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

[Arsenal of Doom]

The significant difference though is in this hypothetical case only sellers willing to break the law would knowingly do so. In purely economic terms, this would limit the number of potential sellers which would decrease the supply of guns available to people who wouldn't pass the background check. The sellers would also be more exposed, meaning that on top of the normal supply and demand increase there would likely be an additional risk premium applied. You wouldn't stop the flow of guns into hands of people who can't legally have them, but the cost would be greater.

How well has that worked with drugs? Making the cost greater only serves to increase profits for those willing to run the risk.

I guess it depends on how you want to measure it. Do you think more or less people will smoke marijuana if it becomes universally legal?

More for a while, but I doubt it's significantly more in the long run. By any other measurement, such as government funds spent, total cost to society, violence caused, etc., I think it's safe to say that drug prohibition has failed miserably.

Of course it has, because prohibition is a dumb way to suppress demand except for behaviors that create a clear threat to organized society and also clearly will never surpass all of it. Having a regulation that creates an additional barrier for legal sale isn't the same thing as trying to enforce a universal prohibition, which almost certainly suppresses demand more but at a greater social and economic cost.

 

[timschochet]

And those studies are just related to kids under 18, much less 18-20 year olds. Our laws banning alcohol sales to minors (as well as cigarettes sales to those under 18, for that matter) may be effective at preventing minors from purchasing alcohol at liquor stores, but they've been a colossal failure at preventing those minors from obtaining alcohol at all.

OK. Let's just remove those laws altogether and see what happens. I'm betting the amount of teenage drinking, if we did that, would go way way up. Which proves my point.

Gotta run guys. Be back later.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Look, guys, statistics are everything with me. You guys are right that the statistic I posted is unclear, while the Justice Department statistic that Oogie Pringle quoted is very clear. However, the two still seem to contradict each other; what's more, the latter statistic seems to contradict other statistics that I have read from law enforcement sources which are in favor of background checks. I'm going to research the matter further, and if I find more statistics which either strengthen my argument or weaken it, I will post them here.

In the meantime, I continue to assert that we won't know for sure the truth of the matter until we impose universal background checks. And other than the possibility that they won't be effective, I still have yet to hear a compelling reason not to do so.

Tim....WAKE UP!!! The two statistics DO NOT contradict each other!!! What part of this is so hard for you to understand......30% of guns used in crimes came from gun shows. That figure DOES NOT address WHO is buying those guns at the shows. You are a piece of work!

 

[RCon]

And those studies are just related to kids under 18, much less 18-20 year olds. Our laws banning alcohol sales to minors (as well as cigarettes sales to those under 18, for that matter) may be effective at preventing minors from purchasing alcohol at liquor stores, but they've been a colossal failure at preventing those minors from obtaining alcohol at all.

OK. Let's just remove those laws altogether and see what happens. I'm betting the amount of teenage drinking, if we did that, would go way way up. Which proves my point.

Gotta run guys. Be back later.

Really? Which countries have the highest drinking age? Which countries have the most problems with teen alcohol abuse?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

The war on drugs is a failure because it's universal. If the government attempted to ban guns and created a "war on guns", that would be a failure too. But what IS successful, for the most part, is restricting the sale of liquor to adults over 21. How do we enforce that?

You serious, Clark? Do you remember high school at all? Hell, do you remember college?

I turned 21 my senior year of college. I was drunk 9 nights out of 10 for my entire freshman, sophomore, and junior years.

Of course it happens. Straw purchases, and some straight purchases. But it is still, statistically, very effective. Or are you in favor of removing all age limit drinking restrictions?

No, it's not remotely effective. In fact, I thank you for making this analogy, as it proves my point. Seriously, Google "underage drinking". From the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/underage-drinking.htm

Drinking Levels among YouthThe 2011 Youth Risk Behavior Survey6 found that among high school students, during the past 30 days

• 39% drank some amount of alcohol.
• 22% binge drank.
• 8% drove after drinking alcohol.
• 24% rode with a driver who had been drinking alcohol.

I'm not sure where you are going with this. If there was no legal minimum drinking age, more kids would drink and would almost certainly do so younger. If alcohol was totally prohibited, far few kids and adults would drink.

Just because many kids drink under the minimum drinking age doesn't mean there is no benefit to having the restriction. Other than alcohol providers having fewer sales, there isn't really a cost to society for having the regulation. So even if the return is marginal, the insignificant cost makes it worthwhile to maintain the regulation.

