Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 05-14-2019, 03:33 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Yes, there it is. Don't forget to reference that one post and use it as a shield whenever someone wants to discuss the issue, emphasizing the point that you have proof that "they" all really want guns to be banned.
Well, the other side's retort is always "nobody really wants to take away yer guns" so there's that.
  #252  
Old 05-14-2019, 03:44 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
Thanks. I'll bookmark this post too.
Have at it.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #253  
Old 05-14-2019, 03:46 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 60,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
Well, the other side's retort is always "nobody really wants to take away yer guns" so there's that.
If QuickSilver had come back and told you the difference between an assault weapon and an assault rifle, would it have made any difference? Would you then have considered his proposal?

Last edited by Czarcasm; 05-14-2019 at 03:47 PM.
  #254  
Old 05-14-2019, 03:52 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
There's probably no hope of meaningful gun restrictions. That doesn't mean there's no hope of reducing the violence. The motivations behind the violence can still be addressed.
Let me repeat again the statement from Rebecca Peters, a former Johns Hopkins University fellow specializing in gun violence: "If you have a country saturated with guns -- available to people when they are intoxicated, angry or depressed -- it's not unusual guns will be used more often. This has to be treated as a public health emergency."

So all you have to do to fix the gun violence problem without any need for gun control legislation is prevent people from ever being intoxicated, angry, depressed, hateful, jealous, vengeful, or any of the other emotions that people sometimes experience because they're human. Just replace people with robots running verified emotion-free error-free software. Problem solved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
Look, I get that many people's preference is to increase gun control ... I see no reason why it needs to be the ONLY path to decreasing the shootings.
On the first point, it's not a "preference".

On the second point, no one has claimed gun control is the "only" path to a solution to gun violence. But when you're talking about a country that is up to its metaphorical ass in guns, it seems both futile and rather comical to be looking at "other" solutions (see the Rebecca Peters quote above). There are more than a dozen major democracies in the world with cultures and economies comparable to that of the US, and they have many of the same societal problems. Not one of them has anything even remotely similar to the same rate of gun violence. Whereas the number of countries that have a US-style gun culture that have no major gun violence problem because they've solved all their social issues is exactly zero.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
Not calling out anyone in this thread but the interest to learn is never shown.
Every time I point out that a great deal can be learned by trying to understand the gun laws and, more importantly, the gun culture and gun-related behaviors in the advanced nations in the rest of the world, the response from the gun side is always some variant of "I don't give a shit about other countries". Is that the sort of example of disinterest in learning that you were thinking of?

For example, the CDC once studied the rates of gun violence against children, both intentional and accidental, in a dozen advanced nations including the US. The childhood death rate from gun violence in the US was far greater than in the 11 other countries combined. Surely someone, somewhere, on the gun side must have an honest interest in understanding why there is such an incredibly dramatic disparity in the rates of gun violence between the US and any other country on earth that is even remotely comparable.
  #255  
Old 05-14-2019, 03:59 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
If QuickSilver had come back and told you the difference between an assault weapon and an assault rifle, would it have made any difference? Would you then have considered his proposal?
I probably would have passed out on the floor in shock.
  #256  
Old 05-14-2019, 04:01 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 60,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
I probably would have passed out on the floor in shock.
How about an honest answer?
  #257  
Old 05-14-2019, 04:04 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
I probably would have passed out on the floor in shock.
Glad you're alright. FWIW, I looked it up for shits and giggles. Mostly because I wondered where Czarcasm was going with that question, and partly to fight my own ignorance.

It will not shock you to learn that I would like to stick with my original answer.

Feel free to bookmark this as well. Wouldn't want you to run out of ammo.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #258  
Old 05-14-2019, 04:12 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Every time I point out that a great deal can be learned by trying to understand the gun laws and, more importantly, the gun culture and gun-related behaviors in the advanced nations in the rest of the world, the response from the gun side is always some variant of "I don't give a shit about other countries". Is that the sort of example of disinterest in learning that you were thinking of?

For example, the CDC once studied the rates of gun violence against children, both intentional and accidental, in a dozen advanced nations including the US. The childhood death rate from gun violence in the US was far greater than in the 11 other countries combined. Surely someone, somewhere, on the gun side must have an honest interest in understanding why there is such an incredibly dramatic disparity in the rates of gun violence between the US and any other country on earth that is even remotely comparable.
I think there is much to be said for such studies. I think that the differences between the US and other countries are too quickly waved away however whenever the US is compared to other nations. It happened in this thread already and a poster was called a racist for noting a statistic. I think there is far more at play regarding gun violence than simply the number of guns available.

