Support NeoGAF

[Mammoth Jones]

Hmm, I never said it isn't a tool. Read what I wrote:

Spoiler

I'm not sure if you misread or if I phrased it wrong, since English isn't my first language

Case in point, here's a post of mine from yesterday:



What I'm saying is that there's a fundamental difference compared to the other tools we talked about in that it has very little purpose apart from harm, when other tools that can be harmful have those non-harmful primary uses.

And note that I also said this doesn't make it inherently evil. I just think having guns around makes it easier for people to do more harm.

I apologize for the confusion.

The fundamental difference is irrelevant when what gets "harmed" is up to the person wielding it. In the hands of a law abiding citizen following the 4 core safety rules it won't do harm to anyone. The only caveat being legitimate self defense.

 

[Slightly Live]

What I find sad is that Americans have a legal right to own a gun but no legal rights to health care.

The cultural priorities of America contrast sharply with most modern democratic countries and gun control is the poster child for the American difference.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

The cultural priorities of America contrast sharply with most modern democratic countries and gun control is the poster child for the American difference.

I can live with that.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

What I find sad is that Americans have a legal right to own a gun but no legal rights to health care.

The cultural priorities of America contrast sharply with most modern democratic countries and gun control is the poster child for the American difference.

Once again, what happened to that cultural relativism that I normally find so refreshing on GAF?

There's no dichotomy between the two. The struggle for healthcare reform in no way impacts the 2nd Amendment on our firearms.

I can live with that.

While I fully concede healthcare needs to (and will) happen I completely agree.

 

[HyperionX]

There is a reason why its so easy to get guns from private sales. Its basically unregulated. Private sales should fall under the same restrictions as FFL dealers. In addition I think that there should be more punishment for straw purchases. I'm more than willing to pay more to have these restrictions put in place.

It varies from state to state and there are regulations no state allows you to transfer a gun to a prohibited person in that state. Claiming they are basically unregulated is absurd.

There are already laws regarding straw purchases, there is no need for additional laws. Complain to the Federal Government for not enforcing it's laws that it already has.

I'm not willing to pay more for the exorbitant fees for transfers that FFLs like to charge.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.

The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street.

A lot of illegal guns were knowingly illegal, or at least very easy to find out it was illegal, at the point of purchase. I don't think the laws we have right are nearly strong enough to solve this issue. It would also help to fund these programs, rather than defund them severally and then complain of lack of enforcement.

 

[Slightly Live]

There's no dichotomy between the two. The struggle for healthcare reform in no way impacts the 2nd Amendment on our firearms.

I never said it did.

I just find it odd, from a non-American perspective, that the right to own a gun is enshrined into your fundamental governing laws, but something as basic and important to human welfare, such as access to healthcare, isn't.

Most countries tend to agree that healthcare and education, as examples, are things their citizens have a right to have and use. America's priorities are just slightly different, but the impact and difference American priorities have, is huge.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html



A lot of illegal guns were knowingly illegal, or at least very easy to find out it was illegal, at the point of purchase. I don't think the laws we have right are nearly strong enough to solve this issue. It would also help to fund these programs, rather than defund them severally and then complain of lack of enforcement.

That episode was done back in the 1990s on old data

According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California,"

So much has changed in terms since then, it's not even comparable to the situation today. Heck even by the end of the 1990s it was shown that less than 9% of guns used in crimes came from straw purchases and less than 1% from gun shows.

I wish "gun control" advocates would actually take the time to learn about current gun laws and the gun buying process. I mean look I'm not trying to be a dick, but it's not hard to find out the laws. I mean so many people who talk about gun control here have never actually gone through the process of buying a gun and parrot off things from junk groups like Brady, MAIG, and VPC, and take it with blind faith.

Do you know FFLs are allowed to make an ultimate decision to not sell to anyone for whatever reason they want? You can't sue claiming discrimination and the ATF has backed this up, saying if the FFL has weird feeling for any reason they can refuse to make a sale, and I know several gun dealers who have done that.

