I Pit America's Pitiful and Cowardly Culture of Gunnism

[watchwolf49]

@ElvisL1ves

Think a little harder about whose lives are at risk, and from what.

Enlighten me … my understanding is that a vast majority of American die from causes other than murder … my only concern here is the people for which it is lawful for them to own a gun … the rest can go to hell, they can’t own a gun and that’s their fault …

[ElvisL1ves]

It may be *their *fault but they’re not dead, are they?

Now keep thinking. It *might *come to you.

[watchwolf49]

@ElvisL1ves

It may be *their *fault but they’re not dead, are they?

Now keep thinking. It *might *come to you.

Nope … drawing a blank … Glock 30 … Springfield .38 … both provide protection although the first has to be registered and the second doesn’t …

[jz78817]

@septimus

Gun owners who enjoy hearing loud bangs at the target range? Or killing pheasants or deer?
– I have no problem with them. There are worse vices and perversions.

Why is taking an animal for food myself a “vice” or “perversion?” Are you somehow more noble because you let a faceless corporation do your dirty work?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@John_Mace

Yeah, but as a postal carrier, how would feel about reaching in to retrieve or deposit mail? Especially the first time you found it on your route? :eek:
I’m what folks on this MB would probably call a “gun grabber”, but I’m not seeing how a hypothetical that involves magic is informative about how policy should be made in a world where magic doesn’t exist.

He’s either trying to weigh the value of our good intentions; or he wants to establish that a world without any guns whatsoever is better than a world with universal gun ownership. In the past I have seen anti gun folks use a device like this to argue that we should therefore work towards a world without guns rather than allow ourselves to careen towards a world where everyone has guns.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@wolfpup

It’s informative in understanding the culture and what it says about the desired end state. If gun nuts answer the hypothetical as I am certain they would, it tells us that effective gun control is virtually impossible without a major culture change, because gun nuts are opposed to its fundamental goals.

So the eradication of all guns is the fundamental goal of gun control?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@wolfpup

John, I think you’re reading far too much into the specific wording of that hypothetical. In my interpretation, it’s really just a short-hand way of asking something like “would you favor a policy of stronger restrictions on gun acquisitions with the long-term goal of reducing the number of guns already in circulation through attrition, buy-backs, or other means?” And no one imagines that there could or should ever be a society with literally no guns. IMO the hypothetical simply asks if the person supports the goal of reduced gun proliferation. At least, that’s how I answered it when I imagined how the typical gun nut would respond.

I think you must be wrong because your question is a much simpler one to answer.

The vast majority of policies that seek stronger restrictions on gun acquisitions with the long term goal of reducing the number of guns can never actually reduce the number of guns in the hands of the folks most likely to commit crimes with guns… criminals.

There is literally no law that will compel a criminal to turn in his gun. IMHO, licensing and registration are the only things that stand a chance of reducing the availability of guns to criminals.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@enipla

I’m in kinda a weird position. I own 11 guns, but I did not buy one of them.

They are either inherited, or guns I was given when from my dad when I was younger, and one that was a gift.

Oh, I like target and skeet shooting, but I really don’t do that much anymore since selling a 40 acre property.

We do live in a remote area. We have two acres and no neighbors. But it’s just not a proper place to shoot. I do like the idea of having a gun for defense. 911 isn’t going to help much where we live (nor anyone really). I have used a gun to scare bears off our property when they where stalking out our house. Bears have broken into my shed twice.

What should I do with the 100 year old rifle that my Grandfather used to shoot? It was my first gun when I was 9 years old.

I donno. But I’m starting to think about this. I may give most of them to a brother in law that lives on 70 acres in Texas. He’s a very responsible guy, and one of his sons also likes to shoot. I’ll have to figure out how to transfer them. Not one of the guns is registered, they don’t need to be. But I don’t think I can just ship them to him without some proper transfer paperwork.

Can’t you just take them to his house the next time you visit?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Donpeyote

In 1992 Los Angeles Riots every Liberal I knew that did not have a Firearm wanted one and could not get one (Unless they borrowed one from a Family Member or Friend who had some ) due to Draconian California Firearms Restrictions like then 15 day wait period . As a holder of a current California CCW and collector & shooter of Military Style Firearms and some time assistant to a Gun Show vendor/Tactical Training School owner I can honestly say that folks under 40 have no idea how vast and pervasive the Gun Culture was in California and America . It is still very strong with 325-350 Million Firearms in private hands .