I tried to make the point that this country has been awash with guns for generations and only in the last 30-40 years have school shootings become a thing. Since WW1 and even to an even greater extent after WW2, millions of guns have been added but somewhere along the way, something began to change and the value of life seems to have lessened.

I'd like to know what that something was.
  #259  
Old 05-14-2019, 04:20 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
How about an honest answer?
Consider a blanket ban of all semi auto handguns and rifles? You don't know me, and I am not one of the more prolific posters here, but you know the answer to that question.

I would try to continue the discussion short of a complete ban however. I think that there are a few proposals floating around that gaggle of Democratic Presidential hopefuls that could be modified into some win win proposals for both sides towards the common good.
  #260  
Old 05-14-2019, 04:20 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
I think there is much to be said for such studies. I think that the differences between the US and other countries are too quickly waved away however whenever the US is compared to other nations. It happened in this thread already and a poster was called a racist for noting a statistic. I think there is far more at play regarding gun violence than simply the number of guns available.

I tried to make the point that this country has been awash with guns for generations and only in the last 30-40 years have school shootings become a thing. Since WW1 and even to an even greater extent after WW2, millions of guns have been added but somewhere along the way, something began to change and the value of life seems to have lessened.

I'd like to know what that something was.
I offer the following as a possible (likely?) explanation.

That something that has happened in the past 30-40 years is not happened uniquely or exclusively in the US. It has happened everywhere. The difference is, the US has an abundance of guns while other places (who have also seen a rise in violence to be sure) do not.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 05-14-2019 at 04:22 PM.
  #261  
Old 05-14-2019, 04:22 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 60,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
I would try to continue the discussion short of a complete ban however. I think that there are a few proposals floating around that gaggle of Democratic Presidential hopefuls that could be modified into some win win proposals for both sides towards the common good.
Such as...?
  #262  
Old 05-14-2019, 04:33 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
Consider a blanket ban of all semi auto handguns and rifles? You don't know me, and I am not one of the more prolific posters here, but you know the answer to that question.

I would try to continue the discussion short of a complete ban however. I think that there are a few proposals floating around that gaggle of Democratic Presidential hopefuls that could be modified into some win win proposals for both sides towards the common good.
You've been attacked without provocation in a coffee shop. Your opponent is just pommeling you without mercy. You're completely outmatched. Would you like for him to slow down? Hit you only with his weaker hand? Or would you like him to stop hitting you?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #263  
Old 05-14-2019, 04:45 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Such as...?
Well, to start with, I don't know that I have a problem with a national firearms owners purchase license. I don't remember who proposed it. Obviously, many safeguards would have to be out into place to insure that there was no hassles towards an otherwise qualified individual from getting one.

For example, in my state concealed weapons permits were recently issued only by county sheriffs. Iowa has 99 counties so 99 different offices issued 99 different permits. My county essentially was a shall issue county, anyone without a criminal record could easily get one. Other counties only issued to politically connected folks, and even others issued permits, but only after safety classes were passed that were held once a month on Monday mornings, if the moon was full and the sheriff could be bothered to show up. This sort of thing would need to be locked down tight for any Federal license.

This license would supersede all state and local purchase restrictions. As a compromise, by creating this license, the NFA laws would need to be reworked to treat suppressors, short barreled rifles and shotguns and those defined as "any other weapon" as a regular firearm and not take a $200 tax stamp and a year for paperwork to process. There is the win win for both sides.

There you go. I'm not going to go point by point for each off the wall proposal some of them have proposed but like I said if someone wants to actually discuss these things short of compulsory turn ins (Booker) or blanket bans I'd be happy to play along.

