Everything is better with guns

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Damn, if only the government used forms when databases are accessed, this wouldn't be a problem.
Maybe that's part of why the laws need to be reviewed and tightened up.

I'm not following what you mean by forms and databases. Please clarify.

Derek V

[DanG 1]

Quote

1. Which state's gun laws are going to made uniform? California? New York? Utah?

2. We have universal background check law here in CO. It has changed nothing and is unenforceable.

3. Record keeping. Not sure what is meant, but is sounds a lot like registration just look at how well that is working in Connecticut.

4. Not sure how reporting stolen firearms will prevent anything.

5. I'll be OK with as soon as you have to pay attend and pass a class every 2 years to exercise your right to free speech.

What makes these measures draconian is the 2nd amendment. The people to do not have to justify these rights in order to keep them.

1. That would be up to Congress. Pick any state, really, it doesn't matter.

2. That's your opinion. If it in completely unenforcable, then it won't result in the loss of any rights. It will, however, make it harder for criminals and the insane to buy guns. Not impossible, just harder. Even if enforced it would not infringe on anyone's rights.

3. I'm not sure what he meant. I assume it meant keeping a record of purchases. Again, can you explain why that would infringe on anyone's right to own firearms?

4. One of the gun lobby's arguments is that criminals can still get guns through the black market. If reporting your gun being stolen was mandatory, then tracking how guns are moving through the black market might be possible. But again, how would this infringe on anyone's right to own and bear arms?

5. What if the classes were free and only required if you were going to carry outside your property?

Our rights enumerated in the Constitution are not absolute. The right to free speech has practical limits. There is no reason I see that these proposed measures would not be considered reasonable limits on the right to bear arms.

- Dan G

[DanG 1]

Quote

This law is a great example of restricting citizens rights for very little to no gain. What a waste of time and money.

How is requiring a background check for private transfers restricting anyone's right to keep and bear arms?

- Dan G

[normiss 622]

When we properly require background checks for all firearms transfers, you need to go to a cop shop or a gun shop or maybe even the clerk's office. It's an official process, you get a time limited "I can buy weapons" card or form, or are cleared for a single purchase. The databases are checked when you do this for crimes, arrests, convictions, domestic restraining orders, hopefully mental flags as well.
It's not that challenging.

[kallend 1,623]

DanG

Our rights enumerated in the Constitution are not absolute. The right to free speech has practical limits. There is no reason I see that these proposed measures would not be considered reasonable limits on the right to bear arms.

Just today the SCOTUS ruled that restrictions on who can buy guns IS Constitutional. The Constitution argument that these restrictions violate anyone's rights is completely bogus.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

kallend

1. Uniformity, so you can't avoid them simply by crossing a city boundary or state line.

2. Universality, so you can't avoid them by buying over the internet.

3. Record keeping.

4. Mandatory reporting of stolen firearms.

5. Mandatory gun safety classes at regular intervals (say every 2 years, like for pilot licenses)

That took all of 30 seconds to think up. I'm sure you could do better given enough time.

Well, first off, an individual cannot buy a pistol outside of their state of residence from a dealer.
So the argument that "people in Chicago could avoid the ban by going to a gun store in Indiana" is a flat out lie (and it just came up in the news the other day).

Second, "Internet Purchases" follow all the rules that any transfer requires. In the case of a new firearm, it has to go through a dealer. In the case of inter-state purchases, it has to go through a dealer (the internet seller will ask you which FFL holder they should ship the gun to). The claims that Cho (VA Tech shooter) got his guns "Over the internet" was only partly true. He ordered them (one came from Green Bay, IIRC), but they were shipped to an FFL holder and properly transferred to him.

How would "record keeping" and "mandatory reporting of stolen guns" reduce gun violence? Telling the cops that someone stole your gun won't do a damned thing to get it back.

I don't have a problem with training requirements...
Unless they are used like the old "Voter tests" were in the south. Used to prevent "those people" from voting. Kinda like Chicago tried to do. Require training, including live fire at a shooting range, but prohibit ranges from operating in the city.

Of course, those in Chicago who "had connections" could get a "Special Police" badge that let them carry a gun.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[billvon 2,400]

>So the argument that "people in Chicago could avoid the ban by going to a gun store
>in Indiana" is a flat out lie.

He didn't say that. He did say that it would be good to ensure uniformity in the laws, so you can't avoid gun laws simply by crossing a city boundary or state line.

