy for gun control. Truly I'm not.

That being said, I don't accept your arguments on this one. I already stated why I found the law enforcement arguments (those that are in favor) compelling. I'm not going to repeat them. I simply disagree with you. As I wrote before, if the private sales loophole is removed and crime doesn't go down, then I'll concede that I was wrong about this. But we won't know until we try.

However, I do want to comment on your statement that:

You are perhaps trimming our constitutional freedoms

Maybe you're right about it being uneffective; I acknowledge that possibility. But trimming constitutional freedoms? That's bull####. That's the NRA paranoid line in the sand, and I think you know that, which is why you carefully inserted the word "perhaps."
You are free, obviously, to think and believe as you will. You will find I am not the sort to denigrate or bludgeon those who disagree with me. In fact being in the cohort that disagrees with me generally puts one in fine company.

As for perhaps trimming our constitutional freedoms I note that for the private sale loophole to be closed that universal gun registration would have to be implemented. Then the government would insist on making a gun owner the agent of the state for the short time it took to update those records on each subsequent sale. Additionally the government would encumber that process with a fee. Clearly then there is some imposition of the right to own an object. You do not own it free and clear but with encumbrances the government has placed upon that object. You have lost some of the beneficial rights of ownership we associate with most items. That could be considered a taking. I recognize this and suggest one might consider addressing the situation. I do not advocate the position, I recognize it. That is hardly the same thing as being bull#### or implying I might be a shill for the NRA's position. It is merely beginning to address the next steps as one pursues your avenue.

Me, I have always believed that the most common gun control ideas espoused cannot be accomplished under our constitution without doing severe violence to its meaning, unless the second amendment is itself amended. I have clearly stated many times that the second amendment, correctly understood, is anachronistic and needs to be changed. I would support a revision to the second amendment done through the people and the legislature. I think there would be great utility in forcing ourselves to form consensus. It would promote a maturity sorely lacking in our country for generations. The wisdom of our founders is deeper than many imagine. their gift to us was not only freedom, but forcing us to respect each other at least enough to get essential works done.

In the end I am not opposed to sensible gun control, I would actually support any number of measures involving registration including not just serial number registration but also with ballistic test result registration for each gun. I would support secure storage laws with both criminal and civil presumptions for failures. I would support mandatory insurance requirements.

What I cannot support is disregarding or tortuously and purposefully ignoring the constitutional process in well meaning but poorly considered attempt to address a statistically insignificant, if horrifying, phenomena.

I do understand that my position has been coopted by the insincere, by those who would actually not want any change, by those hiding behind the constitution, unwilling to own their positions or who truly are, as you intimate, paranoid. I appreciate it is not possible to sort the wheat from that chafe simply through reading writings on a public board. It is not unreasonable for you to have your suspicions.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good morning. Not surprised that so many of you disagree with me, but I'm a bit surprised by the level of vitriol. Oh well.

Vitriol or not, I stand by my comments. Would closing the private sales loophole make it impossible for bad guys to purchase guns? Of course not. But it would make it much more difficult, and thus reduce gun violence. That's what most law enforcement says, and I find their arguments on this compelling.

Is the NRA responsible in part for greater gun violence in this country? Well, they spend millions of dollars fighting reasonable proposals like removing the private sales loophole. And though they are always saying that the existing laws need to be enforced, they spend more millions attempting (successfully I might add) to weaken the ATF. So yes, I believe they are in part responsible. If that makes me asinine, so be it.
You really think most guns acquired by criminals are through private sales? You are either fishing, an idiot with no grasp of simple logic, someone posts on subjects after doing absolutely zero research, or all three.
I never wrote that most guns acquired by criminals are through private sales. We have no idea what the number is, because FEW RECORDS ARE KEPT OF PRIVATE SALES, which is, of course, the whole problem. Some experts project that at least 40% of all gun sales are performed through private means and thus without background checks, but there is no way to know how accurate that figure is. We can only guess that it is highly significant when it comes to making guns available to felons, as common sense would suggest.Your assertion that anyone who holds this position is either an idiot or fishing is yet another example of the bizarro world that many gun rights people seem to live in.
Don't you think its important to know how criminals are acquiring guns? Don't you think that's the most important stat of all? Why would it be important to know how many gun sales are private sales when that has nothing do with how criminals are acquiring their guns?

If criminals are not getting their guns through private gun sales (for the most part they are not), why are you wasting everyone's time on requiring background checks on private gun sales? You are trying to solve the wrong problem.... as usual.

