For what it’s worth, in two of my last three private purchases, the seller asked me for identification. In one of those, the seller stated in advance that he would sell to CCW holders only (this ensures that I’m not a prohibited person, at least at the time of the last issuance of my license.) There is no legal requirement to do this.
At one time, if I had assurances that gun controllers would stop there (they won’t) I would have been willing to consider some sort of background checks on private sales. Seemed to me that we could open the already-existing Federal database to private individuals, making dual consent a requirement to protect privacy.
The trouble is, the gun controllers will never stop until they’ve enacted enough fees, prohibitations, requirements, rules, and annoyances and inconveniences that gun ownership is effectively eliminated. This is their goal, and we know it, despite all this “reasonable” and “common sense” BS that they’re tooting about these days. Gun controllers, as a group (I mean the leaders, not their dupes) are the most dishonest people I’ve ever seen. History is clear on this: give them an inch, they take a mile.
The last attempted “assault weapons” ban was my last straw. I’ve now enacted a personal policy of “F off, gun controllers. You get nothing. You lose. Good day, sir.”
You are talking about the Brady Bill, promoted for years by the Dems and strongly opposed by Reagan and Bush before Clinton came into office. It was cited as a monumental achievement in gun control. It was not promoted by the NRA, so no reason to thank them.
Fast forward 20 years and now you say it is “useless shit.” You see why our side won’t accept “reasonable compromise sensible gun legislation”? You get what you ask for and then you come back and ask for more.
As others have said, regulating private sales is an extreme intrusion compared to regulating commercial sellers. Someone used an alcohol analogy upthread. If I own a bar and sell a drink to a member of the public, I need an ABC license, comply with all of the regulations, train my staff, check IDs, etc.
If I hand a guy a beer at a backyard cookout (even if he gave me some money to offset the cost), then I need none of this. I am not even liable (except in NJ) if he drives away from my house absolutely shitfaced drunk.
In nearly all situations, we do not hold private individuals who occasionally engage in certain conduct to the standards of professional sellers. As such, there is no “loophole.” It is exactly the same way our laws are used in every other context. No NRA boogeyman needed.
Exactly right. The more I read this thread, the more thankful I am that the founding fathers included the 2nd amendment in the Constitution. And anyone who tries to argue that this amendment isn’t a protection of individual rights to protect “the people” from the government, just like the other amendments, is being dishonest. Read what the founding fathers wrote at the time on the subject.
The more the president and urban politicians mention “common sense” or “reasonable” gun laws, it just makes me send more money to the NRA and GOA to protect my rights. Murder and violent crime rates are down at the same time that gun sales have increased. There is no “gun problem” no matter how much the president and media want to create one.
Obviously the drawback to owning smoke detectors and fire extinguishers are minimal compared to the benefit they provide. I would put a first aid kit up there as well (if you carry a gun and you don’t carry a first aid kit, then you might be a gun nut; the chances of using a carry gun are slim unless you live in a particularly crappy neighborhood, like Kunduz or Compton)
Guns are closer to the fence because there is a chance that you can have an accident. But guns can do things that smoke detectors cannot do.
During the LA riots, I can’t think of anything else that the shopkeepers could have done to prevent their stores from getting burned and looted. They patrolled their rooftops with guns and the rioters stayed away.
This is more an argument for gun ownership rather than carrying but considering the fact that people with carry permits are more law abiding than the general population (heck they are generally more law abiding that police officers), it seems like there is a lot of misplaced angst about folks who carry guns.
The sporadic mass shootings are horrific, no doubt, but point to something far beyond the weapons used. It seems to me that most have been conducted by mentally ill people specifically intending to become infamous. Renewed talk of gun control laws is pure political theater to score points. The “assault weapons” bans is a perfect example. The number of murders committed with AR-style rifles is so minuscule as to be unimportant, and yet the appearance of these rifles scares the panties off of gun grabbers.
Not zero, just low enough that when compared to the dangers caused by having guns in the house, the next effect is that you are safer not having a gun. So that the presence of guns doesn’t actually protect your family but instead puts them in more danger.