Just don't call me out on my typos, I'm still pretty pissed off about that...
  #264  
Old 05-14-2019, 05:06 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,327
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
Well, to start with, I don't know that I have a problem with a national firearms owners purchase license.
What kind of license should the school children get?
  #265  
Old 05-14-2019, 05:07 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
What kind of license should the school children get?
A learners permit. [rimshot]
  #266  
Old 05-14-2019, 05:28 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,327
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
A learners permit. [rimshot]
I agree. It's what I've been saying the whole time. They should learn to respect life.
  #267  
Old 05-14-2019, 07:07 PM
Superdude is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,375
Many of them do. And would like to not be killed by classmates who decide to shoot up the school they attend.
__________________
I can't help being a gorgeous fiend. It's just the card I drew.
  #268  
Old 05-14-2019, 07:11 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
When I think of compromise, I think win-win. Before I tell you to go fuck yourself, how about you tell me where my win is by turning in my handguns and rifles because you say so.
You get the same win I do, a country with 10,000 fewer gunshot deaths a year. A country where the police don't have to approach every traffic stop with their hand on their gun because they don't even need a gun to be safe. That's the win, a safer, less violent society.

The fact that you won't trade your handgun for 10,000 lives a year is on you, not me.

I'm willing to have home defense and hunting exceptions, both of which can be ably covered by non-semi-automatic shotguns and rifles. That concession isn't good enough for you, of course, because they're not fun, and you won't get to walk the streets with a pocket sized weapon powerful enough to kill a dozen people. But, a concession it is, it's a compromise, the admission that firearms have a valid purpose, and allowing firearms that fulfill that purpose to be owned. It's a compromise, restricting the ban only to firearms that are not strictly necessary for these purposes, and are used to commit thousands of crimes a year, including mass murders.
  #269  
Old 05-14-2019, 07:50 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
A learners permit. [rimshot]
Are you going to respond to my post #260? Or are we just moving on?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #270  
Old 05-14-2019, 07:54 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
You get the same win I do, a country with 10,000 fewer gunshot deaths a year. A country where the police don't have to approach every traffic stop with their hand on their gun because they don't even need a gun to be safe. That's the win, a safer, less violent society.

The fact that you won't trade your handgun for 10,000 lives a year is on you, not me.

I'm willing to have home defense and hunting exceptions, both of which can be ably covered by non-semi-automatic shotguns and rifles. That concession isn't good enough for you, of course, because they're not fun, and you won't get to walk the streets with a pocket sized weapon powerful enough to kill a dozen people. But, a concession it is, it's a compromise, the admission that firearms have a valid purpose, and allowing firearms that fulfill that purpose to be owned. It's a compromise, restricting the ban only to firearms that are not strictly necessary for these purposes, and are used to commit thousands of crimes a year, including mass murders.
You seem to have this mistaken notion that if all semi auto guns were waved away that would solve the problem. Here is an article from 1995 that discussed guns used by criminals in '83. There were plenty of semi autos out there but the majority of criminals were still toting revolvers, mostly 357s, and 38 special revolvers and .22s which were probably split 50/50 or so.

Looking at this article, it appears that there were roughly the same number of homicides committed with handguns in the early 1980's as now. Considering there were far more revolvers in circulation at the time, I think you really need to consider if your super plan to ban semi auto will really change anything, or just shift the violence back to revolvers, which, by the way are far more reliable and will last even longer than semi autos without any significant maintenance issues.

Regarding semi auto rifles and shotguns, banning them is hardly worth the effort or the political capital it will take to ban them (handguns for that matter too). They are hardly used in crimes in the big picture, and they can be easily replaced by pumps and lever actions which can cause just as much mayhem or more by a determined individual, but now we are back to that whole "learning" thing that was discussed earlier.

I won't support your ban, and I simply won't even try to compromise on it as you clearly have no inclination to do the same. Feel free to bring it up again if you'd like however. I'll make another post based upon a proposal from a Democrat later that is actually based upon reality instead.

For the record "I don't want to take ALL of your guns, just some of them" is not a compromise.

Last edited by JXJohns; 05-14-2019 at 07:56 PM.
  #271  
Old 05-14-2019, 07:54 PM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
So, you can't defend your home? You can't hunt either?