 
I think a significant number are purchased that way, yes. I don't know about most. But whatever the number, background checks would eliminate that avenue of obtaining guns.
Well, you are wrong. There are stats on how criminals obtain guns that are readily available. Why not do some research rather than just guessing and reaching the wrong conclusions?

 
For Tim since Google must be down:

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

By the way, the guys from Freakonomics in their original book already answered this question years ago using.....(wait for it) real statistics. Oh, but wait, Tim thinks most criminals acquire guns through privates sales based on nothing but his own instincts, so that must be right. :lol:
Umm, did you bother to read that link before you sent it?

It confirms what law enforcement has said for years, and what I'm saying now: that most criminals actually purchase their guns, not steal them. And that the only way to crack down on this, according to the article, is:

better monitoring of the activities of legally licensed gun dealers. This means examining FFL paperwork to see where their guns are coming from, and making sure that those guns are being sold legally.

Gee whiz. Sounds familiar doesn't it? However, simply having background checks performed for all sales would be far less intrusive than what the ATF seems to be requesting.

 
DW, thanks for another very thoughtful post. I don't understand, though, why universal background checks would necessitate universal gun registration. I am not opposed to the latter, but I know that it is something that many gun owners are extremely fearful of. In the latest proposed legislation after Sandy Hook, there were provisions set in that background checks need not be reported after they were performed to some federal authority- the idea was not to have anything that felt like registration. But the bill failed anyhow.

 
I think a significant number are purchased that way, yes. I don't know about most. But whatever the number, background checks would eliminate that avenue of obtaining guns.
They wouldn't, because what semi-intelligent criminal is going to submit to a background check, whether public or private? They'll either obtain the weapon via someone else buying it for them, stealing one, or obtaining one via a black market type source. Requiring background checks for private sales will not stop gun crime. The only logical step is to get rid of the criminal mentality somehow.
I agree these are all viable alternatives. However, based on the link that JoeT was kind enough to post (thanks again, Joe!) private sales are at least one significant and important options. Eliminate that option, and the bad guys are forced to use one of the other options- all of which are more difficult.

 
I think a significant number are purchased that way, yes. I don't know about most. But whatever the number, background checks would eliminate that avenue of obtaining guns.
Most guns used by criminals are stolen, or acquired illegally. Background checks, private gun registries and more restricted gun laws merely constrain legal gun owners and have no effect on criminals. Youd probably know this if you actually study this issue. But your insistence that you are right and everyone else is wrong, tgat the NRA has blood on its hands reveals your real motives are purely about politics and control. The fact that this country guaranteed the right to own weapons to avg joe has always been a problem for those that believe in the power of government

 
Last edited by a moderator:
For Tim since Google must be down:

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

By the way, the guys from Freakonomics in their original book already answered this question years ago using.....(wait for it) real statistics. Oh, but wait, Tim thinks most criminals acquire guns through privates sales based on nothing but his own instincts, so that must be right. :lol:
Umm, did you bother to read that link before you sent it?It confirms what law enforcement has said for years, and what I'm saying now: that most criminals actually purchase their guns, not steal them. And that the only way to crack down on this, according to the article, is:

better monitoring of the activities of legally licensed gun dealers. This means examining FFL paperwork to see where their guns are coming from, and making sure that those guns are being sold legally.

Gee whiz. Sounds familiar doesn't it? However, simply having background checks performed for all sales would be far less intrusive than what the ATF seems to be requesting.
How will these background checks prevent straw purchasing from happening? This is very common and one way criminals obtain guns.

 
I think a significant number are purchased that way, yes. I don't know about most. But whatever the number, background checks would eliminate that avenue of obtaining guns.
They wouldn't, because what semi-intelligent criminal is going to submit to a background check, whether public or private? They'll either obtain the weapon via someone else buying it for them, stealing one, or obtaining one via a black market type source. Requiring background checks for private sales will not stop gun crime. The only logical step is to get rid of the criminal mentality somehow.
I agree these are all viable alternatives. However, based on the link that JoeT was kind enough to post (thanks again, Joe!) private sales are at least one significant and important options. Eliminate that option, and the bad guys are forced to use one of the other options- all of which are more difficult.
More difficult, yes, but far from impossible. I'm of the opinion that if a weapon is obtained through a straw purchase, isn't that then technically stolen, since someone who is not the owner is using it? As long as there is a demand for weapons, there will be traffickers there to try and meet that demand, and if something is hard to obtain, it usually becomes more expensive, meaning that traffickers will then stand to make more of a profit.

There was a story a few weeks ago about a California state senator who was backing all kinds of gun control measures, but got busted for gun trafficking. He probably stood to make a lot of money if the control measures were passed, as would other gunrunners in the area.