If Colorado passes a "background check with EVERY sale" then people in Colorado could indeed get around that law by going to a gun show in Wyoming and doing a private purchase from someone there - since those do not require a background check, or indeed any verification of a purchaser's home state.

If, however, the US had a "background check with EVERY sale" law, then they could not do that.

[BartsDaddy 4]

billvon

>So the argument that "people in Chicago could avoid the ban by going to a gun store
>in Indiana" is a flat out lie.

He didn't say that. He did say that it would be good to ensure uniformity in the laws, so you can't avoid gun laws simply by crossing a city boundary or state line.

If Colorado passes a "background check with EVERY sale" then people in Colorado could indeed get around that law by going to a gun show in Wyoming and doing a private purchase from someone there - since those do not require a background check, or indeed any verification of a purchaser's home state.

If, however, the US had a "background check with EVERY sale" law, then they could not do that.

Actually they do require verification of the purchasers home state. So if you think making a background check manadtory will stop that you are dreaming.
There are laws in place here in California all puchases have to go through a ffl. You would not believe the number of people I have delt with that think it is ok to sell to anybody. Just have them bring the money and here's your gun. And we have had this law for about 20 years.
Just cause you pass a law does not mean it is enforcable or will be followed. What we need is the ones we have now be enforced.

Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle

[billvon 2,400]

>Actually they do require verification of the purchasers home state.

What federal law requires private sellers to verify the purchaser's home state?

[BartsDaddy 4]

billvon

>Actually they do require verification of the purchasers home state.

What federal law requires private sellers to verify the purchaser's home state?

Where did I say it was federal law it is state and therefore the PC on it changes from state to state. But the GCA of 1968 makes interstate transfer without going through a ffl illegal

Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

When we properly require background checks for all firearms transfers, you need to go to a cop shop or a gun shop or maybe even the clerk's office. It's an official process, you get a time limited "I can buy weapons" card or form, or are cleared for a single purchase. The databases are checked when you do this for crimes, arrests, convictions, domestic restraining orders, hopefully mental flags as well.
It's not that challenging.

We have that here in Colorado. The governor admitted they did not do enough research before passing it. It changed nothing. No one has been charged under the new law.

Derek V

[normiss 622]

The selective enforcement of laws is another issue of itself.

[kallend 1,623]

Wow, what a lot of strawmen in a single post.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

The selective enforcement of laws is another issue of itself.

You don't understand. It is not selective enforcement, the law cannot be enforced.

In addition, the law has had no effect, other than to make it more expensive and more of a hassle to buy a firearm in a private sale.

Derek V

[RonD1120 58]

Hooknswoop

Quote

The selective enforcement of laws is another issue of itself.

You don't understand. It is not selective enforcement, the law cannot be enforced.

In addition, the law has had no effect, other than to make it more expensive and more of a hassle to buy a firearm in a private sale.

Derek V

Too much reality for this venue. The law only gives power to the lawmakers and the enforcers. Very few here understand that.

In remote areas, like here in the north GA mountains, the law is determined by your neighbors. We have a bond in our Christian belief and the willingness to help each other survive. Therefore, we all own weapons and stand ready to defend our area.

Most posters here do not like to read about the reality of the way it really is. The want to discuss the imaginary utopia they think they can actually develop after they leave the wonderland of the dropzone.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[RonD1120 58]

Oh, one other thing, up here guns are bought, sold and traded with regularity. If we are dealing with someone we don't know we have a firearms dealer that will run the background check on the purchaser for $20, payable by him.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Coreeece 2]

kallend

In every First World country people die of heart disease, stroke, cancer, accidents... The USA is not an outlier in any of these areas.

ONLY in shooting death and injury is the USA an outlier among First World nations.

The majority of gun related homicides in the U.S are committed in areas that seem to be more representative of 2nd and 3rd World Countries.

Cities like St. Louis, Detroit, Baltimore , New Orleans are the only "First World" cities on a list of 50 with the highest murder rates in the world.

Cities like Detroit and East St.Louis, IL can often be seen on lists of the most dangerous places on the planet - usually listed somewhere between Karachi, Pakistan and Baghdad.

60% of gun related homicides are committed in the top 50 largest metro areas - and the closer you get to the heart of the main cities, the gun homicide rates are about 2-4x higher than that of the entire metro area.