You seem to think that a person can't hunt or defend themselves without a gun. That's is incorrect.
  #272  
Old 05-14-2019, 07:58 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
You seem to think that a person can't hunt or defend themselves without a gun. That's is incorrect.
No, he's right. Before guns were invented, no human beings ever defended themselves or hunted for food.
  #273  
Old 05-14-2019, 08:25 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,449

Kamala Harris 5 Guns Sold a Year Plan


During a speech recently, Harris mentioned her plan if elected to implement a few executive orders since Congress has been shirking its gun control duties in her opinion. From the speech:

Quote:
Harris said the executive action would include requiring anyone who sells more than five guns a year to perform background checks and directing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) "to remove and take away the licenses of gun dealers who fail to follow the law."
There is something to work with here, but it seems Harris might need a refresher on the responsibilities of a dealer. If one is a Federal Firearms Dealer, ALL sales that they perform must include a Federal NICS background check or equivalent. There is no minimum sales number that forces this requirement. The checks are required whether the dealer sells from his kitchen, a shop, or even a gun show. It is his or her responsibility to have the NICS check and a form 4473 for every sale completed (unless they are selling their own personally held firearms that are documented appropriately)

Perhaps, she is suggesting that is someone is engaging in the business of selling firearms without a license, that a threshold be implemented of 5 sales annually in order to trigger the need for some sort of new license, I'm not sure.

What is known however is that there are individuals who purchase new guns, complete with NICS checks and form 4473's and quickly sell these guns to folks in huge numbers "off the books" as since they are not FFL dealers, they have no responsibility to document the sales. This is a large contributor to the illegal trafficking of firearms, and the perpetrators are often quite well known the law enforcement and even the ATF.

There is no need for compromise on this one. The Feds know who are doing it, they have the paperwork, yet these sales, along with those folks who lie and fail NICS checks are almost NEVER prosecuted, and that is putting it mildly.

If Harris wants to pick up the enforcement of the prosecution of these sales, I would have no issue at all. the penalty is 10 years/$10k so it is not an insignificant amount. It's anyone's guess as to why this low hanging fruit is not being exploited.

Last edited by JXJohns; 05-14-2019 at 08:27 PM.
  #274  
Old 05-14-2019, 08:28 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
What is known however is that there are individuals who purchase new guns, complete with NICS checks and form 4473's and quickly sell these guns to folks in huge numbers "off the books" as since they are not FFL dealers, they have no responsibility to document the sales.
Is this illegal?
  #275  
Old 05-14-2019, 08:41 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Are you going to respond to my post #260? Or are we just moving on?
I didn't see it. I agree, something changed, I'm not sure what, I have this notion of the "greatest generation" thinking they were so great that it influenced cultural norms for decades in both positive and negative ways, that led us to where we are today but I don't want to be called an ageist.

Throw in a country full of guns, the war on drugs, other cultural factors that I'm sure we would disagree about, as well as the pride of kicking ass in two world wars and that train of change was inevitable. (Think Billy Joel's We Didn't Start the Fire...) I don't think the guns led us here, but if there were no guns at all there would be no gun homicides. I can't argue that. That is also not reality, nor is getting rid of them.
  #276  
Old 05-14-2019, 08:53 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Is this illegal?
Many of the sales in question are. They are straw purchases where a person with a clean NICS record buys a gun for someone without a clean history;

Second, there is a Federal provision and most states have laws that the seller must ascertain that the buyer is legal to purchase a firearm via a permit or other means.

Third, it is illegal to cross state lines to sell handguns (Chicago vs Indiana for example) without going through an FFL on one side or the other. Some states may include long guns in that as well.

Fourth it is illegal to lie on the form 4473 in order to purchase a firearm. If one fails a NICS check, this failure is rarely followed up on yet there is typically something on the form that was completed incorrectly to game the system.

Those are the big ones.

Last edited by JXJohns; 05-14-2019 at 08:54 PM.
  #277  
Old 05-14-2019, 08:59 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
Second, there is a Federal provision and most states have laws that the seller must ascertain that the buyer is legal to purchase a firearm via a permit or other means.
Is this true? I was under the impression that the seller has no obligation to actually ask if the buyer is legal to purchase a firearm.

Last edited by manson1972; 05-14-2019 at 09:01 PM.
  #278  
Old 05-14-2019, 09:00 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,624
sorry, double post.

Last edited by manson1972; 05-14-2019 at 09:01 PM.
  #279  
Old 05-14-2019, 09:13 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Is this true? I was under the impression that the seller has no obligation to actually ask if the buyer is legal to purchase a firearm.
Page one, first bullet.

In Iowa, to sell someone a handgun the buyer must also have one of two permits issued by the state for example.

Last edited by JXJohns; 05-14-2019 at 09:15 PM.
  #280  
Old 05-14-2019, 09:15 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Yes, there it is. Don't forget to reference that one post and use it as a shield whenever someone wants to discuss the issue, emphasizing the point that you have proof that "they" all really want guns to be banned.
Actually, there have been quite a few. It's not rare here.
  #281  
Old 05-14-2019, 09:19 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Glad you're alright. FWIW, I looked it up for shits and giggles. Mostly because I wondered where Czarcasm was going with that question, and partly to fight my own ignorance.