 

[BakedPigeon]

In my honest opinion, I believe the media and high up U.S. officials are making recent gun violent acts shine and glimmer on top of every other newsworthy incident going on which gives the appearance of guns being an insanely huge problem in the U.S. When in-fact it is probably just how it has always been. That is what happens when you have a country full of politicians who want to take away the rights of citizens, and sadly there are a lot of citizens who enjoy being fucked in the ass.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html



A lot of illegal guns were knowingly illegal, or at least very easy to find out it was illegal, at the point of purchase. I don't think the laws we have right are nearly strong enough to solve this issue. It would also help to fund these programs, rather than defund them severally and then complain of lack of enforcement.

Great article. What's the solution? To ban gun sales for anyone that might have a friend that they might give a gun to?

I mean, you could make it require a background check for all individuals in a party of someone purchasing a firearm but a criminal intent on abusing the system will just have their criminal friend pick the firearm beforehand and have the perp stay home while they go purchase the weapon.

We could have "caps" on the amount of firearms one can purchase in any given time. Some of the more strident 2nd Amendment defenders would declare this is another step in limiting their rights. Although to be honest I purchase firearms at about a rate of one a year. And even then, not every year, LMAO.

Like the article says: Better tracking of the paperwork that already exists would be a key in solving the problem. Or at the very least another VERY big step in stopping illegal crimes. It's a clerical problem. I doubt they have a full corporate building anywhere in America dedicated to analyzing legally purchased firearm paperwork.

In my honest opinion, I believe the media and high up U.S. officials are making recent gun violent acts shine and glimmer on top of every other newsworthy incident going on which gives the appearance of guns being an insanely huge problem in the U.S. When in-fact it is probably just how it has always been. That is what happens when you have a country full of politicians who want to take away the rights of citizens, and sadly there are a lot of citizens who enjoy being fucked in the ass.

I like you. It's media sensationalism. 24/7 news coverage all vying for those ad dollars. I mean, violent crime across the board in the USA is down to an all time low. Not to mention people taking these tragedies and twisting it to suit their own political agenda.

It's also something that's never been shown to have any effect on crime. Hell in the last year I most have bought, sold, and traded close to 30 guns. Ironically never needed to spend a ton more money, just applied what years of buying and trading video games taught me. lol

Yup. I think there are a lot of people that have just had it hammered into their heads that "guns are bad killing machines that do nothing but murder innocent people and I'm right so I don't have to concede anything so NYAH!"

In the end it's a right. One that I'm grateful to have. I mean, I am trusted with a deep responsibility as a law abiding citizen to keep a weapon in my home. With that power comes responsibility and I try my best to be responsible. I took it upon myself to take safety lessons and have enjoy starting to shoot as a hobby. Criminals will always be criminals. There were criminals before guns and there will be after we have phazers.

Like I said to anyone that wants to make a dent in violent crime: fix the drug problem. That'll work FAR better than prohibition on firearms.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

We could have "caps" on the amount of firearms one can purchase in any given time. Some of the more strident 2nd Amendment defenders would declare this is another step in limiting their rights. Although to be honest I purchase firearms at about a rate of one a year. And even then, not every year, LMAO.

It's also something that's never been shown to have any effect on crime. Hell in the last year I most have bought, sold, and traded close to 30 guns. Ironically never needed to spend a ton more money, just applied what years of buying and trading video games taught me. lol

 

[HyperionX]

That episode was done back in the 1990s on old data



So much has changed in terms since then, it's not even comparable to the situation today. Heck even by the end of the 1990s it was shown that less than 9% of guns used in crimes came from straw purchases and less than 1% from gun shows.

The government has pretty zeroed out all funding for research on gun safety. That's why so much data is from the 1990s. As for you, I don't see any sources for any of your claims. And anecdotes don't count.

I wish "gun control" advocates would actually take the time to learn about current gun laws and the gun buying process. I mean look I'm not trying to be a dick, but it's not hard to find out the laws. I mean so many people who talk about gun control here have never actually gone through the process of buying a gun and parrot off things from junk groups like Brady, MAIG, and VPC, and take it with blind faith.