 
DW, thanks for another very thoughtful post. I don't understand, though, why universal background checks would necessitate universal gun registration. I am not opposed to the latter, but I know that it is something that many gun owners are extremely fearful of. In the latest proposed legislation after Sandy Hook, there were provisions set in that background checks need not be reported after they were performed to some federal authority- the idea was not to have anything that felt like registration. But the bill failed anyhow.
I do not understand how the one could work without the other. Perhaps you could set me up a hypothetical to consider.

 
Ditkaless Wonders, I appreciate your arguments. In fact, you have had a huge effect on me. There was a time when I was in favor of all sorts of gun control measures. A few years back you wrote some very good posts which caused me to reconsider several of my positions. That put me on the road to learning more about this issue. As a result, I changed my mind on most of my positions. The strongest arguments I have ever heard against gun control is essentially that these laws just don't work. I buy into that. Just about the only gun control position I have left is believing that the private sales loophole should be removed. That's why it amuses me when some people around here regard me as a poster boy for gun control. Truly I'm not.

That being said, I don't accept your arguments on this one. I already stated why I found the law enforcement arguments (those that are in favor) compelling. I'm not going to repeat them. I simply disagree with you. As I wrote before, if the private sales loophole is removed and crime doesn't go down, then I'll concede that I was wrong about this. But we won't know until we try.

However, I do want to comment on your statement that:

You are perhaps trimming our constitutional freedoms

Maybe you're right about it being uneffective; I acknowledge that possibility. But trimming constitutional freedoms? That's bull####. That's the NRA paranoid line in the sand, and I think you know that, which is why you carefully inserted the word "perhaps."
You are free, obviously, to think and believe as you will. You will find I am not the sort to denigrate or bludgeon those who disagree with me. In fact being in the cohort that disagrees with me generally puts one in fine company.As for perhaps trimming our constitutional freedoms I note that for the private sale loophole to be closed that universal gun registration would have to be implemented. Then the government would insist on making a gun owner the agent of the state for the short time it took to update those records on each subsequent sale. Additionally the government would encumber that process with a fee. Clearly then there is some imposition of the right to own an object. You do not own it free and clear but with encumbrances the government has placed upon that object. You have lost some of the beneficial rights of ownership we associate with most items. That could be considered a taking. I recognize this and suggest one might consider addressing the situation. I do not advocate the position, I recognize it. That is hardly the same thing as being bull#### or implying I might be a shill for the NRA's position. It is merely beginning to address the next steps as one pursues your avenue.

Me, I have always believed that the most common gun control ideas espoused cannot be accomplished under our constitution without doing severe violence to its meaning, unless the second amendment is itself amended. I have clearly stated many times that the second amendment, correctly understood, is anachronistic and needs to be changed. I would support a revision to the second amendment done through the people and the legislature. I think there would be great utility in forcing ourselves to form consensus. It would promote a maturity sorely lacking in our country for generations. The wisdom of our founders is deeper than many imagine. their gift to us was not only freedom, but forcing us to respect each other at least enough to get essential works done.

In the end I am not opposed to sensible gun control, I would actually support any number of measures involving registration including not just serial number registration but also with ballistic test result registration for each gun. I would support secure storage laws with both criminal and civil presumptions for failures. I would support mandatory insurance requirements.

What I cannot support is disregarding or tortuously and purposefully ignoring the constitutional process in well meaning but poorly considered attempt to address a statistically insignificant, if horrifying, phenomena.

I do understand that my position has been coopted by the insincere, by those who would actually not want any change, by those hiding behind the constitution, unwilling to own their positions or who truly are, as you intimate, paranoid. I appreciate it is not possible to sort the wheat from that chafe simply through reading writings on a public board. It is not unreasonable for you to have your suspicions.
Fantastic post.

 
I think a significant number are purchased that way, yes. I don't know about most. But whatever the number, background checks would eliminate that avenue of obtaining guns.
They wouldn't, because what semi-intelligent criminal is going to submit to a background check, whether public or private? They'll either obtain the weapon via someone else buying it for them, stealing one, or obtaining one via a black market type source. Requiring background checks for private sales will not stop gun crime. The only logical step is to get rid of the criminal mentality somehow.
I agree these are all viable alternatives. However, based on the link that JoeT was kind enough to post (thanks again, Joe!) private sales are at least one significant and important options. Eliminate that option, and the bad guys are forced to use one of the other options- all of which are more difficult.
More difficult, yes, but far from impossible. I'm of the opinion that if a weapon is obtained through a straw purchase, isn't that then technically stolen, since someone who is not the owner is using it? As long as there is a demand for weapons, there will be traffickers there to try and meet that demand, and if something is hard to obtain, it usually becomes more expensive, meaning that traffickers will then stand to make more of a profit.

