I think that the current regulations on guns are pretty reasonable. They are the only consumer product that requires an FBI background check for every purchase at retail. Now, if I want to sell a gun to my brother, there is no need for the feds to get involved. If I sell more than a couple of guns a year, I need a federal license which comes with an extensive background check, much expense, and constant scrutiny by the BATF.
If I want to keep the gun at home, then no need for anyone else to be concerned. If I want to carry it concealed in public, then I need a state license with yet another background check and a safety class.
But since we are having a knee jerk reaction to one horrible incident, let’s concentrate on laws that would have prevented it. A new AWB, registration, safety training, background checks on private sales, and anything else I’ve heard proposed would do nothing, and for that reason I suspect that it is only about making in harder to own guns instead of doing anything productive. I’ve offered the proposal of allowing concealed carry in schools which you characterize as insane.
If you can offer a gun control proposal that would solve these statistical blips and still retain individual rights to keep guns without an undue burden, I will listen, but none have been put forward. I’m tempted to say that in a free society, not much will stop a random act of a crazy person. We need to find out why certain people want to do these terrible things to begin with and address those.
So you don’t support a new AWB? Have you called your Congressman and the White House to tell them this?
Or is this one of those, “I don’t support banning guns, but an AWB is reasonable, handgun bans are reasonable, semi-auto bans are reasonable, but you can keep your single shot shotguns and rifles locked at an approved range” misdirections?
Round and round, you keep shifting goal posts so there’s never any point to actually debate. I would actually like to have a debate but we can’t get seem to fix any goalposts. Now you’re fine with the US as a whole instead of State by State, and it’s developed Europe?
You asked for a country that introduced significant gun bans. AFAIK, England is the only country to have done so. England homicide and firearm homicides are significantly lower than the US. English firearm homicides have declined for the past 10 years. Prove this trend is not related to the gun bans in England?
If you wanted to sell a gun to Joe Blow or to some anonymous person at a gun show or arrange a buy off the internet, then is a FBI background check required? Seems not as any cursory internet Search will show, including this Today Show expose.
So, practically, a FBI background check isn’t actually required.
JTGain - not trying to bust balls here, but this grey market seems to blow a whole in the whole responsible gun buyer/owner thing. Am I missing something obvious?
I am always pleased to have someone offer to listen with great care and concentration as I rare back and give a lengthy discourse on any given subject. But you are bringing in a whole different set of parameters than Rat did. You can review the chain of statements with relative ease, simply by scrolling up. Perhaps a little animated paperclip will pop up, and say “You seem to be confused about what elucidator did or did not say, can I help you with that?” But I have every confidence that you will not require any such assistance.
But rather than bore you to tears with such, I will simply point out my previous statements, and offer you the same generous option I have offered him. To witless, if you can find a post by me wherein I declare a position of “banning all guns”, I will cheerfully forward to you the funds required for quite a good bottle of Irish whiskey.
Your characterization of my position as a “misdirection” is neither accurate nor relevant, and you are kindly advised to butt out. My dispute with Rat on this issue is simply what I did or did not say, your interpretations are your own, and you are welcome to them. But they do not obligate me in any way.
Be advised that Irish whiskey is more expensive than Scotch, for the good and sensible reason that the Irish are not inclined to give up perfectly good whiskey for mere money.
My opinion? The only way stop straw purchases which I describe as one person buying a gun for another who wouldn’t pass a BG check is to make the penalty for a straw purchase as severe and guaranteed as those for converting guns to full auto:
Illegal, full auto guns are not a real problem, regardless of what is shown on TV shows and movies. The penalties are just too severe as compared to the utility gained. From what I have read, the penalty for straw purchases is 10 years also, but is rarely applied.
I can just about guarantee you that few gun owners would have an issue with a significant raise in the penalties associated with the straw purchases. Add to that a good marketing campaign to make sure everyone knows that buying a gun for someone WILL get you a lot of hard time in a Federal pen and it WILL cost you a lot of money in fines.