I was there. IIRC the stores were sold out. No shotguns, no pistols no rifles. People knew something bad was coming. The riots didn’t really take anyone by surprise except the cops.

[k9bfriender]

@Damuri_Ajashi

IMHO, licensing and registration are the only things that stand a chance of reducing the availability of guns to criminals.

By which, I assume you mean, background checks, closing the gun show loophole, requiring owners to make some effort to secure their guns, and to report them missing as soon as discovered.

Then some fairly harsh punishments for those who sell without a background check and those who are not very good at securing their guns. (Someone steals your gun, that’s on them, the third or fourth time, though? You need some assistance with securing your guns properly.)

[ElvisL1ves]

@watchwolf49

Nope … drawing a blank …

Your problem, then.

The consequences, tragically, are on all of us.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@wolfpup

Did I say “on the the increase”? I implied it was at a disastrous level compared to the rest of the civilized world.

You mean the statement that “This decline in gun violence is part of an overall decline in violent crime”? The overall decline in crime in recent decades is well known to everyone who studies these issues. So is the extraordinary comparative rate of gun violence in the US compared to other developed countries in the world. The statistics are nothing short of mind-boggling.

I bet I could create a chart of people assaulted with hockey sticks that would make America look really good and canada look really bad. Could I then make an argument that we should ban hockey?

The statistics are mind boggling because you use mindbogglingly stupid criteria for the statistics.

Is there more murder in America than in other countries? Why yes there is. Is murder 7 times as high in America as in Canada? Why no it isn’t. If you removed all gun murders from the statistics, would America still have abnormally high murder rates compared to Canada? Why yes we would.

That doesn’t mean that guns aren’t a problem but it does mean that your statistics don’t mean shit.

[watchwolf49]

@ElvisL1ves

Your problem, then.

The consequences, tragically, are on all of us.

You don’t know either … that’s cute …

Take away all theirs guns and give them flowers …

– The Producers

[jz78817]

@k9bfriender

By which, I assume you mean, background checks, closing the gun show loophole, requiring owners to make some effort to secure their guns, and to report them missing as soon as discovered.

Then some fairly harsh punishments for those who sell without a background check and those who are not very good at securing their guns. (Someone steals your gun, that’s on them, the third or fourth time, though? You need some assistance with securing your guns properly.)

Can you describe what the “gun show loophole” is, or is it just something you heard politicians say?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@k9bfriender

By which, I assume you mean, background checks, closing the gun show loophole, requiring owners to make some effort to secure their guns, and to report them missing as soon as discovered.

Then some fairly harsh punishments for those who sell without a background check and those who are not very good at securing their guns. (Someone steals your gun, that’s on them, the third or fourth time, though? You need some assistance with securing your guns properly.)

You just named a patchwork of proposals that ultimately leave huge gaping holes in the regulation of guns.

Licensing: you cannot own or posses a gun unless you have a license. You cannot transfer a gun to anyone who does not have a license. Licenses are issued free of charge (or for a minimal charge) to anyone who is legally allowed to own a gun (you can apply online). Additional endorsements may be necessary to own a machine gun or carry concealed. You can check the validity of anyone’s license by checking with the BATFE so you know who you can sell or gift a gun to.

Registration: every firearm must be registered. You can do this online for free or for a nominal fee.

Cops extract tens of thousands of guns from criminal hands every year. They can now check and see how those guns got into criminal hands and at least have a chance of sending people to jail for gun running or straw purchases.

Get rid of every other fucking law at the federal, state and local level restricting guns.

[k9bfriender]

@jz78817

Can you describe what the “gun show loophole” is, or is it just something you heard politicians say?

Yes, as a matter of fact I can.

Now, one of the things that annoys me about that phrase is that it sounds like it is limited to gun shows, when it is actually any time that one person sells a gun to another when neither is a registered dealer.

If a dealer sells a gun, he has to run a check.

If someone who is not a dealer sells a gun, he does not.

This means that the person who is not a dealer is free to sell the gun to anyone at all, even felons, fugitives or other people who have been determined by the legal system that should not have a gun. This is what is known as the gun hole loophole.

I am surprised you had not heard of it, but, if I can help you out with any other of these terms, let me know, I am here to help!

[ElvisL1ves]

@watchwolf49

You don’t know either … that’s cute …

Sigh … just who do you think those guns get fired at? :rolleyes:

If you’re trying to get taken seriously, you’re not off to a good start.