 

[RCon]

The significant difference though is in this hypothetical case only sellers willing to break the law would knowingly do so. In purely economic terms, this would limit the number of potential sellers which would decrease the supply of guns available to people who wouldn't pass the background check. The sellers would also be more exposed, meaning that on top of the normal supply and demand increase there would likely be an additional risk premium applied. You wouldn't stop the flow of guns into hands of people who can't legally have them, but the cost would be greater.

How well has that worked with drugs? Making the cost greater only serves to increase profits for those willing to run the risk.

I guess it depends on how you want to measure it. Do you think more or less people will smoke marijuana if it becomes universally legal?

More for a while, but I doubt it's significantly more in the long run. By any other measurement, such as government funds spent, total cost to society, violence caused, etc., I think it's safe to say that drug prohibition has failed miserably.

Of course it has, because prohibition is a dumb way to suppress demand except for behaviors that create a clear threat to organized society and also clearly will never surpass all of it. Having a regulation that creates an additional barrier for legal sale isn't the same thing as trying to enforce a universal prohibition, which almost certainly suppresses demand more but at a greater social and economic cost.

You're absolutely right, of course. And timschochet is right that laws banning alcohol and cigarette sales to minors are a much better analogy.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

And those studies are just related to kids under 18, much less 18-20 year olds. Our laws banning alcohol sales to minors (as well as cigarettes sales to those under 18, for that matter) may be effective at preventing minors from purchasing alcohol at liquor stores, but they've been a colossal failure at preventing those minors from obtaining alcohol at all.

OK. Let's just remove those laws altogether and see what happens. I'm betting the amount of teenage drinking, if we did that, would go way way up. Which proves my point.Gotta run guys. Be back later.

Which proves your point?

 

[RCon]

The war on drugs is a failure because it's universal. If the government attempted to ban guns and created a "war on guns", that would be a failure too. But what IS successful, for the most part, is restricting the sale of liquor to adults over 21. How do we enforce that?

You serious, Clark? Do you remember high school at all? Hell, do you remember college?

I turned 21 my senior year of college. I was drunk 9 nights out of 10 for my entire freshman, sophomore, and junior years.

Of course it happens. Straw purchases, and some straight purchases. But it is still, statistically, very effective. Or are you in favor of removing all age limit drinking restrictions?

No, it's not remotely effective. In fact, I thank you for making this analogy, as it proves my point. Seriously, Google "underage drinking". From the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/underage-drinking.htm

Drinking Levels among YouthThe 2011 Youth Risk Behavior Survey6 found that among high school students, during the past 30 days

• 39% drank some amount of alcohol.
• 22% binge drank.
• 8% drove after drinking alcohol.
• 24% rode with a driver who had been drinking alcohol.

I'm not sure where you are going with this. If there was no legal minimum drinking age, more kids would drink and would almost certainly do so younger. If alcohol was totally prohibited, far few kids and adults would drink.

Just because many kids drink under the minimum drinking age doesn't mean there is no benefit to having the restriction. Other than alcohol providers having fewer sales, there isn't really a cost to society for having the regulation. So even if the return is marginal, the insignificant cost makes it worthwhile to maintain the regulation.

The return is worse than marginal. In the case of alcohol/cigarette age laws, it's even possible that the return is negative. By creating something that is taboo, we run the risk of making the appeal greater. I should note that I don't believe that "taboo appeal" translates to a background check law for guns, of course. The point is that any high school kid who wants alcohol, cigarettes, or marijuana can likely obtain them pretty damn easily.

And it's not an insignificant cost. Creating black markets for goods always has a societal cost.

In the case of universal background checks for guns, it would add an actual dollar cost to every transaction. Whether that dollar cost could be classified as "significant" would be pretty subjective.

 

[Rayderr]

Look, guys, statistics are everything with me. You guys are right that the statistic I posted is unclear, while the Justice Department statistic that Oogie Pringle quoted is very clear. However, the two still seem to contradict each other; what's more, the latter statistic seems to contradict other statistics that I have read from law enforcement sources which are in favor of background checks. I'm going to research the matter further, and if I find more statistics which either strengthen my argument or weaken it, I will post them here.

In the meantime, I continue to assert that we won't know for sure the truth of the matter until we impose universal background checks. And other than the possibility that they won't be effective, I still have yet to hear a compelling reason not to do so.

Tim, they don't contradict each other. ATF just uses a much broader definition. Look at the actual ATF reports you'll find stuff like this (and this is from an actual ATF report about investigations of illegal gun purchases at gun shows)

According to federal and local law enforcement intelligence,

members of the cartels and gangs get guns from the same sources that
law-abiding citizens do – FFLs, flea markets, and gun shows – either by
buying the guns themselves or through the use of straw purchasers.