Do you know FFLs are allowed to make an ultimate decision to not sell to anyone for whatever reason they want? You can't sue claiming discrimination and the ATF has backed this up, saying if the FFL has weird feeling for any reason they can refuse to make a sale, and I know several gun dealers who have done that.

All you do is ridicule anti-gun people, like this common meme that anti-gun people don't know enough to have any say on the matter. If you have a piece of information that is relevant, tell us about it, don't just dangle it about as proof that we know nothing.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

The government has pretty zeroed out all funding for research on gun safety. That's why so much data is from the 1990s. As for you, I don't see any sources for any of your claims. And anecdotes don't count.

http://www.dontlie.org/FAQ.cfm

What is a straw purchase?

A straw purchase is an illegal firearm purchase where the actual buyer of the gun, being unable to pass the required federal background check or desiring to not have his or her name associated with the transaction, uses a proxy buyer who can pass the required background check to purchase the firearm for him/her. It is highly illegal and punishable by a $250,000 fine and 10 years in prison.

What percentage of criminals obtain their firearms from straw purchases?

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 40 percent of criminals obtain their firearms from friends or family and another 40 percent obtain their firearms from illegal sources on the street. Less than 8.5 percent of criminals obtain their firearms from straw purchases.

Can the firearms criminals purchase illegally on the street come from straw purchases?

According to the ATF, the average "time to recovery" (the time span between the initial purchase of a firearm to the time that it is used in a crime) is more than 10 years. This tells us that criminals are using older, recycled firearms, not newer firearms bought from licensed retailers. So, unless you believe that criminals are buying firearms only to use them a decade after the purchase, it is clear that straw purchasing is not a common method for criminals to obtain guns.

If few criminals obtain their firearms via straw purchasing, why does the firearms industry spend so much time and money on the Don't Lie program?

The firearms industry takes very seriously the criminal acquisition and misuse of its products. While there is nothing the industry can do to stop a criminal from stealing a firearm or buying one on the street illegally, the industry can make sure that firearms dealers are as prepared as possible to recognize and stop any would-be straw purchaser. Even if the number of criminals who obtain their firearms through straw purchasing is very low, through awareness programs such as Don't Lie, that number could fall even more.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=940

Caroline Wolf Harlow, Ph.D.

November 4, 2001 NCJ 189369

Describes firearm use of State and Federal prison inmates. Data are from the Surveys of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities. These surveys of nationally-representative samples of prison inmates in 1997 asked inmates about their use of firearms during their current offense. Topics of this BJS Special Report include types of firearms used, characteristics of inmates using firearms, why and where inmates used their firearms, and where they obtained their firearms.

Highlights include the following:

During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun.
On average, State inmates possessing a firearm received sentences of 18 years, while those without a weapon had an average sentence of 12 years.
Among prisoners carrying a firearm during their crime, 40% of State inmates and 56% of Federal inmates received a sentence enhancement because of the firearm.
Press Release
PDF (120K)
ASCII file (47K)
Spreadsheet (Zip format 39K)
Codebooks and Datasets
To order paper version

Help for using BJS products

About the Source Data
Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities (SISCF)
To cite this product, use the following link:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=940

View All Publications and Products

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/fuo.txt

Percent of State inmates
possessing a firearm
Source of gun 1997 1991
Total 100.0% 100.0%
Purchased from -- 13.9 20.8
Retail store 8.3 14.7
Pawnshop 3.8 4.2
Flea market 1.0 1.3
Gun show 0.7 0.6
Friends or family 39.6 33.8
Street/illegal source 39.2 40.8

It was already less than 8.5 percent in 1997 and gun shows less than .7

Looks like most criminals get their guns from illegal sources or friends and family who shouldn't have given them a gun in the first place but not straw purchases.

All you do is ridicule anti-gun people, like this common meme that anti-gun people don't know enough to have any say on the matter. If you have a piece of information that is relevant, tell us about it, don't just dangle it about as proof that we know nothing.

As I was saying, most "gun control" advocates know very little about the actual process of buying guns and mostly parrot information from Anti-Gun groups.

 

[HyperionX]

Great article. What's the solution? To ban gun sales for anyone that might have a friend that they might give a gun to?