...and that doesn't include the smaller poverty stricken areas like Saginaw, MI that recently made it to a list of the most dangerous cities in America.

The CDC reports and other relevant data can be found here:
http://www.citylab.com/crime/2012/12/geography-gun-violence-cities-versus-metros/4044/

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[Coreeece 2]

kallend

1. Uniformity, so you can't avoid them simply by crossing a city boundary or state line.

2. Universality, so you can't avoid them by buying over the internet.

3. Record keeping.

4. Mandatory reporting of stolen firearms.

5. Mandatory gun safety classes at regular intervals (say every 2 years, like for pilot licenses)

That took all of 30 seconds to think up. I'm sure you could do better given enough time.

Ya, it figures that the guy who bitches most around here about gun crime is only willing to invest 30 seconds into coming up with solutions that fail to address the heart of the problem - big surprise.

It kinda makes it seem like you're not really interested in solving the problem as much as you are in political divisiveness and sticking it to the conservatives.

Thankfully there are objective people that actually do take the time to determine the problem and provide real solutions to address the issues surrounding our violent culture:

From CDC:

"National and state prevention programs directed at reducing firearm violence should focus on youths, particularly in central cities, to reduce the burden of firearm-related mortality in the United States. Initiatives designed to reduce violent deaths in urban areas can draw upon a growing evidence base for effectively addressing behaviors that underlie violence involving youths."

"A concerted effort has been under way during the past few decades to build the evidence base for youth violence prevention, and a number of effective strategies are now available for preventing behaviors that underlie firearm violence involving youths. These strategies include programs that:

1) enhance youth skills and motivation to behave nonviolently and resolve conflicts peacefully,

2) promote positive relationships between youth and adults (e.g., parenting and mentoring programs), and

3) influence the social, environmental, and economic characteristics of schools, workplaces, and neighborhoods in ways that can reduce the likelihood of youth violence (e.g., encouraging social connectedness and facilitating economic opportunities)

4)In addition, new approaches are being tried and tested, such as CeaseFire, which seeks to prevent street violence, particularly shootings, through outreach, conflict mediation, and the changing of community norms that support violence."



The report also suggests direct measure to reduce firearm homicide/suicide such as safe storage, safer design and legislative efforts, However, it goes on to say that "most of these direct measures have not been evaluated adequately, making it difficult to know their effectiveness in reducing firearm-related deaths and injuries"

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm6018.pdf

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[Coreeece 2]

billvon

>And how would these impact the number of firearm fatalities each year?

It would reduce the number of accidental deaths, since more people would get effective firearms safety training, and it would be more current.

Getting effective firearm education and safety training only after you've purchased a gun, doesn't address the kids 10-19 years old that are living in central cities unable to break the cycle of violence that has plagued them for 50+ years.

The CDC has found that these kids are extremely over represented - that their firearm homicide rate exceeds that of all age groups.

Last year the CDC did a study in Delaware amid a 45% increase in shootings in Wilmington, and a homicide rate that outpaced every other state. (the majority of which have been significantly decreasing in the last 10-15 years, btw)

Anyway, the study showed that 15.1% of the offenses were committed by those under 18, and 39.4% were 18-25. So we see why it's imperative to educate and address the violent culture when these kids are at a very young age, as addressed in the CDC report linked in the post to Kallend Above.

Once they make it past 25, the numbers drop dramatically to 16.5% and then 6% for 35-39 year olds, and 8.3% for ages 40+

Also, the good thing about addressing the violent culture is that it simultaneously addresses the 30-40% of homicides committed without firearms that gun control nuts have the tendency to ignore as well. . .

http://dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dms/files/cdcgunviolencereport10315.pdf

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[billvon 2,400]

>Getting effective firearm education and safety training only after you've purchased a
>gun, doesn't address the kids 10-19 years old that are living in central cities unable to
>break the cycle of violence that has plagued them for 50+ years.

Agreed. Such education will only reduce, not end, gun deaths.

[kallend 1,623]

Coreeece

***1. Uniformity, so you can't avoid them simply by crossing a city boundary or state line.

2. Universality, so you can't avoid them by buying over the internet.

3. Record keeping.

4. Mandatory reporting of stolen firearms.

5. Mandatory gun safety classes at regular intervals (say every 2 years, like for pilot licenses)

That took all of 30 seconds to think up. I'm sure you could do better given enough time.

Still did better than you, though.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.