See? Right there. Straw purchases are being thrown in to the gun show number.

Here's another example

Overall, the eight investigative operations conducted by the
Washington Field Division at Richmond-area gun shows resulting in 24
arrests and 23 conviction for firearms convictions. Most of the convictions were for straw purchases.

Again, right there straw purchases are being thrown into the gun show number.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Look, guys, statistics are everything with me. You guys are right that the statistic I posted is unclear, while the Justice Department statistic that Oogie Pringle quoted is very clear. However, the two still seem to contradict each other; what's more, the latter statistic seems to contradict other statistics that I have read from law enforcement sources which are in favor of background checks. I'm going to research the matter further, and if I find more statistics which either strengthen my argument or weaken it, I will post them here.

In the meantime, I continue to assert that we won't know for sure the truth of the matter until we impose universal background checks. And other than the possibility that they won't be effective, I still have yet to hear a compelling reason not to do so.

More stats

According to a November 2001 study by the U.S.

Department of Justice of state and prison inmates, less

than one percent (0.7) of criminals that possessed a

firearm during their current offense acquired their guns

from gun shows.

By contrast, nearly 40 percent reported

acquiring their guns illegally, such as by theft.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

 

[Spanky267]

Cracking down on straw purchasers is really where the most impact will be made. Its a tougher avenue to pursue but its where the most ground can be made.

 

[[icon]]

Gotta love this thread...

Odds tim has ever taken a firearm safety course or taken a concealed carry test: 0%

Odds tim owns a firearm or has even handled one recently (or ever really): 5%
Odds tim has ever gone through the paperwork process of purchasing or FFL transferring a firearm: 0%
Odds tim has ever been to a gun show: 0%
Odds time has ever gone through a private sale transaction of a firearm: 0%

Odds tim will speak as an expert on all these topics: 100%

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

The war on drugs is a failure because it's universal. If the government attempted to ban guns and created a "war on guns", that would be a failure too. But what IS successful, for the most part, is restricting the sale of liquor to adults over 21. How do we enforce that?

You serious, Clark? Do you remember high school at all? Hell, do you remember college?

I turned 21 my senior year of college. I was drunk 9 nights out of 10 for my entire freshman, sophomore, and junior years.

Of course it happens. Straw purchases, and some straight purchases. But it is still, statistically, very effective. Or are you in favor of removing all age limit drinking restrictions?

No, it's not remotely effective. In fact, I thank you for making this analogy, as it proves my point. Seriously, Google "underage drinking". From the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/underage-drinking.htm

Drinking Levels among YouthThe 2011 Youth Risk Behavior Survey6 found that among high school students, during the past 30 days

• 39% drank some amount of alcohol.
• 22% binge drank.
• 8% drove after drinking alcohol.
• 24% rode with a driver who had been drinking alcohol.

I'm not sure where you are going with this. If there was no legal minimum drinking age, more kids would drink and would almost certainly do so younger. If alcohol was totally prohibited, far few kids and adults would drink.

Just because many kids drink under the minimum drinking age doesn't mean there is no benefit to having the restriction. Other than alcohol providers having fewer sales, there isn't really a cost to society for having the regulation. So even if the return is marginal, the insignificant cost makes it worthwhile to maintain the regulation.

The return is worse than marginal. In the case of alcohol/cigarette age laws, it's even possible that the return is negative. By creating something that is taboo, we run the risk of making the appeal greater. I should note that I don't believe that "taboo appeal" translates to a background check law for guns, of course. The point is that any high school kid who wants alcohol, cigarettes, or marijuana can likely obtain them pretty damn easily.

And it's not an insignificant cost. Creating black markets for goods always has a societal cost.

In the case of universal background checks for guns, it would add an actual dollar cost to every transaction. Whether that dollar cost could be classified as "significant" would be pretty subjective.

I'm open to be persuaded with data on alcohol, which should be available for pre and post age law consumption.

In the case of universal background checks, I simply do not see a large enough cost or potential for anything but a likely small but positive return to make me think they are a bad idea. There would be a small cost per unit for the check itself that would be passed on to all gun consumers, and the isolation of law-breaking sellers or black market would allow for easier targeting by law enforcement.

Of course, I have absolutely no qualms with gun registration so we're ultimately just on a different viewpoint when it comes to regulation on this... and generally of course

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Who's dumber: timschochet or the people who waste time arguing with him?

 

[Joe T]

Who's dumber: timschochet or the people who waste time arguing with him?