I mean, you could make it require a background check for all individuals in a party of someone purchasing a firearm but a criminal intent on abusing the system will just have their criminal friend pick the firearm beforehand and have the perp stay home while they go purchase the weapon.

We could have "caps" on the amount of firearms one can purchase in any given time. Some of the more strident 2nd Amendment defenders would declare this is another step in limiting their rights. Although to be honest I purchase firearms at about a rate of one a year. And even then, not every year, LMAO.

I know that in other countries, if you own a gun, you're the only one allowed to use it. If someone else is caught using it in a crime, you're also on the hook for the crime. Something like that could be enforced, possibly along with random police checks will be used to make sure you can't say the gun will missing or stolen.

Like the article says: Better tracking of the paperwork that already exists would be a key in solving the problem. Or at the very least another VERY big step in stopping illegal crimes. It's a clerical problem. I doubt they have a full corporate building anywhere in America dedicated to analyzing legally purchased firearm paperwork.

I'm pretty sure they've gutted those programs, if they existed at all. One of the downsides of the gun lobby being so powerful.

In the end it's a right. One that I'm grateful to have. I mean, I am trusted with a deep responsibility as a law abiding citizen to keep a weapon in my home. With that power comes responsibility and I try my best to be responsible. I took it upon myself to take safety lessons and have enjoy starting to shoot as a hobby. Criminals will always be criminals. There were criminals before guns and there will be after we have phazers.

Like I said to anyone that wants to make a dent in violent crime: fix the drug problem. That'll work FAR better than prohibition on firearms.

Actually I really have to disagree with you here. I don't see guns as a right, no more than you have a right to explosives or radioactive waste. These type of things have too much potential for harm than other ordinary household items. I simply don't buy the "it's the criminals" that's the problem, since we'll always have criminals. Frankly, we're all criminals, since we've all broken some sort of law now and then. Guns simply empower the ability to commit crimes far to greatly, and I'm more then willing to take guns away from everyone to stop this problem.

Guns are not drugs either. Like health care and gun control, these are totally different things and we should not conflate them together.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I'm pretty sure they've gutted those programs, if they existed at all. One of the downsides of the gun lobby being so powerful.

You have any proof? You can't just give anecdotal comments and claim it to be facts.

 

[HyperionX]

http://www.dontlie.org/FAQ.cfm



http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=940


http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/fuo.txt



It was already less than 8.5 percent in 1997 and gun shows less than .7

Looks like most criminals get their guns from illegal sources or friends and family who shouldn't have given them a gun in the first place but not straw purchases.

That's still arguably a straw purchase, though from a friend or family member later on. And the source already covers illegal purchased guns in the manner you've described.

As I was saying, most "gun control" advocates know very little about the actual process of buying guns and mostly parrot information from Anti-Gun groups.

I'm sorry, but your information doesn't change a thing. You still have to stop people from buying guns privately, even if it doesn't meet the formal definition of a straw purchase. Pro-gun groups pander a ton of bullshit too, so I'm not exactly eager to swallow the idea that we don't know what we're talking about.

 

[HyperionX]

You have any proof? You can't just give anecdotal comments and claim it to be facts.

Actually yes. http://www.salon.com/2012/07/30/former_nra_point_man_recants/

“One of us served as the NRA’s point person in Congress,” the op-ed continues, noting that Dickey’s amendment “sent a chilling message” to gun researchers. “Since the legislation passed in 1996, the United States has spent about $240 million a year on traffic safety research, but there has been almost no publicly funded research on firearm injuries,” they note, even though firearms kill almost as many Americans every year (about 31,000) as motor vehicle crashes (about 33,000).

“As a consequence, U.S. scientists cannot answer the most basic question: What works to prevent firearm injuries? We don’t know whether having more citizens carry guns would decrease or increase firearm deaths; or whether firearm registration and licensing would make inner-city residents safer or expose them to greater harm. We don’t know whether a ban on assault weapons or large-capacity magazines, or limiting access to ammunition, would have saved lives in Aurora or would make it riskier for people to go to a movie. And we don’t know how to effectively restrict access to firearms by those with serious mental illness,” they warn.