It will not shock you to learn that I would like to stick with my original answer.

Feel free to bookmark this as well. Wouldn't want you to run out of ammo.
Just FYI, assault rifles are already effectively banned in the USA, as they can go full auto. They have never been legal (without a very hard to get and expensive federal permit). Ignorance fought.

What's a 'assault weapon" then? Whatever some politician sez it is. Usually a perfectly ordinary semi-auto rifle that has been outfitted with a flash suppressor, bayonet lug and the like, so as it looks scary.
  #282  
Old 05-14-2019, 09:20 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
You seem to think that a person can't hunt or defend themselves without a gun. That's is incorrect.
Not vs several opponents or vs thugs with a gun.

And altho a bow is Ok for certain game, it's very hard to down game birds, ducks, etc with one.

Last edited by DrDeth; 05-14-2019 at 09:23 PM.
  #283  
Old 05-14-2019, 09:28 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
During a speech recently, Harris mentioned her plan if elected to implement a few executive orders since Congress has been shirking its gun control duties in her opinion. From the speech:



There is something to work with here, but it seems Harris might need a refresher on the responsibilities of a dealer. If one is a Federal Firearms Dealer, ALL sales that they perform must include a Federal NICS background check or equivalent. There is no minimum sales number that forces this requirement. The checks are required whether the dealer sells from his kitchen, a shop, or even a gun show. It is his or her responsibility to have the NICS check and a form 4473 for every sale completed (unless they are selling their own personally held firearms that are documented appropriately)

Perhaps, she is suggesting that is someone is engaging in the business of selling firearms without a license, that a threshold be implemented of 5 sales annually in order to trigger the need for some sort of new license, I'm not sure.

What is known however is that there are individuals who purchase new guns, complete with NICS checks and form 4473's and quickly sell these guns to folks in huge numbers "off the books" as since they are not FFL dealers, they have no responsibility to document the sales. This is a large contributor to the illegal trafficking of firearms, and the perpetrators are often quite well known the law enforcement and even the ATF.

There is no need for compromise on this one. The Feds know who are doing it, they have the paperwork, yet these sales, along with those folks who lie and fail NICS checks are almost NEVER prosecuted, and that is putting it mildly.

If Harris wants to pick up the enforcement of the prosecution of these sales, I would have no issue at all. the penalty is 10 years/$10k so it is not an insignificant amount. It's anyone's guess as to why this low hanging fruit is not being exploited.
Yes, I have said this very thing. Making anyone who sells more than five guns a year (I'd make the number a little higher, but not higher than 12) into a "dealer" under the law is a great idea. The strawman sellers who are not dealers have to be stopped. Look, see- I am suggesting stronger gun laws!

But it does display her basic ignorance of the laws she wants to change. You can't "remove and take away the licenses of gun dealers who fail to follow the law." if they dont have a license. And if they DO have a license, they have to file and do background on any number of guns sold, even a single gun. It's amazing that a woman who has been DA, AG and has put into effect one big time gun law in CA, and wants to issues executive orders on guns- doesnt understand that basic point.
  #284  
Old 05-14-2019, 09:29 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Is this illegal?

Yes, and we have had this very conversation before, several times in fact iirc. It's called a 'strawman sale".
  #285  
Old 05-15-2019, 05:37 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
You seem to have this mistaken notion that if all semi auto guns were waved away that would solve the problem. [URL="https://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF"]
I believe what I said above was banning handguns and semi-auto rifles. You get to keep shotguns and rifles that aren't semi-auto.
Quote:
For the record "I don't want to take ALL of your guns, just some of them" is not a compromise.
For the record, giving up ZERO of your guns isn't a compromise either.

What compromise law are you envisioning that allows everyone who has guns to keep them, yet somehow reduces the number of deaths from guns? Because, as I've said in other threads, I don't really care what you own, I care that people are dying in huge numbers. If the law doesn't reduce deaths it doesn't interest me.

Last edited by Cheesesteak; 05-15-2019 at 05:41 AM.
  #286  
Old 05-15-2019, 05:48 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yes, I have said this very thing. Making anyone who sells more than five guns a year (I'd make the number a little higher, but not higher than 12) into a "dealer" under the law is a great idea. The strawman sellers who are not dealers have to be stopped. Look, see- I am suggesting stronger gun laws!

