Stupid Gun news of the day...

[steronz]

Originally Posted by Nars Glinley

That certainly makes a compelling case for universal background checks (which I would support) but that isn't at all what I think of when I hear the phrase "gun registration". I have always assumed that gun registration was a system where existing gun owners would report the make of their current guns and future gun purchases to the government. IMHO, universal background checks and eliminating private transfer of guns is much more than registration. Is this the accepted usage of the phrase?

That's a good question; it's the law of the land in California (licensing via a gun safety certificate, universal background checks with all private transfers required to go through a licensed dealer, all transfers recorded), but gun laws tend to be put together piecemeal over time. Existing gun owners weren't required to register their guns, but I think most people would still say that California has a "licensing and registration" requirement. They certainly use the handgun register to confiscate guns from people who have become ineligible to own them.

To me, registration requires universal background checks; since having one without the other would be next to useless, I take it as a given that the background checks and dealer-only transfers are implied with the registration requirement, but I don't know if there's universal agreement there. Since nobody has put forth a federal proposal for registration, there's no specific legislation we can't point to as an example.

[Lumpy]

This just in: 3,000 teen deaths a year attributed to texting while driving. But hey, shit happens.

(Oh wait, the difference of course is that nobody needs a gun )

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

This just in: 3,000 teen deaths a year attributed to texting while driving. But hey, shit happens.

(Oh wait, the difference of course is that nobody needs a gun )

There really should be laws against texting while driving.

[Jack Batty]

You can have my iPhone when you pry it from my cold dead fingers -- if you can get to me in the flaming wreck of my car.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

Does this mean that you don't know what post hoc ergo propter hoc means and why it's wrong for you to keep using it in regards to the failure of the universal background check bill?

Yes, I have google. Are you trying to say that the push for an AWB started after the failure of the Manchin/Toomey bill?

I'm surprised, because you were about to shit yourself with righteous indignation at the thought that the CDC might have engaged in something similar.

I thought I was pointing out the whole correlation/causation problem they were having.

Originally Posted by elucidator

DA if your political opposition is as ham-fisted and dull witted as you make them out to be, you got nothing to worry about. Except your allies, of course.

Well, have you heard Wayne LaPierre lately? I can only hope that every time Wayne LaPierre opens his big mouth, Feinstein feels an irresistable urge to respond to him with one of her great ideas.

Originally Posted by steronz

Work backwards from the felon or underage gang member who buys a gun. Where did he get it from? It was either someone who knew he was a felon/underage gang member (both currently illegal, as far as I know), or from some less-savory character who sold a gun no-questions-asked. How did that person get the gun? Second hand, most likely, from a gun show or a private seller he met through either means (internet, classifies, knew a guy who knew a guy). How did that person get the gun? Probably from an entirely legitimate purchase from a federally licensed dealer.

Unfortunately, only one of those transactions requires a background check. However, if every transaction had to go through a licensed dealer, and therefore every transaction had a background check, then Original Buyer could sell his gun to Secondary Buyer, but there'd be a record of it. If Secondary Buyer then sold it to a felon/underage gang member without going through a dealer, then if/when that gun turned up as having been used in a crime, Secondary Buyer would be on the hook for a felony himself. So Secondary Buyer has a much greater chance of getting caught than under the current system, where he can only get caught if a) someone rats him out (and that only works if he knowingly sold to a felon), or b) he gets caught in a sting (which only works if he knowingly sold to a felon). No more of this "He said he was clean" horseshit.

Since Secondary Buyer is more likely to get caught under this new system, he's less likely to sell at all. That's a win. But couldn't he just sell anyway and claim it was stolen? Sure, but that only works for so long, and it only works as long as the criminal doesn't testify otherwise. Either way, it gives the police a fighting chance at figuring out specifically where criminals are getting their guns.

The Universal Background Check bill that was just shot down didn't really go far enough, because with no record of the transfer, Secondary Buyer can just lie and say, "Yeah, we went over to that gun store and did a background check. Dude came out clean." So we need to record who sold, who bought, when it happened, and what serial numbers were involved. And that's essentially registration. Licensing goes along with that just as a way to uniquely identify everyone involved in the transaction.

For additional info, read some of Damuri Ajashi's responses to his thread here. As misguided as he is on politics, he's given the issue a lot of thought and has come up with a reasonably thorough solution.

Yep, thats pretty much it.

I would say that the licensing requirement just makes everything easier and more practicably enforcable.