Even though research on the matter is not technically the same as actual funding of gun control, I think it is close enough to merit it as being an example of gun control programs being gutted.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I know that in other countries, if you own a gun, you're the only one allowed to use it. If someone else is caught using it in a crime, you're also on the hook for the crime. Something like that could be enforced, possibly along with random police checks will be used to make sure you can't say the gun will missing or stolen.

Please clarify. Not sure what the cops should or be checking for in your example.

I'm pretty sure they've gutted those programs, if they existed at all. One of the downsides of the gun lobby being so powerful.

Outside of the potential for more government bloat and a waste of spending I'd have no problem with someone checking my paperwork every year. Re-checking it. And checking it again. All silently in the background and only bother me if they notice an inconsistency.

Actually I really have to disagree with you here. I don't see guns as a right, no more than you have a right to explosives or radioactive waste. These type of things have too much potential for harm than other ordinary household items. I simply don't buy the "it's the criminals" that's the problem, since we'll always have criminals. Frankly, we're all criminals, since we've all broken some sort of law now and then.

Thanfully we don't have HyperionX sitting on the Supreme Court. It is a right. You not liking that fact really doesn't change anything. You can harp on about me not being in a militia or not "needing" a semi-automatic rifle but at the end of the day the 2nd Amendment is what allows me to own my guns and I own my guns. And the notion that you would even attempt to make an argument that "we're all criminals" is very telling about your worldview. You seem to assume everyone is a potential bad person waiting to happen. And that we need strict government control on every level to keep us doing right. Like I said, by your logic I should be out robbing a store or killing babies. I'm not. Why is that?

Guns simply empower the ability to commit crimes far to greatly, and I'm more then willing to take guns away from everyone to stop this problem.

The problem is "taking guns away from law abiding citizens won't do jack. Piss. Nor shit. If your assumption is right then (like I've said...) what about Canada? Why don't THEY have the high crime rate America does despite gun ownership? Or Israel or hell, Switzerland? The problem isn't firearms.

Like you said, there will always be criminals and prohibition only empowers criminals. You REALLY think if you prevented law abiding citizens from arming themselves that that would stop criminals? Seriously? Really? Last I checked, guns are pretty prohibited in Mexico which bring me to my next point.....

Guns are not drugs either. Like health care and gun control, these are totally different things and we should not conflate them together.

...No shit. Guns are not drugs. What I'm saying (and you seem to be intentionally or unintentionally ignoring) is that the drug war in the Americas is responsible for a HUGE portion of overall gun violence. From the gangs, to the robberies, to the addicts that go and murder someone for cash to get high...etc. My point was that simply if drugs were legalized you'd see a MUCH larger dent in violent crime than a prohibition on firearms.

In closing, have you ever held a gun? You should try it before you make assumptions and assume that because you hear about a few (relative to the amount of people that own guns in the States) tragedies on the news that that means all guns are bad and all guns lead to unlawful violence. You couldn't be more wrong on that. Gun owners aren't monsters. And gun laying on a floor isn't going to pick itself up and float around gunning people down. There are no gun accidents. There's only gun negligence.

 

[Chumly]

http://www.dontlie.org/FAQ.cfm



http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=940


http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/fuo.txt



It was already less than 8.5 percent in 1997 and gun shows less than .7

Looks like most criminals get their guns from illegal sources or friends and family who shouldn't have given them a gun in the first place but not straw purchases.





As I was saying, most "gun control" advocates know very little about the actual process of buying guns and mostly parrot information from Anti-Gun groups.

Almost all straw purchases are FROM family and friends. So you can take the 40 and add it to the 8.5. So yes the majority of illegal firearms are form straw purchases and something needs to be done about it.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Actually yes. http://www.salon.com/2012/07/30/former_nra_point_man_recants/



Even though research on the matter is not technically the same as actual funding of gun control, I think it is close enough to merit it as being an example of gun control programs being gutted.

That's not proof, it's a mans claim, who also once again includes suicides in the number. It's far less than car deaths.

Almost all straw purchases are FROM family and friends. So you can take the 40 and add it to the 8.5. So yes the majority of illegal firearms are form straw purchases and something needs to be done about it.