Hmmm.....

 

[timschochet]

Gotta love this thread...

Odds tim has ever taken a firearm safety course or taken a concealed carry test: 0%

Odds tim owns a firearm or has even handled one recently (or ever really): 5%

Odds tim has ever gone through the paperwork process of purchasing or FFL transferring a firearm: 0%

Odds tim has ever been to a gun show: 0%

Odds time has ever gone through a private sale transaction of a firearm: 0%

Odds tim will speak as an expert on all these topics: 100%

Let's see how you did:

1. I have never taken a firearms safety course or taken a concealed carry test.

2. I do not own a firearm, nor have I handled one recently. But I have handled them. The last time was about 15 years ago at a shooting range.

3. I have never purchased a firearm.

4. I have been to two gun shows in my life.

5. I have witnessed the private sales transaction of a firearm at a gun show (though I was not the purchaser.)

6. I don't claim to be an expert on ANY of these subjects. What information I provide, outside of theoretical argument, comes from other sources.

 

[timschochet]

Who's dumber: timschochet or the people who waste time arguing with him?

Thankfully, most of the people that I discuss these issues with are pretty intelligent; otherwise I wouldn't bother.

 

[timschochet]

Regarding the percentage of guns that are used in violent crimes that were obtained by private sale, at a gun show or otherwise, without a background check, I have tried to obtain better statistics on this. The people who think it's a significant percentage include:

Center for Crime Prevention and Control at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York

Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California-Davis Health System

Fordham University Law Department

And of course several law enforcement agencies. Unfortunately, and I write this to be as honest as possible, despite the assurance from all of these sources that the number is indeed significant, none provide any studies or statistics to back it up (at least that I can find.)

Meanwhile the NRA, Heritage Foundation, and CATO Institute, all of which oppose universal background checks, all rely on the 1997 Justice Department study that Oogie Pringle quoted.

Based on all of this information, my answer to Rayderr is: I don't know; I suspect that it's higher than you think it is, but there's no way to tell until a few years after we impose universal background checks, of which I continue to be in favor of.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Regarding the percentage of guns that are used in violent crimes that were obtained by private sale, at a gun show or otherwise, without a background check, I have tried to obtain better statistics on this. The people who think it's a significant percentage include:

Center for Crime Prevention and Control at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York

Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California-Davis Health System

Fordham University Law Department

And of course several law enforcement agencies. Unfortunately, and I write this to be as honest as possible, despite the assurance from all of these sources that the number is indeed significant, none provide any studies or statistics to back it up (at least that I can find.)

Meanwhile the NRA, Heritage Foundation, and CATO Institute, all of which oppose universal background checks, all rely on the 1997 Justice Department study that Oogie Pringle quoted.

Based on all of this information, my answer to Rayderr is: I don't know; I suspect that it's higher than you think it is, but there's no way to tell until a few years after we impose universal background checks, of which I continue to be in favor of.

Yes there is a way to know what Rayderr asked you. There are two studies listed in this thread that show guns used in crimes bought by criminals at gun shows is less than 1%. So despite the facts listed you are going to ignore them because you think you are right with no facts to back you up.

 

[timschochet]

Regarding the percentage of guns that are used in violent crimes that were obtained by private sale, at a gun show or otherwise, without a background check, I have tried to obtain better statistics on this. The people who think it's a significant percentage include:

Center for Crime Prevention and Control at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York

Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California-Davis Health System

Fordham University Law Department

And of course several law enforcement agencies. Unfortunately, and I write this to be as honest as possible, despite the assurance from all of these sources that the number is indeed significant, none provide any studies or statistics to back it up (at least that I can find.)

Meanwhile the NRA, Heritage Foundation, and CATO Institute, all of which oppose universal background checks, all rely on the 1997 Justice Department study that Oogie Pringle quoted.

Based on all of this information, my answer to Rayderr is: I don't know; I suspect that it's higher than you think it is, but there's no way to tell until a few years after we impose universal background checks, of which I continue to be in favor of.

Yes there is a way to know what Rayderr asked you. There are two studies listed in this thread that show guns used in crimes bought by criminals at gun shows is less than 1%. So despite the facts listed you are going to ignore them because you think you are right with no facts to back you up.

I haven't ignored those statistics. I'm suggesting that I don't know if they tell the entire story. And we won't know until we try out universal background checks.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Regarding the percentage of guns that are used in violent crimes that were obtained by private sale, at a gun show or otherwise, without a background check, I have tried to obtain better statistics on this. The people who think it's a significant percentage include:

Center for Crime Prevention and Control at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York

Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California-Davis Health System

Fordham University Law Department

And of course several law enforcement agencies. Unfortunately, and I write this to be as honest as possible, despite the assurance from all of these sources that the number is indeed significant, none provide any studies or statistics to back it up (at least that I can find.)