There was a story a few weeks ago about a California state senator who was backing all kinds of gun control measures, but got busted for gun trafficking. He probably stood to make a lot of money if the control measures were passed, as would other gunrunners in the area.
I never said it would be impossible. The purpose of most law enforcement measures is to make things more difficult, not impossible.

 
DW, thanks for another very thoughtful post. I don't understand, though, why universal background checks would necessitate universal gun registration. I am not opposed to the latter, but I know that it is something that many gun owners are extremely fearful of. In the latest proposed legislation after Sandy Hook, there were provisions set in that background checks need not be reported after they were performed to some federal authority- the idea was not to have anything that felt like registration. But the bill failed anyhow.
I do not understand how the one could work without the other. Perhaps you could set me up a hypothetical to consider.
Well, for one thing, the only time law enforcement need be informed is if the background check fails. If a legal buyer is purchasing from a legal seller, I don't see why a permanent record would need to be kept.

 
timschochet said:
Ditkaless Wonders said:
timschochet said:
DW, thanks for another very thoughtful post. I don't understand, though, why universal background checks would necessitate universal gun registration. I am not opposed to the latter, but I know that it is something that many gun owners are extremely fearful of. In the latest proposed legislation after Sandy Hook, there were provisions set in that background checks need not be reported after they were performed to some federal authority- the idea was not to have anything that felt like registration. But the bill failed anyhow.
I do not understand how the one could work without the other. Perhaps you could set me up a hypothetical to consider.
Well, for one thing, the only time law enforcement need be informed is if the background check fails. If a legal buyer is purchasing from a legal seller, I don't see why a permanent record would need to be kept.
Because they still keep those records to trace guns. Legally obtained guns still make it into the hands of criminals due to straw transactions which you failed to address when I asked you about that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Ditkaless Wonders said:
timschochet said:
DW, thanks for another very thoughtful post. I don't understand, though, why universal background checks would necessitate universal gun registration. I am not opposed to the latter, but I know that it is something that many gun owners are extremely fearful of. In the latest proposed legislation after Sandy Hook, there were provisions set in that background checks need not be reported after they were performed to some federal authority- the idea was not to have anything that felt like registration. But the bill failed anyhow.
I do not understand how the one could work without the other. Perhaps you could set me up a hypothetical to consider.
Well, for one thing, the only time law enforcement need be informed is if the background check fails. If a legal buyer is purchasing from a legal seller, I don't see why a permanent record would need to be kept.
Because they still keep those records to trace guns. Legally obtained guns still make it into the hands of criminals due to straw transactions which you failed to address when I asked you about that.
Even if they keep the records, it's not the same as registration. I am actually in favor of registration. But I know it really bothers gun owners. So I think simply getting rid of the background checks loophole is a reasonable solution.

 
timschochet said:
Ditkaless Wonders said:
timschochet said:
DW, thanks for another very thoughtful post. I don't understand, though, why universal background checks would necessitate universal gun registration. I am not opposed to the latter, but I know that it is something that many gun owners are extremely fearful of. In the latest proposed legislation after Sandy Hook, there were provisions set in that background checks need not be reported after they were performed to some federal authority- the idea was not to have anything that felt like registration. But the bill failed anyhow.
I do not understand how the one could work without the other. Perhaps you could set me up a hypothetical to consider.
Well, for one thing, the only time law enforcement need be informed is if the background check fails. If a legal buyer is purchasing from a legal seller, I don't see why a permanent record would need to be kept.
Because they still keep those records to trace guns. Legally obtained guns still make it into the hands of criminals due to straw transactions which you failed to address when I asked you about that.
This appears to be another thread where tim makes absurd statements without doing any research, ignores corrections to his assumptions, and constantly moves his target so that he can claim he wasn't wrong.

In other words, nothing new here.

 
tommyboy said:
timschochet said:
I think a significant number are purchased that way, yes. I don't know about most. But whatever the number, background checks would eliminate that avenue of obtaining guns.
Most guns used by criminals are stolen, or acquired illegally. Background checks, private gun registries and more restricted gun laws merely constrain legal gun owners and have no effect on criminals. Youd probably know this if you actually study this issue. But your insistence that you are right and everyone else is wrong, tgat the NRA has blood on its hands reveals your real motives are purely about politics and control. The fact that this country guaranteed the right to own weapons to avg joe has always been a problem for those that believe in the power of government
The first part of your first sentence is simply false; if you don't believe me on this, check out Joe T's link. The second part of your first sentence is correct; I am attempting to suggest a way to make it more difficult to do so. Your second sentence is false.