That's not a straw purchase. That is the 8.5%, not the 40%.

 

[Chumly]

That's not proof, it's a mans claim, who also once again includes suicides in the number. It's far less than car deaths.



That's not a straw purchase. That is the 8.5%, not the 40%.

What do you call it then when they get it from family and friends?

 

[Dude Abides]

Interesting that so many criminals get their weapons from family and friends. Why are so many gun owners, who I'm led to understand are usually paragons of responsibility and civic-mindedness, giving or selling their guns to criminals?

 

[Delusibeta]

Anyone who was expecting this thread to not end up being a massive argument between NRAGAF vs everyone else has proven to be naive. I agree with Slightly Live: the fact that the right to own a gun is enshrined in the US constitution and not, for sake of argument, the right to have access to medical care is frankly bonkers. The fact that there are people actively protesting against increasing access to medical care is a fine illustration of how far down the sewage system American politics is.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Interesting that so many criminals get their weapons from family and friends. Why are so many gun owners, who I'm led to understand are usually paragons of responsibility and civic-mindedness, giving or selling their guns to criminals?

Theft is a large part. You are also assuming that those guns weren't stolen or illegally possed in the first place.

What do you call it then when they get it from family and friends?

Theft or unlawful transfer to a prohibited person (lending it to someone). That's not a straw purchase. A straw purchase is when someone buys a guy with the intent to buy it for someone else. One has to have the requisite intent to commit a straw purchase.

 

[HyperionX]

Please clarify. Not sure what the cops should or be checking for in your example.

Probably a visit from the police at your home, where you're required to show your guns you claim you own.

Outside of the potential for more government bloat and a waste of spending I'd have no problem with someone checking my paperwork every year. Re-checking it. And checking it again. All silently in the background and only bother me if they notice an inconsistency.

I wouldn't say no to that.

Thanfully we don't have HyperionX sitting on the Supreme Court. It is a right. You not liking that fact really doesn't change anything. You can harp on about me not being in a militia or not "needing" a semi-automatic rifle but at the end of the day the 2nd Amendment is what allows me to own my guns and I own my guns. And the notion that you would even attempt to make an argument that "we're all criminals" is very telling about your worldview. You seem to assume everyone is a potential bad person waiting to happen. And that we need strict government control on every level to keep us doing right. Like I said, by your logic I should be out robbing a store or killing babies. I'm not. Why is that?

Gun rights is purely an American thing. Totally nonexistent in every other nation, including many westernized democracies. You can harp about "rights" and "2nd amendment" all you want, but it really is just an artifact of US culture. Moreover, the idea that gun ownership is a right was only upheld by 5-4 majority. A shift in the Supreme Court will change that dramatically.

You may not rob a store (baby killing is a pure strawman, very few criminals do that), but you probably did steal music, ran a stoplight, smoked marijuana, etc. You also probably got angry enough at someone or something to have thoughts of killing it at one point in your life. Just saying that line between criminal and most people is a blurry line, not a hard one. As a result, it's pretty hard to stop guns from getting into the hands of so-called criminals without restricting it for a lot of people. Remember, many of the recent shootings were from people without criminal records.

The problem is "taking guns away from law abiding citizens won't do jack. Piss. Nor shit. If your assumption is right then (like I've said...) what about Canada? Why don't THEY have the high crime rate America does despite gun ownership? Or Israel or hell, Switzerland? The problem isn't firearms.

Canada? They have a much lower gun ownership rate than the US. Same with Israel. Switzerland tightly regulates usage of ammunition, even though they require many to own a gun as part of their militia system. They also have a very high gun suicide rate, so their total gun violence rate is actually quite high.

Like you said, there will always be criminals and prohibition only empowers criminals. You REALLY think if you prevented law abiding citizens from arming themselves that that would stop criminals? Seriously? Really? Last I checked, guns are pretty prohibited in Mexico which bring me to my next point.....

Several nations with tightly regulated gun bans don't have this problem. Australia or the UK comes to mind. Recently, there was an article on Japan that showed gun murders are nearly nonexistent in that country. Empowering criminal is really an imaginary problem.