Originally Posted by Nars Glinley

That certainly makes a compelling case for universal background checks (which I would support) but that isn't at all what I think of when I hear the phrase "gun registration". I have always assumed that gun registration was a system where existing gun owners would report the make of their current guns and future gun purchases to the government. IMHO, universal background checks and eliminating private transfer of guns is much more than registration. Is this the accepted usage of the phrase?

Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.

I don't think universal background checks work without a registry. That is why you keep hearing gun nuts claim that background checks are just a back door attempt to creating a registry. The problem with that argument is that unless the background checks are truly universal we are not really much closer to a registry than we are today when most gun sales are already done through a gun dealer. And, despite all protest to the contrary, we are already 90%+ of the way to a registry. All we have to do is tell the FBI that they don't have to throw away their NICS checks and tell FFLs to submit the files they already have on hand (these files must be on paper but more than a few FFLs keep these files on toilet paper).

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

Background checks do not account for people who subsequently become ineligible to own firearms. Say you pass .a background check and purchase a firearm. Then you have your onset of schizophrenia. Nobody knows that you have a firearm you should no longer own. Or after you get your gun, you later get convicted of violently assaulting someone.

Without a registry, forfeiting weapons already possessed would be voluntary.

Thats one concern that is addressed, the other is that a background checks alone requirement has little to no effect on the criminal population without a registration requirement. The FBI is not allowed to keep records of those background checks so they must still trace guns from the manufacturer to the original FFL through the chain of custody. At any point, someone can say they just sold it to some guy and did a background check. The FBI would have no way of knowing if they did or not.

Originally Posted by steronz

That's a good question; it's the law of the land in California (licensing via a gun safety certificate, universal background checks with all private transfers required to go through a licensed dealer, all transfers recorded), but gun laws tend to be put together piecemeal over time. Existing gun owners weren't required to register their guns, but I think most people would still say that California has a "licensing and registration" requirement. They certainly use the handgun register to confiscate guns from people who have become ineligible to own them.

To me, registration requires universal background checks; since having one without the other would be next to useless, I take it as a given that the background checks and dealer-only transfers are implied with the registration requirement, but I don't know if there's universal agreement there. Since nobody has put forth a federal proposal for registration, there's no specific legislation we can't point to as an example.

I think that a registration requirement does not need to include a background check at every transfer, only a valid license which is in lieu of a background check (kind of like having a CCW). I think you could transferyour registration in many ways, including an FFL, a police station, a PX, post office, DMV, maybe even online (with good notification protocols).


Steronz: BTW, whats wrong with my politics? Where do you think I am misguided?

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Yes, I have google. Are you trying to say that the push for an AWB started after the failure of the Manchin/Toomey bill?

So you understand the post hoc part. You should google, ergo propter hoc part.

I thought I was pointing out the whole correlation/causation problem they were having.

So now you're back to claiming it was the CDC? Correction doesn't seem to stick for very long with you. Don't you remember citing a paper by Kellermann yourself. The paper wasn't by the CDC, and it had nothing in there about cause.

Once you understand what the full meaning of post hoc ergo propter hoc is, you will understand how it is conceptually akin to the admonition "correlation does not equal causation."

[Ca3799]

At Least 71 Kids Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ckett-firearms

"
40 killings were unintentional and 31 were alleged homicides.
The most common scenario was kid-on-kid: At least 29 of the accidental deaths occurred when a kid under 17 pulled the trigger.
The average age of the victims was just under six years old.
20 victims were girls and 51 were boys.

The problem was worst in the South: Florida had the most kids killed (four accidents, five alleged homicides), followed by Ohio and Tennessee (four accidents and two alleged homicides in each state), followed by Alabama (two accidents, two alleged homicides) and South Carolina (four accidents)."

[steronz]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Steronz: BTW, whats wrong with my politics? Where do you think I am misguided?

You underestimate Republican opposition to anything that remotely smells like gun control. You say that you've managed to convince conservatives that licensing and registration is a good idea, and... I don't want to say you're lying, but what you describe is so far from the reality that I live in, I can't reconcile the two.

You also blame Democrats for failing to get a background check bill through congress, based on no evidence but your gut. The blame lies squarely with the Republicans who voted against it, full stop. And it was doomed from the start because of those Republicans, because background checks smell too much like registration which every good conservative knows leads to confiscation.