 
timschochet said:
Ditkaless Wonders said:
timschochet said:
DW, thanks for another very thoughtful post. I don't understand, though, why universal background checks would necessitate universal gun registration. I am not opposed to the latter, but I know that it is something that many gun owners are extremely fearful of. In the latest proposed legislation after Sandy Hook, there were provisions set in that background checks need not be reported after they were performed to some federal authority- the idea was not to have anything that felt like registration. But the bill failed anyhow.
I do not understand how the one could work without the other. Perhaps you could set me up a hypothetical to consider.
Well, for one thing, the only time law enforcement need be informed is if the background check fails. If a legal buyer is purchasing from a legal seller, I don't see why a permanent record would need to be kept.
Because they still keep those records to trace guns. Legally obtained guns still make it into the hands of criminals due to straw transactions which you failed to address when I asked you about that.
This appears to be another thread where tim makes absurd statements without doing any research, ignores corrections to his assumptions, and constantly moves his target so that he can claim he wasn't wrong.

In other words, nothing new here.
I'm grateful to you for doing research which only confirms my opinion.

 
tommyboy said:
timschochet said:
I think a significant number are purchased that way, yes. I don't know about most. But whatever the number, background checks would eliminate that avenue of obtaining guns.
Most guns used by criminals are stolen, or acquired illegally. Background checks, private gun registries and more restricted gun laws merely constrain legal gun owners and have no effect on criminals. Youd probably know this if you actually study this issue. But your insistence that you are right and everyone else is wrong, tgat the NRA has blood on its hands reveals your real motives are purely about politics and control. The fact that this country guaranteed the right to own weapons to avg joe has always been a problem for those that believe in the power of government
The first part of your first sentence is simply false; if you don't believe me on this, check out Joe T's link. The second part of your first sentence is correct; I am attempting to suggest a way to make it more difficult to do so. Your second sentence is false.
WTF are you talking about regarding the second part of that sentence? You said that one of the big reasons gun violence was taking place in Chicago was not having background checks on private sales. The vast majority of those crimes are by criminals yet now you agree that those steps have no effect on criminals. You are one messed up dude!

 
tommyboy said:
timschochet said:
I think a significant number are purchased that way, yes. I don't know about most. But whatever the number, background checks would eliminate that avenue of obtaining guns.
Most guns used by criminals are stolen, or acquired illegally. Background checks, private gun registries and more restricted gun laws merely constrain legal gun owners and have no effect on criminals. Youd probably know this if you actually study this issue. But your insistence that you are right and everyone else is wrong, tgat the NRA has blood on its hands reveals your real motives are purely about politics and control. The fact that this country guaranteed the right to own weapons to avg joe has always been a problem for those that believe in the power of government
The first part of your first sentence is simply false; if you don't believe me on this, check out Joe T's link. The second part of your first sentence is correct; I am attempting to suggest a way to make it more difficult to do so. Your second sentence is false.
WTF are you talking about regarding the second part of that sentence? You said that one of the big reasons gun violence was taking place in Chicago was not having background checks on private sales. The vast majority of those crimes are by criminals yet now you agree that those steps have no effect on criminals. You are one messed up dude!
He's talking out of his rear end again.

 
tommyboy said:
timschochet said:
I think a significant number are purchased that way, yes. I don't know about most. But whatever the number, background checks would eliminate that avenue of obtaining guns.
Most guns used by criminals are stolen, or acquired illegally. Background checks, private gun registries and more restricted gun laws merely constrain legal gun owners and have no effect on criminals. Youd probably know this if you actually study this issue. But your insistence that you are right and everyone else is wrong, tgat the NRA has blood on its hands reveals your real motives are purely about politics and control. The fact that this country guaranteed the right to own weapons to avg joe has always been a problem for those that believe in the power of government
The first part of your first sentence is simply false; if you don't believe me on this, check out Joe T's link. The second part of your first sentence is correct; I am attempting to suggest a way to make it more difficult to do so. Your second sentence is false.
WTF are you talking about regarding the second part of that sentence? You said that one of the big reasons gun violence was taking place in Chicago was not having background checks on private sales. The vast majority of those crimes are by criminals yet now you agree that those steps have no effect on criminals. You are one messed up dude!
What is it that I wrote that you don't understand? Let me state it again for you:

It is my position that one significant way that criminals access guns is through private sales, because private sales do not require background checks. This in turn leads to increased crime, such as what's taking place in Chicago. The lack of background checks makes it far easier for felons to obtain guns, thus the lack of background checks are a significant reason why there is so much gun violence.

