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.
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 thought I was pointing out the whole correlation/causation problem they were having.
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.
Yep, thats pretty much it.
I would say that the licensing requirement just makes everything easier and more practicably enforcable.
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).
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.
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?
So you understand the post hoc part. You should google, ergo propter hoc part.
:rolleyes: 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.”
"
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)."
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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”
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.
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.
Uhh, yeah.
Soundly.
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.
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.
The ones I know are Republicans. They aren’t Ted Cruz type Republicans but they voted for McCain and Romney.
I remember January differently. Things certainly seemed possible then.
I don’t think there is a homogeneity of opinion among pro-gun folks like you pointed out before.
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.
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.
For context, that’s 86% of Telegraph readers who are an extremely conservative lot AND it’s a self-selecting internet poll without a “none of the above” option AND it’s in the immediate wake of the Lee Rigby killing.