Democrats were wise to leave gun control on the floor for as long as they did; after Newtown, they were fucked, because the base started calling for something that was destined not only to lose, but to embiggen the opposition. It was and remains a no-win situation for Democrats.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

So you understand the post hoc part. You should google, ergo propter hoc part. So now you're back to claiming it was the CDC? Correction doesn't seem to stick for very long with you. Don't you remember citing a paper by Kellermann yourself. The paper wasn't by the CDC, and it had nothing in there about cause.

Once you understand what the full meaning of post hoc ergo propter hoc is, you will understand how it is conceptually akin to the admonition "correlation does not equal causation."

OK, I think I understand what you are saying. You are once again asking for airtight proof (to counter your half assed theories) that what I am saying is undeniably true, right? You're saying that just because the AWB preceded the failure of the Manchin Toomey bill doesn't mean it caused the failure of the Manchin Toomey bill. Is that what you are trying to say in Latin?

I think I've said before that noone can prove what would have happened if the Democrats didn't push an AWB (in the way that they did) but I laid out my evidence that some sort of legislation seemed very likely after Newtown and especially after the NRA response to Newtown. I laid out my arguments why I think the Democratic response to Newtown was so fucking retarded that it trumped the retardedness of Wayne LaPierre. And now after high hopes that you would get whatever the fuck you wanted through congress, you couldn't even get a half assed background check with the help of four Republicans at that).

Maybe you just want to be able to tell yourself you did nothing wrong and place all the blame squarely on the heads of the NRA. Well you gave them the power to do that, it wasn't there in January. Point to a single post in January by any of the anti-gun folks that said you wouldn't get some legislation of some kind. I can point to a quite a few posts by gun nuts stomping the ground being pissed off that congress is about to shove some gun control up their ass.

So if you believe today that there was nothing you could have done differently and that this was the inevitable result of the evil NRA's influence, then your side certainly didn't believe it in January and I think my side felt something would pass as well. That didn't change until the debate over the AWB made your side look like a bunch of idiots.

So congratulations, you managed to outstupid the Republican party and the NRA put together. But don't worry, maybe the next generation won't fuck it up like this one did. Maybe the next mass murder of little children won't be wasted in an attempt to pass retarded laws that so clearly have no chance of making a difference that this board probably went from 80%-20% in favor of an AWB to 90%-10% against an AWB (or at least in favor of something else before an AWB), when it found out what the fuck Feinstein was going on about.

Originally Posted by steronz

You underestimate Republican opposition to anything that remotely smells like gun control. You say that you've managed to convince conservatives that licensing and registration is a good idea, and... I don't want to say you're lying, but what you describe is so far from the reality that I live in, I can't reconcile the two.

Where do you live, Oklahoma?

The convincing is harder today but back in January people were much more receptive to licensing and registration, (certainly more receptive than they were to an AWB). These days its almost impossible. They don't necessarily oppose the Manchin Toomey bill but they figure its something they can keep in their pocket for the next time gun grabbers try to capitalize on the next Newtown.

Just look at the posters on this board. There are several pro-gun posters who seem receptive to L&R.

You also blame Democrats for failing to get a background check bill through congress, based on no evidence but your gut. The blame lies squarely with the Republicans who voted against it, full stop. And it was doomed from the start because of those Republicans, because background checks smell too much like registration which every good conservative knows leads to confiscation.

So you agree with Hentor that this was doomed from the start?

So if Obama's response to the NRA's press conference and Feinstein's push for an AWB was to undermine Feinstein's push for an AWB and instead push for a background check at gun shows, the NRA and the Republicans would have killed the expansion of the background checks we already have at every FFL to sales that occur at gun shows?

Democrats were wise to leave gun control on the floor for as long as they did; after Newtown, they were fucked, because the base started calling for something that was destined not only to lose, but to embiggen the opposition. It was and remains a no-win situation for Democrats.

I disageee. I think that something could have been done after Newtown. I think most people, including the people who are placing all the blame on the NRA today, believed (back in January) that something not only could be done, it would be done. The tide didn't turn until it became clear how stupid an AWB is.

Nothing could have been done? Reid didn't have to let Feinstein lead the charge on the Democratic response to Newtown, thats like letting Bernie Sanders lead the charge on the opposition to Paul Ryans plans for Medicare. The President didn't have to put an AWB on the list of things he was pushing for after it started to become clear that an AWB was retarded, but he did and it hurt his cause.

I think Obama could have gotten universal background checks for his base back in January if he struck for the middle. He could have pointed to Scalia's words in Heller endorsing the constitutionality of licensing and registration and pushed for L&R. He might not have gotten L&R but is something worth fighting for, worth losing something over, an AWB is not. I also suspect that a push for L&R would not have closed the door for background checks the way a push for an AWB did.