Meanwhile the NRA, Heritage Foundation, and CATO Institute, all of which oppose universal background checks, all rely on the 1997 Justice Department study that Oogie Pringle quoted.

Based on all of this information, my answer to Rayderr is: I don't know; I suspect that it's higher than you think it is, but there's no way to tell until a few years after we impose universal background checks, of which I continue to be in favor of.

Yes there is a way to know what Rayderr asked you. There are two studies listed in this thread that show guns used in crimes bought by criminals at gun shows is less than 1%. So despite the facts listed you are going to ignore them because you think you are right with no facts to back you up.

I haven't ignored those statistics. I'm suggesting that I don't know if they tell the entire story. And we won't know until we try out universal background checks.

 

[timschochet]

Chaka, who agrees with me on this issue, has generously provided me a wide number of arguments and statistical information that justifies the need for universal background checks. Rather than read it all and then post it, I will simply post the links here and we can all read them together:

http://www.dailykos....urrent-gun-laws

http://www.washingto...0102302996.html

http://www.atf.gov/f...mmerce-2011.pdf

http://www.washingto...8120403333.html

http://www.washingto...1012500867.html

http://www.democrati...dress=102x25552

http://www.highbeam....1P2-277856.html

http://scholarship.l...89&context=wmlr

http://en.wikipedia....iahrt_Amendment

http://www.cdc.gov/n...ts/homicide.htm

 

[Stinger Ray]

Chaka, who agrees with me on this issue, has generously provided me a wide number of arguments and statistical information that justifies the need for universal background checks. Rather than read it all and then post it, I will simply post the links here and we can all read them together:

http://www.dailykos....urrent-gun-laws

http://www.washingto...0102302996.html

http://www.atf.gov/f...mmerce-2011.pdf

http://www.washingto...8120403333.html

http://www.washingto...1012500867.html

http://www.democrati...dress=102x25552

http://www.highbeam....1P2-277856.html

http://scholarship.l...89&context=wmlr

http://en.wikipedia....iahrt_Amendment

http://www.cdc.gov/n...ts/homicide.htm

 

[Joe T]

Is it odd when someone hasn't done a shred of research on a topic, but considers himself the resident expert?

 

[Joe T]

I just want to point out that one of the links Tim provided as evidence is a link to a Democratic Party discussion forum. BWIH.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

I just want to point out that one of the links Tim provided as evidence is a link to a Democratic Party discussion forum. BWIH.

It may be a new low for him and an act of total desperation. His post with all those links that he admitted he didn't read is one of the most absurd things he has done here.

 

[Chaka]

To clarify there is an article with the now famous Jon Stewart piece on the problems with enforcing current gun laws, most of the other links are to the primary sources of the information in the the video then there are a few others to flesh it out.

Although I recommend you don't bother reading or watching because nothing will change your mind because, guns, government, good guys...etc.

Good Grief!

 

[Chaka]

Is it odd when someone hasn't done a shred of research on a topic, but considers himself the resident expert?

True but it is just about Todd Tiahrt (darling of the NRA) and everything in that post is easily corroborated through other sources.

 

[timschochet]

I just want to point out that one of the links Tim provided as evidence is a link to a Democratic Party discussion forum. BWIH.

It may be a new low for him and an act of total desperation. His post with all those links that he admitted he didn't read is one of the most absurd things he has done here.

Not desperate at all. I'm reading through these links even as we speak. Some of them are very very good. You might want to try them out, if you have an open mind.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

I still don't understand how a universal background check is going to keep a criminal from breaking into my house and stealing my guns.

 

[Joe T]

I still don't understand how a universal background check is going to keep a criminal from breaking into my house and stealing my guns.

Because after he steals them, he is going to have to get them legally registered in his name.

 

[Spanky267]

Sounds like the first thing we need to do is repeal the Tiahrt amendment and then remove the provision from the Patriot Act that requires that the Senate confrim the head of the ATF. If they cant remove the provision from the Patriot Act, why doesnt the president appoint someone from within the agency to serve as interim director, rather than have the US Attorney from Minnesota serve as the Interim Director?