...No shit. Guns are not drugs. What I'm saying (and you seem to be intentionally or unintentionally ignoring) is that the drug war in the Americas is responsible for a HUGE portion of overall gun violence. From the gangs, to the robberies, to the addicts that go and murder some cash to get high...etc. My point was that simply if drugs were legalized you'd see a MUCH larger dent in violent crime than a prohibition on firearms.

I seriously doubt that. Maybe in Latin America maybe, but not here in the US. After all, huge numbers of gang related deaths are really thing of the past, and armed robberies make up only a small part of murders. Mostly, murders come from more mundane stuff, like disputes over property or money and crap like that. That comes from the census bureau which track these things.

In closing, have you ever held a gun? You should try it before you make assumptions and assume that because you hear about a few (relative to the amount of people that own guns in the States) tragedies on the news that that means all guns are bad and all guns lead to unlawful violence. You couldn't be more wrong on that. Gun owners aren't monsters. And gun laying on a floor isn't going to pick itself up and float around gunning people down. There are no gun accidents. There's only gun negligence.

I never had, and never intend to either. Does that disqualify me from ever speaking about guns? It doesn't matter if most gun owners never have used them for harm. I'm sure if you give every person in American a pipe bomb most will never try to kill with it. Doesn't mean you should give everyone a pipe bomb, or that pipe bomb ownership should become a right.

 

[Dude Abides]

Theft is a large part. You are also assuming that those guns weren't stolen or illegally possed in the first place.

No reason to assume they were. As for theft being a large part, do you have a source? And if so, why do so many gun owners have shitty family and friends who would not only steal a gun from them, but then use that gun to commit a crime? Seems like the gun community needs to be a bit more careful about who gets their hands on their weapons.

 

[Htown]

You can harp about "rights" and "2nd amendment" all you want, but it really is just an artifact of US culture. Moreover, the idea that gun ownership is a right was only upheld by 5-4 majority. A shift in the Supreme Court will change that dramatically.

Not how the Constitution works, bro.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

No reason to assume they were.

Why not?

As for theft being a large part, do you have a source?

Some old data from 1995 that discusses how criminals acquired their weapons. The numbers of people who had stolen guns at some point seemed greatly higher than the overall acquisition by theft number, which indicates that theft may have been from family members and simply not reported. Granted the data is more than 15 years old, so it's more a working theory. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

And if so, why do so many gun owners have shitty family and friends who would not only steal a gun from them, but then use that gun to commit a crime?

Drugs, poverty, psychological issues, same reason people have shitty family members. Regarding friends, the data doesn't indicate if the friend legally owned the gun in the first place and their is no category for theft of illegal gun.

Seems like the gun community needs to be a bit more careful about who gets their hands on their weapons.[/QUOTE]
Not when the source illegally had the gun to begin with.

 

[Pristine_Condition]

Forget knowing how the Constitution works, Htown...HyperionX apparently wants to rip the Constitution to shreds in the name of gun control.

I mean, random police checks on your home when you haven't even been accused of committing a crime?

Probably a visit from the police at your home, where you're required to show your guns you claim you own.

Fuck.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Probably a visit from the police at your home, where you're required to show your guns you claim you own.

You do know you're talking about the United States when suggesting that?

Barring the civil liberty side, do you have any idea how much that would cost...ignoring the fact that it would not be feasible or possible to accomplish.

 

[Htown]

Forget knowing how the Constitution works, Htown...HyperionX apparently wants to rip the Constitution to shreds in the name of gun control.

I mean, random police checks on your home when you haven't even been accused of committing a crime?



Fuck.

Haha.

So fuck the 2nd Amendment AND the 4th Amendment, apparently.

 

[Chumly]

LINK
From ATF investigations.