If you arrange a purchase on the internet to buy a gun from someone in another state, it has to go through an FFL meaning it will require a BG check. If you buy it from someone in your own state, there is no Federal law requiring a BG check, although there may be a state law requiring it.
Not to jump in on JT’s action here but it’s not a gray market. The laws are what they are. You may not agree with them, and you may want to change them, but that makes me no less of a responsible gun seller or buyer by following them.
Your insisting doesn’t make it so. I can perfectly legitimately claim that a number is insignificant without troubling myself to name the quantitative threshold, even supposing there is one. If you disagree, you can ask me why I think the number is insignificant. I’m not sure that you ever did ask, but nonetheless I gave you a qualitative answer. You’re free to reject it, and if you do I’d be interested in your reasoning. But in any case, giving you a number that I would consider “significant” would not change the basis of your disagreement with my qualitative judgment of insignificance, nor would it support or oppose my position. It’s irrelevant.
If you can point out where I’ve used emotionally charged language myself, I’d appreciate it. I do my best to stick to facts and not fear-mongering.
As for “actual specifics” – well, since I have just said that the status quo is fine, I am content to argue for or against the ideas that others propose. For one, I’m no criminologist, mental health professional, or social policy expert. My opinion on which measures will work (in the sense of producing a significant reduction (oh no, there’s that word again) in the number of homicides per year) is uninformed at best and should be mistrusted.
However, I will open my big fat mouth and give the uninformed opinion that a combination of 1) handgun licensing, training, and registration requirements, 2) a ban on all private handgun sales without the requisite background check, and 3) holding the last registered owner’s feet to the fire if a gun is used in a crime, might be effective. The aim would be to keep handguns out of the hands of everybody except those who are willing to undergo extra legal scrutiny. And I think that, provided the licensing were offered on a shall-issue basis, it could pass constitutional muster. Maybe. And as a gun owner myself, I wouldn’t consider it onerous to be licensed and registered for my handguns. My only objection (and, at least in my opinion, the only reasonable objection) to registration is the concern that it might be used as a basis for further restriction or confiscation.
Indeed. Some of us are pursuing interminable dialogues on red herrings.
You said “Nunh-unh!” to any cite with a pro-gun researcher while pointing to a known pro-gun control org iike the AMA and their publication JAMA which has been known to also push junk science on the topic. Not only that but your “CITE” from them is a “Viewpoint” it is an op-ed piece and thus opinion.
But the bigger part is that the US is NOT the entire world, you can’t show that it worked in ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.
It didn’t do much in England, it didn’t do much in Australia.
You are hanging onto this like it is “nano termite” or some other silly conspiracy theory.
When all you have to do is show “gun ban A reduced crime more than in other areas that didn’t have ban” And that is what you can’t provide.
RA - you keep claiming it didn’t work in England. I’ve cited you where in fact it has worked in England with rates at a 20 year low. And here’s the PDF linkso you can read the quarterly police stats yourself. Care to address or you just keep obfuscating by asking for CITES?
Its a pun. On the phrasing used when specifying, as in “to wit: (the following proposition)”. No insult intended, crafted or even subtly implied. And who would know better than I?
Is there room in your philosophy for the possibility that, if we banned the guns, our low would be even lower? Maybe only 9,000 people would die from handguns every year, instead of over 10,000?
If we “banned the guns” effectively there would be a handful of deaths from handguns every year. Would be a lot more deaths from other methods though.
But hey - if we mandated a 2" thick steel armor on all cars, and mandated speed limits of no more than 20 mph, we’d have a lot less than 32,000 vehicle-related deaths too. Do you think it’s a good idea?
Yep. A lot fewer people would be driving, because at 20 mph, they wouldn’t be able to get to work without using public transit. MPG would be terrible, and, since the top speed’s only 20 mph, you might as well ride a bike, which would ease traffic, improve parking, improve people’s health.
Of course, an automobile is just like a gun, except for piddling details like purpose, function and design. Wheels. of course, but that falls under “design”.