Set the ATF loose on the 1 or 2% of FFL that are doing things wrong and you potentially put a huge dent in illegal gun sales all without requiring even 1 additional background check. Let the FDA regulate alcohol and tobacco since they are Food and Drugs. Leave firearms and explosives to the ATF. Or move the ATF into the FBI and make the FBI director head of the ATF and appoint a Deputy Director to run it.

 

[Chaka]

Sounds like the first thing we need to do is repeal the Tiahrt amendment and then remove the provision from the Patriot Act that requires that the Senate confrim the head of the ATF. If they cant remove the provision from the Patriot Act, why doesnt the president appoint someone from within the agency to serve as interim director, rather than have the US Attorney from Minnesota serve as the Interim Director?

Set the ATF loose on the 1 or 2% of FFL that are doing things wrong and you potentially put a huge dent in illegal gun sales all without requiring even 1 additional background check. Let the FDA regulate alcohol and tobacco since they are Food and Drugs. Leave firearms and explosives to the ATF. Or move the ATF into the FBI and make the FBI director head of the ATF and appoint a Deputy Director to run it.

B. Todd Jones was finally confirmed as the director of the ATF in July of 2013 and is no longer a US Atty for Minnesota.

Doesn't change the other problems facing the ATF but it's a start I guess.

 

[Spanky267]

Sounds like the first thing we need to do is repeal the Tiahrt amendment and then remove the provision from the Patriot Act that requires that the Senate confrim the head of the ATF. If they cant remove the provision from the Patriot Act, why doesnt the president appoint someone from within the agency to serve as interim director, rather than have the US Attorney from Minnesota serve as the Interim Director?

Set the ATF loose on the 1 or 2% of FFL that are doing things wrong and you potentially put a huge dent in illegal gun sales all without requiring even 1 additional background check. Let the FDA regulate alcohol and tobacco since they are Food and Drugs. Leave firearms and explosives to the ATF. Or move the ATF into the FBI and make the FBI director head of the ATF and appoint a Deputy Director to run it.

B. Todd Jones was finally confirmed as the director of the ATF in July of 2013 and is no longer a US Atty for Minnesota.

Doesn't change the other problems facing the ATF but it's a start I guess.

If the ATF focused a great deal of its resources on the 1% of FFLs that are breaking the rules it would make a difference. They should also be working to repeal legislation that would exempt FFLs from reporting their inventory.

 

[Chaka]

Sounds like the first thing we need to do is repeal the Tiahrt amendment and then remove the provision from the Patriot Act that requires that the Senate confrim the head of the ATF. If they cant remove the provision from the Patriot Act, why doesnt the president appoint someone from within the agency to serve as interim director, rather than have the US Attorney from Minnesota serve as the Interim Director?

Set the ATF loose on the 1 or 2% of FFL that are doing things wrong and you potentially put a huge dent in illegal gun sales all without requiring even 1 additional background check. Let the FDA regulate alcohol and tobacco since they are Food and Drugs. Leave firearms and explosives to the ATF. Or move the ATF into the FBI and make the FBI director head of the ATF and appoint a Deputy Director to run it.

B. Todd Jones was finally confirmed as the director of the ATF in July of 2013 and is no longer a US Atty for Minnesota.

Doesn't change the other problems facing the ATF but it's a start I guess.

If the ATF focused a great deal of its resources on the 1% of FFLs that are breaking the rules it would make a difference. They should also be working to repeal legislation that would exempt FFLs from reporting their inventory.

Agreed. Let's give them the resources to do their jobs.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

I still don't understand how a universal background check is going to keep a criminal from breaking into my house and stealing my guns.

Because after he steals them, he is going to have to get them legally registered in his name.

Oh of course

 

[Dr Oadi]

I still don't understand how a universal background check is going to keep a criminal from breaking into my house and stealing my guns.

Because after he steals them, he is going to have to get them legally registered in his name.

Oh of course

If you can not keep your firearms out the hands of criminals then you need to be in the same cell and for just as long as the thief who stole them.

 

[jonessed]

I still don't understand how a universal background check is going to keep a criminal from breaking into my house and stealing my guns.

Because after he steals them, he is going to have to get them legally registered in his name.

Oh of course

If you can not keep your firearms out the hands of criminals then you need to be in the same cell and for just as long as the thief who stole them.

 

[timschochet]

I still don't understand how a universal background check is going to keep a criminal from breaking into my house and stealing my guns.

Because after he steals them, he is going to have to get them legally registered in his name.

Oh of course

If you can not keep your firearms out the hands of criminals then you need to be in the same cell and for just as long as the thief who stole them.

What I think is funny is that you guys are all laughing about an argument that nobody has made.