[k9bfriender]

@Damuri_Ajashi

You just named a patchwork of proposals that ultimately leave huge gaping holes in the regulation of guns.

Licensing: you cannot own or posses a gun unless you have a license. You cannot transfer a gun to anyone who does not have a license. Licenses are issued free of charge (or for a minimal charge) to anyone who is legally allowed to own a gun (you can apply online). Additional endorsements may be necessary to own a machine gun or carry concealed. You can check the validity of anyone’s license by checking with the BATFE so you know who you can sell or gift a gun to.

Registration: every firearm must be registered. You can do this online for free or for a nominal fee.

Cops extract tens of thousands of guns from criminal hands every year. They can now check and see how those guns got into criminal hands and at least have a chance of sending people to jail for gun running or straw purchases.

Get rid of every other fucking law at the federal, state and local level restricting guns.

My proposals were in addition to your licensing and registration requirement. Your described licensing should be enough to cover the “gun show loophole”, I am just saying, make sure it does.

These do no good, if someone is free to sell their gun to anyone at any time with no paper trail. This is also not good if people “lose”, or “get stolen” dozens of guns a month.

[jz78817]

@k9bfriender

Yes, as a matter of fact I can.

Now, one of the things that annoys me about that phrase is that it sounds like it is limited to gun shows, when it is actually any time that one person sells a gun to another when neither is a registered dealer.

If a dealer sells a gun, he has to run a check.

If someone who is not a dealer sells a gun, he does not.

This means that the person who is not a dealer is free to sell the gun to anyone at all, even felons, fugitives or other people who have been determined by the legal system that should not have a gun. This is what is known as the gun hole loophole.

I am surprised you had not heard of it, but, if I can help you out with any other of these terms, let me know, I am here to help!

cut the snide shit. I know what it supposedly means, and what it really means, and it’s a private sale “loophole.” But a few things come to mind:

1. no, a person who is not a dealer is not “free” to sell to prohibited persons. If you sell/transfer a gun to a person who you know (or should have known) can’t legally possess one, you’ve committed a felony

2. individuals being able to sell a gun privately has been the case for a long time, but now it’s suddenly something which needs to be solved? Especially when a large portion of transfers to prohibited persons are wives/girlfriends pressured into being straw purchasers?

3. at any rate, in Michigan we cannot sell handguns (the type largely represented in crime) free and clear. You need to go to your city police dept/county sheriff, apply for a license to purchase, wait overnight for a background check, then after you and the seller sign the transfer forms in triplicate, the buyer then needs to bring the registration form back to the police department.

calling it a “gun show loophole” leads to minimally informed people parroting it as if gun and knife shows are somehow a hotbed of illegal trade.

[k9bfriender]

@jz78817

cut the snide shit. I know what it supposedly means, and what it really means, and it’s a private sale “loophole.”

Hmmm, I tried to assume your question was in good faith, my bad.

But a few things come to mind:

1. no, a person who is not a dealer is not “free” to sell to prohibited persons. If you sell/transfer a gun to a person who you know (or should have known) can’t legally possess one, you’ve committed a felony

And if you do not know the person, then you don’t know they can’t have a gun. How would they “should have known”? There is no BG check requirement. This is the loophole I was talking about needing to close.

2. individuals being able to sell a gun privately has been the case for a long time, but now it’s suddenly something which needs to be solved? Especially when a large portion of transfers to prohibited persons are wives/girlfriends pressured into being straw purchasers?

It’s a problem that has needed a solution since the days of Tombstone. The fact that we are still trying to solve it doesn’t mean it is a sudden issue, it just means it is a problem we are still looking to solve.

3. at any rate, in Michigan we cannot sell handguns (the type largely represented in crime) free and clear. You need to go to your city police dept/county sheriff, apply for a license to purchase, wait overnight for a background check, then after you and the seller sign the transfer forms in triplicate, the buyer then needs to bring the registration form back to the police department.

That’s Michigan. In Ohio, you can. I can’t tell you what laws every state does, but I can tell you what the federal law is on it… and done.

calling it a “gun show loophole” leads to minimally informed people parroting it as if gun and knife shows are somehow a hotbed of illegal trade.

Pick a term then. I went with the one that everyone around these parts should understand the meaning of. I am willing to change terms is there is something that is a better description of the way to get around background checks through personal sales.