[Damuri Ajashi]

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...0#post16281600

So we can dedicate this thread to links of children accidentally shooting themselves and people using guns to protect themselves instead of arguing over "what ifs"

[steronz]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Where do you live, Oklahoma?

No, but it feels close enough sometimes. I used to live in Omaha and still have a bunch of Nebraskan friends on Facebook, so if you're saying that people from the middle states are gun-loving Republicans who will never yield an inch on gun control, my Facebook feed agrees.

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Just look at the posters on this board. There are several pro-gun posters who seem receptive to L&R.

A few, but they're mostly Democrats already. They're not the problem, it's the sea of Republicans you have to convince, and they're mostly not on the SDMB. The ones that are just prove my point.

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

So you agree with Hentor that this was doomed from the start?

Uhh, yeah.

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

So if Obama's response to the NRA's press conference and Feinstein's push for an AWB was to undermine Feinstein's push for an AWB and instead push for a background check at gun shows, the NRA and the Republicans would have killed the expansion of the background checks we already have at every FFL to sales that occur at gun shows?

Soundly.

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

I disageee. I think that something could have been done after Newtown. <snip> I also suspect that a push for L&R would not have closed the door for background checks the way a push for an AWB did.

You're welcome to your opinion, but the people I've talked to say background checks are worthless because criminals can get guns anyway, and registration leads to confiscation so that's out. Nobody says anything about background checks are OK except the Democrats tried an AWB. Nobody says that they used to support background checks but don't anymore because of politics. In short, there's not even any anecdotal evidence of your little theory.

And these aren't gun nuts like I've said before, these are just standard Republican talking points now, parroted by Beck and Limbaugh and Drudge and Fox, and everyone who gets their opinions from any of those sites is now, and has since Newtown, been in lockstep opposition to anything related to gun control. Enforce existing laws and improve the mental health system, that's all you'll get out of them. And nevermind specifics because they don't have any. Keep in mind that background checks wouldn't have prevented Newtown, a fact that Republicans will be more than willing to tell you 75 times if you ask for their opinions.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by steronz

No, but it feels close enough sometimes. I used to live in Omaha and still have a bunch of Nebraskan friends on Facebook, so if you're saying that people from the middle states are gun-loving Republicans who will never yield an inch on gun control, my Facebook feed agrees.

There are some states that are not going to produce a lot of senators that will entertain gun control. But its not that many of them. I pointed out the senators that voted no that could have voted yes under the right circumstances.

A few, but they're mostly Democrats already. They're not the problem, it's the sea of Republicans you have to convince, and they're mostly not on the SDMB. The ones that are just prove my point.

The ones I know are Republicans. They aren't Ted Cruz type Republicans but they voted for McCain and Romney.

Uhh, yeah.

Soundly.

I remember January differently. Things certainly seemed possible then.

You're welcome to your opinion, but the people I've talked to say background checks are worthless because criminals can get guns anyway, and registration leads to confiscation so that's out. Nobody says anything about background checks are OK except the Democrats tried an AWB. Nobody says that they used to support background checks but don't anymore because of politics. In short, there's not even any anecdotal evidence of your little theory.

And these aren't gun nuts like I've said before, these are just standard Republican talking points now, parroted by Beck and Limbaugh and Drudge and Fox, and everyone who gets their opinions from any of those sites is now, and has since Newtown, been in lockstep opposition to anything related to gun control. Enforce existing laws and improve the mental health system, that's all you'll get out of them. And nevermind specifics because they don't have any. Keep in mind that background checks wouldn't have prevented Newtown, a fact that Republicans will be more than willing to tell you 75 times if you ask for their opinions.

I don't think there is a homogeneity of opinion among pro-gun folks like you pointed out before.

[Lumpy]

New Jersey Democrats caught on hot mic calling for gun confiscation:

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-...pen-microphone

[elucidator]

I consider a program of confiscation extreme and impractical. Which is not to say I am shocked and horrified by the very notion. A better result would be to convince enough people not to want them, to make them rare rather than illegal.

But if you are expecting me to clutch my pearls and faint dead away because somebody said "confiscate"you will be disappointed.

[Nars Glinley]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Where do you live, Oklahoma?

HEY!! There are plenty of us Okies that believe that there is room for compromise on gun control issues. None of them are on my Facebook newsfeed but I'm certain that they're out there.

[elucidator]

They are both hiding.