 

[Gopher State]

"This year will go down in history, for the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future. quote ADOLPH HILTER 1935

 

[Ookie Pringle]

I still don't understand how a universal background check is going to keep a criminal from breaking into my house and stealing my guns.

Because after he steals them, he is going to have to get them legally registered in his name.

Oh of course

If you can not keep your firearms out the hands of criminals then you need to be in the same cell and for just as long as the thief who stole them.

What I think is funny is that you guys are all laughing about an argument that nobody has made.

What's funny is you don't get what you just replied about. You are so clueless at times.

 

[Rayderr]

I still don't understand how a universal background check is going to keep a criminal from breaking into my house and stealing my guns.

Because after he steals them, he is going to have to get them legally registered in his name.

Oh of course

If you can not keep your firearms out the hands of criminals then you need to be in the same cell and for just as long as the thief who stole them.

And you should have to pay all fraudulent charges on your credit card if you can not keep them out of the hands of criminals.

 

[Spanky267]

Sounds like the first thing we need to do is repeal the Tiahrt amendment and then remove the provision from the Patriot Act that requires that the Senate confrim the head of the ATF. If they cant remove the provision from the Patriot Act, why doesnt the president appoint someone from within the agency to serve as interim director, rather than have the US Attorney from Minnesota serve as the Interim Director?

Set the ATF loose on the 1 or 2% of FFL that are doing things wrong and you potentially put a huge dent in illegal gun sales all without requiring even 1 additional background check. Let the FDA regulate alcohol and tobacco since they are Food and Drugs. Leave firearms and explosives to the ATF. Or move the ATF into the FBI and make the FBI director head of the ATF and appoint a Deputy Director to run it.

B. Todd Jones was finally confirmed as the director of the ATF in July of 2013 and is no longer a US Atty for Minnesota.

Doesn't change the other problems facing the ATF but it's a start I guess.

If the ATF focused a great deal of its resources on the 1% of FFLs that are breaking the rules it would make a difference. They should also be working to repeal legislation that would exempt FFLs from reporting their inventory.

Agreed. Let's give them the resources to do their jobs

I agree with you. But why isnt the ATF doing that now. Even if they cant get inventories etc. Cant they monitor these rogue FFLs? If they have a good idea of where these guns are coming from why not work to shut down these FFLs with the tools currently at your disposal while also working to expand or recoup the tools at your disposal? Seems these FFLs would be ripe for a sting operation.

 

[Rayderr]

Sounds like the first thing we need to do is repeal the Tiahrt amendment and then remove the provision from the Patriot Act that requires that the Senate confrim the head of the ATF. If they cant remove the provision from the Patriot Act, why doesnt the president appoint someone from within the agency to serve as interim director, rather than have the US Attorney from Minnesota serve as the Interim Director?

Set the ATF loose on the 1 or 2% of FFL that are doing things wrong and you potentially put a huge dent in illegal gun sales all without requiring even 1 additional background check. Let the FDA regulate alcohol and tobacco since they are Food and Drugs. Leave firearms and explosives to the ATF. Or move the ATF into the FBI and make the FBI director head of the ATF and appoint a Deputy Director to run it.

B. Todd Jones was finally confirmed as the director of the ATF in July of 2013 and is no longer a US Atty for Minnesota.

Doesn't change the other problems facing the ATF but it's a start I guess.

If the ATF focused a great deal of its resources on the 1% of FFLs that are breaking the rules it would make a difference. They should also be working to repeal legislation that would exempt FFLs from reporting their inventory.

Agreed. Let's give them the resources to do their jobs

I agree with you. But why isnt the ATF doing that now. Even if they cant get inventories etc. Cant they monitor these rogue FFLs? If they have a good idea of where these guns are coming from why not work to shut down these FFLs with the tools currently at your disposal while also working to expand or recoup the tools at your disposal? Seems these FFLs would be ripe for a sting operation.

Isn't that what Operation Fast and Furious was supposed to be?

 

[Spanky267]

Sounds like the first thing we need to do is repeal the Tiahrt amendment and then remove the provision from the Patriot Act that requires that the Senate confrim the head of the ATF. If they cant remove the provision from the Patriot Act, why doesnt the president appoint someone from within the agency to serve as interim director, rather than have the US Attorney from Minnesota serve as the Interim Director?

Set the ATF loose on the 1 or 2% of FFL that are doing things wrong and you potentially put a huge dent in illegal gun sales all without requiring even 1 additional background check. Let the FDA regulate alcohol and tobacco since they are Food and Drugs. Leave firearms and explosives to the ATF. Or move the ATF into the FBI and make the FBI director head of the ATF and appoint a Deputy Director to run it.