You can disagree with me on this all you want; I'm sure you do. But please don't pretend you don't understand me.

 
tommyboy said:
timschochet said:
I think a significant number are purchased that way, yes. I don't know about most. But whatever the number, background checks would eliminate that avenue of obtaining guns.
Most guns used by criminals are stolen, or acquired illegally. Background checks, private gun registries and more restricted gun laws merely constrain legal gun owners and have no effect on criminals. Youd probably know this if you actually study this issue. But your insistence that you are right and everyone else is wrong, tgat the NRA has blood on its hands reveals your real motives are purely about politics and control. The fact that this country guaranteed the right to own weapons to avg joe has always been a problem for those that believe in the power of government
The first part of your first sentence is simply false; if you don't believe me on this, check out Joe T's link. The second part of your first sentence is correct; I am attempting to suggest a way to make it more difficult to do so. Your second sentence is false.
WTF are you talking about regarding the second part of that sentence? You said that one of the big reasons gun violence was taking place in Chicago was not having background checks on private sales. The vast majority of those crimes are by criminals yet now you agree that those steps have no effect on criminals. You are one messed up dude!
He's talking out of his rear end again.
No I'm not, and you needn't be crude.

 
Here are some facts:

The “Gun Show Loophole” is a gap in federal law that allows private citizens, who are not licensed firearms dealers, to sell guns without conducting background checks or keeping records. These “private sellers” often sell guns at the thousands of gun shows that take place every weekend across the country. But, private sales of guns also take place daily between individuals as people sell guns to family members, friends and strangers without any requirement that the purchaser undergo a background check.

  • Federal law requires federally licensed gun dealers (FFLs) to conduct background checks on all buyers to make sure they are not felons or otherwise prohibited from owning guns. Dealers must conduct background checks whether at their primary place of business, or at a gun show. Dealers also keep buyer records in the event a gun is recovered in a crime and ATF needs to trace its serial number to its owner.
  • Private sellers are not required to conduct background checks or keep records. In fact, federal law prevents private sellers from access to the National Instant Background Check System (NICS).
  • Many criminals, knowing they can bypass background checks by purchasing from private sellers, use gun shows and individual sales as their source for obtaining guns.
The gun show loophole facilitates
sales to criminals:


  • 30% of trafficking: One ATF study found that over 10,000 crime guns traced in a year were connected to gun shows – about 30% of all crime guns traced that year.
  • “Gun shows and flea markets are a major venue for illegal trafficking.” according to the ATF.
  • Columbine: All four guns used in the Columbine school
    massacre were bought at gun shows without background checks.
  • New York City’s investigation of gun shows: In 2009, the City of New York sent undercover investigators to gun shows in Ohio, Tennessee and Nevada to find out if private sellers and federally licensed gun dealers at the shows would engage in illegal sales practices. They found that 74% of sellers approached by investigators, who verbally indicated they were legally prohibited from having guns, were willing to make the sale.
Widespread support for closing the
gun show loophole:


  • A majority of NRA members support closing the loophole: In a poll conducted by Republican pollster Frank Luntz, 69% of NRA members and 85% of non-NRA gun owners supported background checks for all gun sales at gun shows.
  • 87% of Americans favor a requirement that everyone who sells guns at gun shows conduct criminal background checks on all purchases, according to a bipartisan 2008 poll.
http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-gun-show-loophole-arms-criminals/

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyboy said:
timschochet said:
I think a significant number are purchased that way, yes. I don't know about most. But whatever the number, background checks would eliminate that avenue of obtaining guns.
Most guns used by criminals are stolen, or acquired illegally. Background checks, private gun registries and more restricted gun laws merely constrain legal gun owners and have no effect on criminals. Youd probably know this if you actually study this issue. But your insistence that you are right and everyone else is wrong, tgat the NRA has blood on its hands reveals your real motives are purely about politics and control. The fact that this country guaranteed the right to own weapons to avg joe has always been a problem for those that believe in the power of government
The first part of your first sentence is simply false; if you don't believe me on this, check out Joe T's link. The second part of your first sentence is correct; I am attempting to suggest a way to make it more difficult to do so. Your second sentence is false.
WTF are you talking about regarding the second part of that sentence? You said that one of the big reasons gun violence was taking place in Chicago was not having background checks on private sales. The vast majority of those crimes are by criminals yet now you agree that those steps have no effect on criminals. You are one messed up dude!
He's talking out of his rear end again.
No I'm not, and you needn't be crude.
Then what is it since you have contradicted yourself once again. You have said over and over that background checks would impact gun crime by criminals including Chicago but now you state it wouldn't have any impact on criminals. So....which is it Tim?