But it does display her basic ignorance of the laws she wants to change. You can't "remove and take away the licenses of gun dealers who fail to follow the law."
How do you make someone who sells more than 5 (12) guns a year into a dealer if they are not required to document the sales in the first place?


As a humorous aside, when I served on a Grand Jury (in NJ) we had an "assault weapon" crime before us, and I asked the ADA to define an assault weapon, in no small part because of threads like this. Hoo Boy! The ADA must have had a bug up her ass because she spent the next 5 minutes reading a list of individual models of rifle followed up by "and other firearms substantially similar to the above." I heard a rumor that the "drug paraphernalia" list is even longer.
  #287  
Old 05-15-2019, 07:24 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
Well, if I don't ask you, then I don't have any reason to believe you are not allowed to purchase a gun.

or "Hey, is it legal for you to buy a gun?" "Yep!" "Ok, here's mine!"
  #288  
Old 05-15-2019, 09:29 AM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Well, if I don't ask you, then I don't have any reason to believe you are not allowed to purchase a gun.

or "Hey, is it legal for you to buy a gun?" "Yep!" "Ok, here's mine!"
It's a crime, how you go about skirting law doesn't concern me. My point is that sellers are knowingly breaking the law, and administrations going back as far as Clinton do nothing or very little about it.

When they have the same people buying lots of handguns and then selling them, there is clearly a problem. If they were a legitimate dealer, they would get an FFL, purchase at wholesale and actually run a legit business.

Perfect example of straw purchases with little to no consequences.
  #289  
Old 05-15-2019, 09:41 AM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
I believe what I said above was banning handguns and semi-auto rifles. You get to keep shotguns and rifles that aren't semi-auto. For the record, giving up ZERO of your guns isn't a compromise either.
For the record, there have been plenty of guns that have been given up via one ban or another, one misguided law or another, or labeled as "non sporting" so banned from import since 1934 so don't be too proud of that "gotcha". It's not. Giving up firearms in the name of compromise has already been done multiple times.

Quote:
What compromise law are you envisioning that allows everyone who has guns to keep them, yet somehow reduces the number of deaths from guns? Because, as I've said in other threads, I don't really care what you own, I care that people are dying in huge numbers. If the law doesn't reduce deaths it doesn't interest me.
I'll get to this later today. I already wrote a book on a national firearms license. That's a good start. If you don't think that's a compromise, tell me what other constitutional rights you have a permit for.

Last edited by JXJohns; 05-15-2019 at 09:44 AM.
  #290  
Old 05-15-2019, 11:53 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
It's a crime, how you go about skirting law doesn't concern me. My point is that sellers are knowingly breaking the law, and administrations going back as far as Clinton do nothing or very little about it.

When they have the same people buying lots of handguns and then selling them, there is clearly a problem. If they were a legitimate dealer, they would get an FFL, purchase at wholesale and actually run a legit business.

Perfect example of straw purchases with little to no consequences.
That guy got in trouble for BUYING guns, not selling them. And I say sellers are NOT breaking the law, because the law does not require them to make sure the person buying is legally allowed to buy.
  #291  
Old 05-15-2019, 01:01 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
That guy got in trouble for BUYING guns, not selling them. And I say sellers are NOT breaking the law, because the law does not require them to make sure the person buying is legally allowed to buy.
The first bullet from the ATF says otherwise. I'll check WI law later.

I find it hard to believe you want to argue about this. He conducted at least 27 straw purchases. Lied on at least the same number of Federal documents yet was put on probation due to his budding rap career. WTF?
  #292  
Old 05-15-2019, 01:20 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
How about an honest answer?
The honest answer is , I already knew he did not know. But aside from that , that he didn't care as his only agenda is to ban as many guns as he can.

So no, there is no 'debating' that.
  #293  
Old 05-15-2019, 01:23 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
I believe what I said above was banning handguns and semi-auto rifles. You get to keep shotguns and rifles that aren't semi-auto. For the record, giving up ZERO of your guns isn't a compromise either.