B. Todd Jones was finally confirmed as the director of the ATF in July of 2013 and is no longer a US Atty for Minnesota.

Doesn't change the other problems facing the ATF but it's a start I guess.

If the ATF focused a great deal of its resources on the 1% of FFLs that are breaking the rules it would make a difference. They should also be working to repeal legislation that would exempt FFLs from reporting their inventory.

Agreed. Let's give them the resources to do their jobs

I agree with you. But why isnt the ATF doing that now. Even if they cant get inventories etc. Cant they monitor these rogue FFLs? If they have a good idea of where these guns are coming from why not work to shut down these FFLs with the tools currently at your disposal while also working to expand or recoup the tools at your disposal? Seems these FFLs would be ripe for a sting operation.

Isn't that what Operation Fast and Furious was supposed to be?

It doesnt seem like it. It looked like Fast and Furious was aimed at catching the big fish end users and not the FFLs.

 

[Spanky267]

Sounds like the first thing we need to do is repeal the Tiahrt amendment and then remove the provision from the Patriot Act that requires that the Senate confrim the head of the ATF. If they cant remove the provision from the Patriot Act, why doesnt the president appoint someone from within the agency to serve as interim director, rather than have the US Attorney from Minnesota serve as the Interim Director?

Set the ATF loose on the 1 or 2% of FFL that are doing things wrong and you potentially put a huge dent in illegal gun sales all without requiring even 1 additional background check. Let the FDA regulate alcohol and tobacco since they are Food and Drugs. Leave firearms and explosives to the ATF. Or move the ATF into the FBI and make the FBI director head of the ATF and appoint a Deputy Director to run it.

B. Todd Jones was finally confirmed as the director of the ATF in July of 2013 and is no longer a US Atty for Minnesota.

Doesn't change the other problems facing the ATF but it's a start I guess.

If the ATF focused a great deal of its resources on the 1% of FFLs that are breaking the rules it would make a difference. They should also be working to repeal legislation that would exempt FFLs from reporting their inventory.

Agreed. Let's give them the resources to do their jobs

I agree with you. But why isnt the ATF doing that now. Even if they cant get inventories etc. Cant they monitor these rogue FFLs? If they have a good idea of where these guns are coming from why not work to shut down these FFLs with the tools currently at your disposal while also working to expand or recoup the tools at your disposal? Seems these FFLs would be ripe for a sting operation.

Isn't that what Operation Fast and Furious was supposed to be?

Also from what Ive read on Fast and Furious those guns were heading to Mexico. Not to the street of the U.S.

 

[General Tso]

If it's one thing I've learned when it comes to the gun control debate, it is a complete waste of time trying to engage in a rational discussion with NRA supporters. Tim, you've dominated this thread and been very respectful throughout, but you should probably move on and focus your energies on something meaningful. But great job though.

 

[MaxThreshold]

If it's one thing I've learned when it comes to the gun control debate, it is a complete waste of time trying to engage in a rational discussion with NRA supporters opponents. Tim, you've dominated this thread and been very respectful throughout, but you should probably move on and focus your energies on something meaningful. But great job though.

Wow...look at that...it works both ways.

 

[FigJam]

On April 17, a homeowner fatally shot the getaway driver after two home invasion suspects entered a home in the 15600 block of Glastonbury through a side window just after midnight. The driver crashed into another home nearby injuring a woman.

On March 6, a man was fatally shot by a homeowner in the 8200 block of Penrod when two men tried to break into a home.

On Feb. 28, a woman shot and killed a man trying to break into her home in the 22000 block of Grove.

On Feb. 22, two home invaders were killed on the city's southwest side. Earlier that same day, a woman shot and killed a man after he confronted her as she pulled into her garage.

On Feb. 17, a woman opened fire on three teens who kicked in the door to her home. The teens, ages 14, 14 and 15, weren't hit and were later arrested by police.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140429/METRO01/304290054#ixzz30ILHKGGA

By all means, take away their guns!

 

[The Goat]

If it's one thing I've learned when it comes to the gun control debate, it is a complete waste of time trying to engage in a rational discussion with NRA supporters opponents. Tim, you've dominated this thread and been very respectful throughout, but you should probably move on and focus your energies on something meaningful. But great job though.

Wow...look at that...it works both ways.

What would be really nice is some moderation. Not all NRA supporters are completely opposed to reform, and not all NRA opponents are endorsing the disarming of every American. Why both sides of this debate have to be so freaking dismissive is beyond me.