This is a ridiculous statement, and absolutely not true. The only way you can make the numbers work out as you say is if a) you include suicides in the tally (many would happen in the absence of firearms), bumping up the number of deaths; b) you completely ignore the millions of times that guns are used to thwart crime where no shots are fired and nobody is injured, let alone killed, slashing the number of times guns are used defensively.
Now, it is true that guns add an element of risk to a household. But so do cars, knives, swimming pools, blenders, golf clubs, skis and numerous other items used for practical and recreational purposes. You can make your life safer by not using anything and not going anywhere. Millions of people use guns on a daily, weekly or monthly basis for hunting, target shooting and other recreational pursuits, as well as for defense, and the vast majority do so without harm.
While this is not literally true (there are plenty of guns that make it over the border that were never owned by a law abiding US citizen) it is generally true. The gun control side of the debate has long insisted that is we banned guns, that this would dry up the supply of guns being passed into criminal hands and over a few decades or generations, the police would confiscate enough of them that gun crime would be as common as it is in places like the UK. Of course we have to deal with the interim period during which only criminals have guns; but its a price that gun control folks think that society should be willing to pay to achieve the gun control side’s desired result.
If we simply had licensing and registration, it would severely restrict the flow of guns into criminal hands by unsuspecting or careless gun sellers. Sure guns would continue to be stolen (something like 30,000 guns are stolen every year from dealers and somewhere between 20-25% of guns used in crime are stolen) but that number would drop precipitously if the only people criminals could sell these guns to are other criminals, right now I could steal a gun and sell it to a pawn shop with no questions asked. Guns retain their value very well and if you stole an omega watch that retails for $100 and a 9mm glock that retails for $700, you would probably get more money from the pawn broker for the used glock than the used Omega.
It would take significantly longer than an outright gun ban to reach the low background levels of criminal gun ownership that would reduce gun violence in America but we would get there without passing an amendment or changing a gun culture that has persisted in this country since the its founding.
The problem is that when gun control folks say common sense gun legislation they are frequently thinking “ban guns” but inviting people to think “background checks”
The only problem with that scenario is that these deranged killers (who (BTW) account for a tiny fraction of gun murders) tend to blow up in places were you aren’t allowed to carry a gun at all, so they sort of HAVE to conceal them. They don’t tend to go on rampages in places where there are people with guns.
Weren’t there one or two years when the crime rate increased after the gun ban?
But generally speaking, how has the gun ban in Australia affected the murder rate in Australia compared to a place like New Zealand? no noticeable difference? Then maybe the gun ban isn’t much of a factor in how crime rates fluctuated after the gun ban in Australia.
LA riots provided an opportunity to defend against criminals with guns without the criminals having the “jump” on you.
And what if he is just strong-arming you or using a knife?
Rapes are not always committed at gunpoint.
At what cost? How much are you insisting that I give up to make it less likely for criminals to have guns? I have supported licensing and registration in the past. Would you insist on anything more than that?
Is this a gut feeling or do you have conclusive proof of this? I suspect that there isn’t enough information to answer this definitively.
As the majority of suicides are acts of impulse, it seems obvious that having easy access to tools intended to kill increases the likelihood of successful suicide. You say “many” firearm suicides would happen anyway, but ISTM you have no actual evidence for this, or any numbers to back it up. I’d be pleased to be corrected.
Millions? Yeah, I’d need a cite for that claim as well.
That’s a hell of a poisoned well you have there. Why is it so hard to believe that the vast majority of people who support “common sense gun legislation” are actually telling the truth?
Regarding suicides, I have no figures and am not sure where I’d find any. But it seems logical that people who want to kill themselves would consider and use various methods. Are you suggesting that a firearm somehow persuades someone to use it to kill themselves, or is it simply a convenient tool to do so?
Where is your cite that most suicides are by impulse with no prior planning or thought or preparation?
And if you have a gun, holding them until the cops get there is also an option.
But generally, I agree its really hard to outdraw someone that already has their gun drawn.
In much the same way that if someone breaks into your house, you get your family into a closet of a room and you lie down somewhere with your gun pointed at the door. Its really hard for them to find you and aim at you and fire at you before you can squeeze the trigger.