What compromise law are you envisioning that allows everyone who has guns to keep them, yet somehow reduces the number of deaths from guns? Because, as I've said in other threads, I don't really care what you own, I care that people are dying in huge numbers. If the law doesn't reduce deaths it doesn't interest me.
Wait what problem are you trying to solve? If the problem you are trying to solve is gun related deaths (or gun related crimes) , the answer isn't necessarily that I have to give up anything.

If you are fighting for a different ideal than the one mentioned, say like, taking guns away from lawful citizens, that's fine but we are continually told that no one wants to do that.
  #294  
Old 05-15-2019, 01:39 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
I believe what I said above was banning handguns and semi-auto rifles. You get to keep shotguns and rifles that aren't semi-auto. For the record, giving up ZERO of your guns isn't a compromise either.

What compromise law are you envisioning that allows everyone who has guns to keep them, yet somehow reduces the number of deaths from guns? Because, as I've said in other threads, I don't really care what you own, I care that people are dying in huge numbers. If the law doesn't reduce deaths it doesn't interest me.
Why should us, the law abiding citizens, give up any of our guns? The compromise is measures that help to prevent criminals from getting guns.
  #295  
Old 05-15-2019, 01:42 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
I'll get to this later today. I already wrote a book on a national firearms license. That's a good start. If you don't think that's a compromise, tell me what other constitutional rights you have a permit for.
That is a compromise, no question about it.

I don't think a license alone attacks the problem of firearm deaths, so I wouldn't bother with implementing one if it isn't coupled with another system that more effectively prevents guns from getting into criminal hands.
  #296  
Old 05-15-2019, 01:49 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Wait what problem are you trying to solve? If the problem you are trying to solve is gun related deaths (or gun related crimes) , the answer isn't necessarily that I have to give up anything.
That's the problem I want to solve. I have observed that there are countries who have solved this particular problem. The answer for them, the answer that worked, is that you have to give up something.

If you think there's some other way to do it, fine, do that instead. But understand, it needs to work, and work comparably as well as the other answer does in other countries for me to be satisfied.
  #297  
Old 05-15-2019, 02:10 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
That's the problem I want to solve. I have observed that there are countries who have solved this particular problem. The answer for them, the answer that worked, is that you have to give up something.

If you think there's some other way to do it, fine, do that instead. But understand, it needs to work, and work comparably as well as the other answer does in other countries for me to be satisfied.

Which would be great, if the shoes were on the other feet. It is currently up to you and those who believe as you do to propose, and for us to agree or disagree (collectively)
  #298  
Old 05-15-2019, 02:27 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
That's the problem I want to solve. I have observed that there are countries who have solved this particular problem. The answer for them, the answer that worked, is that you have to give up something.

If you think there's some other way to do it, fine, do that instead. But understand, it needs to work, and work comparably as well as the other answer does in other countries for me to be satisfied.

Here's the thing- those other nations aren't the uSA. They never had a gun culture, they never had 300 million guns.

Now yes, the USA has too many murders, but overall, we are smack dab in the middle of all nations (no cherry picking). Too much gun violence, sure, but compared to other things, it's not that big of a problem.

10000 murdered a year by guns= too many (but also about the same number that died by drunk drivers.) But compared to 500,000 killed by tobacco, (50000 of which are innocent NON-smokers), 90,000 from alcohol, 70,000 from durg (of which 20000 were prescription drugs) and so forth. In a nation of 300 million people, 10,000 isnt really that much.

So let's ban smoking first. That will save 50 times as many lives. No constitutional issues. No useful uses of tobacco. Just ban it.
  #299  
Old 05-15-2019, 02:28 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Which would be great, if the shoes were on the other feet. It is currently up to you and those who believe as you do to propose, and for us to agree or disagree (collectively)
Nothing is going to happen unless we agree collectively.

Really, when you get down to brass tacks, I don't want to take away your guns, I can't take your guns even if I wanted to.

I want you to give up your guns.

I want you to realize that the last 50 years of our history, with 10-20 thousand gun murders a year (and twice that many suicides), is not going to change unless the guns themselves go away.
  #300  
Old 05-15-2019, 02:36 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
So let's ban smoking first. That will save 50 times as many lives. No constitutional issues. No useful uses of tobacco. Just ban it.
Fine, we can ban tobacco tomorrow, and start on guns this coming Monday*.

I'd ban cars too, but I kind of like a functioning economy, so they can stay until self driving cars eliminate 99% of accidents.



*Although... let's be honest... we're probably ALL better off getting the guns away from smokers before we ban tobacco.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017