As you said to another poster yesterday......this is the fodder you provide that provides entertainment to us.

 
I don't usually refer to it as the "gun show loophole" because that's not accurate, and people have objected to it. To be precise, it's a private sales loophole. But other than this correction, the information I just posted is well-sourced and very accurate. It completely contradicts tommyboy's assertions and most of the assertions made by those who disagree with me in this thread.

 
tommyboy said:
timschochet said:
I think a significant number are purchased that way, yes. I don't know about most. But whatever the number, background checks would eliminate that avenue of obtaining guns.
Most guns used by criminals are stolen, or acquired illegally. Background checks, private gun registries and more restricted gun laws merely constrain legal gun owners and have no effect on criminals. Youd probably know this if you actually study this issue. But your insistence that you are right and everyone else is wrong, tgat the NRA has blood on its hands reveals your real motives are purely about politics and control. The fact that this country guaranteed the right to own weapons to avg joe has always been a problem for those that believe in the power of government
The first part of your first sentence is simply false; if you don't believe me on this, check out Joe T's link. The second part of your first sentence is correct; I am attempting to suggest a way to make it more difficult to do so. Your second sentence is false.
WTF are you talking about regarding the second part of that sentence? You said that one of the big reasons gun violence was taking place in Chicago was not having background checks on private sales. The vast majority of those crimes are by criminals yet now you agree that those steps have no effect on criminals. You are one messed up dude!
He's talking out of his rear end again.
No I'm not, and you needn't be crude.
Then what is it since you have contradicted yourself once again. You have said over and over that background checks would impact gun crime by criminals including Chicago but now you state it wouldn't have any impact on criminals. So....which is it Tim?

As you said to another poster yesterday......this is the fodder you provide that provides entertainment to us.
When did I say that wouldn't have any impact on criminals? Of course it would; that's my whole premise.

 
I don't usually refer to it as the "gun show loophole" because that's not accurate, and people have objected to it. To be precise, it's a private sales loophole. But other than this correction, the information I just posted is well-sourced and very accurate. It completely contradicts tommyboy's assertions and most of the assertions made by those who disagree with me in this thread.
At this point I'm waiting for your head to explode.

 
I don't usually refer to it as the "gun show loophole" because that's not accurate, and people have objected to it. To be precise, it's a private sales loophole. But other than this correction, the information I just posted is well-sourced and very accurate. It completely contradicts tommyboy's assertions and most of the assertions made by those who disagree with me in this thread.
At this point I'm waiting for your head to explode.
And I'm waiting for you to point out a contradiction in what I wrote, though you claim there is one. Or you're welcome to refute what I wrote.

 
tommyboy said:
timschochet said:
I think a significant number are purchased that way, yes. I don't know about most. But whatever the number, background checks would eliminate that avenue of obtaining guns.
Most guns used by criminals are stolen, or acquired illegally. Background checks, private gun registries and more restricted gun laws merely constrain legal gun owners and have no effect on criminals. Youd probably know this if you actually study this issue. But your insistence that you are right and everyone else is wrong, tgat the NRA has blood on its hands reveals your real motives are purely about politics and control. The fact that this country guaranteed the right to own weapons to avg joe has always been a problem for those that believe in the power of government
The first part of your first sentence is simply false; if you don't believe me on this, check out Joe T's link. The second part of your first sentence is correct; I am attempting to suggest a way to make it more difficult to do so. Your second sentence is false.
WTF are you talking about regarding the second part of that sentence? You said that one of the big reasons gun violence was taking place in Chicago was not having background checks on private sales. The vast majority of those crimes are by criminals yet now you agree that those steps have no effect on criminals. You are one messed up dude!
He's talking out of his rear end again.
No I'm not, and you needn't be crude.
Then what is it since you have contradicted yourself once again. You have said over and over that background checks would impact gun crime by criminals including Chicago but now you state it wouldn't have any impact on criminals. So....which is it Tim?

As you said to another poster yesterday......this is the fodder you provide that provides entertainment to us.
When did I say that wouldn't have any impact on criminals? Of course it would; that's my whole premise.
Read the second part of the sentence by Tommy Boy that you agreed with.

 
tommyboy said:
timschochet said:
I think a significant number are purchased that way, yes. I don't know about most. But whatever the number, background checks would eliminate that avenue of obtaining guns.
Most guns used by criminals are stolen, or acquired illegally. Background checks, private gun registries and more restricted gun laws merely constrain legal gun owners and have no effect on criminals. Youd probably know this if you actually study this issue. But your insistence that you are right and everyone else is wrong, tgat the NRA has blood on its hands reveals your real motives are purely about politics and control. The fact that this country guaranteed the right to own weapons to avg joe has always been a problem for those that believe in the power of government
The first part of your first sentence is simply false; if you don't believe me on this, check out Joe T's link. The second part of your first sentence is correct; I am attempting to suggest a way to make it more difficult to do so. Your second sentence is false.
WTF are you talking about regarding the second part of that sentence? You said that one of the big reasons gun violence was taking place in Chicago was not having background checks on private sales. The vast majority of those crimes are by criminals yet now you agree that those steps have no effect on criminals. You are one messed up dude!
What is it that I wrote that you don't understand? Let me state it again for you:It is my position that one significant way that criminals access guns is through private sales, because private sales do not require background checks. This in turn leads to increased crime, such as what's taking place in Chicago. The lack of background checks makes it far easier for felons to obtain guns, thus the lack of background checks are a significant reason why there is so much gun violence.

You can disagree with me on this all you want; I'm sure you do. But please don't pretend you don't understand me.
No one understands you. You have yet to address how background checks prevent straw transactions which still get guns into the hands of criminals.

 
?? The second part of tommyboy's first sentence, which I agreed with, is "or acquired illegally." Meaning most guns used by criminals are acquired illegally. Which is absolutely true. It is illegal for a felon to purchase a firearm. But this law is impossible to enforce, because THERE ARE NO BACKGROUND CHECKS for private sales. That doesn't make these sales any less illegal; it just means nobody knows about them.

 
You have yet to address how background checks prevent straw transactions which still get guns into the hands of criminals.

Actually I did address it. The answer is that it won't stop straw transactions; there is no way to stop these transactions. But keep in mind that a straw transaction requires a minimum of 3 parties, two of which are knowingly breaking the law. Meanwhile, a private sale in which the buyer is a felon involves only 2 parties, only one of which is knowingly breaking the law. It should be common sense to anyone that therefore there is much greater risk in a straw transaction than in a private sale. Thus by eliminating private sales to felons (by insisting upon background checks) we are making it more difficult for felons to obtain weapons. Yes, they can still buy them through straw transactions, provided they can find somebody legal willing to take that risk. And yes, they can still steal the guns, providing they are willing to take that risk. But by increasing the risks, we are diminishing the supply of guns, and hopefully, gun violence.

 
Here are some facts:

The “Gun Show Loophole” is a gap in federal law that allows private citizens, who are not licensed firearms dealers, to sell guns without conducting background checks or keeping records. These “private sellers” often sell guns at the thousands of gun shows that take place every weekend across the country. But, private sales of guns also take place daily between individuals as people sell guns to family members, friends and strangers without any requirement that the purchaser undergo a background check.

  • Federal law requires federally licensed gun dealers (FFLs) to conduct background checks on all buyers to make sure they are not felons or otherwise prohibited from owning guns. Dealers must conduct background checks whether at their primary place of business, or at a gun show. Dealers also keep buyer records in the event a gun is recovered in a crime and ATF needs to trace its serial number to its owner.
  • Private sellers are not required to conduct background checks or keep records. In fact, federal law prevents private sellers from access to the National Instant Background Check System (NICS).
  • Many criminals, knowing they can bypass background checks by purchasing from private sellers, use gun shows and individual sales as their source for obtaining guns.
The gun show loophole facilitates

sales to criminals:

  • 30% of trafficking: One ATF study found that over 10,000 crime guns traced in a year were connected to gun shows – about 30% of all crime guns traced that year.
  • “Gun shows and flea markets are a major venue for illegal trafficking.” according to the ATF.
  • Columbine: All four guns used in the Columbine schoolmassacre were bought at gun shows without background checks.
  • New York City’s investigation of gun shows: In 2009, the City of New York sent undercover investigators to gun shows in Ohio, Tennessee and Nevada to find out if private sellers and federally licensed gun dealers at the shows would engage in illegal sales practices. They found that 74% of sellers approached by investigators, who verbally indicated they were legally prohibited from having guns, were willing to make the sale.
Widespread support for closing the

gun show loophole:

  • A majority of NRA members support closing the loophole: In a poll conducted by Republican pollster Frank Luntz, 69% of NRA members and 85% of non-NRA gun owners supported background checks for all gun sales at gun shows.
  • 87% of Americans favor a requirement that everyone who sells guns at gun shows conduct criminal background checks on all purchases, according to a bipartisan 2008 poll.
http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-gun-show-loophole-arms-criminals/
Would background checks have prevented the sale of the Columbine guns?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top