Firearms trafficked by straw purchaser or straw purchasing ring 46.3%
Trafficking in firearms by unlicensed sellers* 20.5%
Trafficking in firearms at gun shows and flea markets 13.9%
Trafficking in firearms stolen from FFL 13.7%
Trafficking in firearms stolen from residence 10.3%
Firearms trafficked by licensed dealer, including pawnbroker 8.7%
Street criminals buying and selling firearms from unknown sources** 6.2%
Trafficking in firearms stolen from common carrier 2.0%
Unlicensed manufacture of common firearms or NFA weapons 1.0%
Other sources (e.g. selling firearms over Internet, illegal pawning) 1.1%

Most of straw purchases are done by friends and family.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

LINK
From ATF investigations.


Most of straw purchases are done by friends and family.

Can you provide data not from The Brady Campaign? I mean is it that hard to go from the ATFs page?

ttp://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/facts/2000-atf-following.pdf

More importantly, you're wrong.

* Violations were observed but not necessarily presented as charges for prosecution.

So we saw this happen, but we didn't actually prosecute somewhere and have a court adjudicate it, but trust us it happened.

More so, that is NOT the percent of guns acquired by criminals. Just crimes investigated.

Learn to read the data correctly.

 

[Roland Garros]

You gun nuts are terrifying. When I'm in America next year, let me know where you are so I can avoid that city at all costs.

Let's hope your dinosaur mentality is breeded out within a few generations.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

You gun nuts are terrifying. When I'm in America next year, let me know where you are so I can avoid that city at all costs.

Let's hope your dinosaur mentality is breeded out within a few generations.

Excellent use of facts and data to reach your conclusion there.

 

[Chumly]

Can you provide data not from The Brady Campaign? I mean is it that hard to go from the ATFs page?

ttp://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/facts/2000-atf-following.pdf

More importantly, you're wrong.

So we saw this happen, but we didn't actually prosecute somewhere and have a court adjudicate it, but trust us it happened.

More so, that is NOT the percent of guns acquired by criminals. Just crimes investigated.

Learn to read the data correctly.

LINK

From what you gave us.

31% of guns that criminals got from family/friends were purchased, traded, borrowed or rented.

From ATF investigations.

Yes please learn to read.

 

[Htown]

You gun nuts are terrifying. When I'm in America next year, let me know where you are so I can avoid that city at all costs.

Let's hope your dinosaur mentality is breeded out within a few generations.

Wanna know the funny thing?

That's not even what it's about.

I don't own a gun, have never owned a gun, and don't have any plans to own a gun. So.. gun nut?

Nah.

Reach deeper for your ad hominem next time.

 

[Roland Garros]

Excellent use of facts and data to reach your conclusion there.

Don't need data to see you've been mercilessly brainwashed.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

LINK

From what you gave us.

31% of guns that criminals got from family/friends were purchased, traded, borrowed or rented.

Bought from a family member, traded with a family member, borrowed from a family member, rented from a family member.

That is NOT a straw purchase. Do you know the legal definition for a straw purchase

Yes please learn to read.

That retort doesn't work when you've been proven wrong.

 

[Chumly]

LINK

Corrupt dealers. Federally licensed firearms dealers were associated with the largest number of diverted guns (over 40,000), even though they were involved in less than 10 percent of the investigations. The violations included transfers to prohibited purchasers, failure to keep required records, making false entries in record books and conducting out-of-state transfers.


Gun shows. Gun shows involved the second highest number of diverted firearms (26,000). The investigations involved both licensed and unlicensed sellers. ATF found that the “access to anonymous sales and large numbers of secondhand firearms makes gun shows attractive to criminals.”


Straw purchasers. A “straw purchaser” is a person who buys firearms on behalf of a convicted felon, juvenile or other prohibited purchaser. ATF found that straw purchasing was the most common channel in trafficking investigations. Although the average number of firearms trafficked per straw purchase investigation was relatively small, nearly 26,000 firearms were associated with these investigations.


Unlicensed sellers. Unlicensed sellers (i.e., persons other than federally licensed dealers) were involved in about a fifth of the trafficking investigations and associated with nearly 23,000 diverted guns. Unlicensed sellers included those who knowingly sold firearms from their personal collection to criminals, as well as interstate gun runners who sold firearms to gangs and drug organizations.


Firearms theft. Firearms stolen from dealers, residences and common carriers were involved in over a quarter of the investigations and were associated with over 9,000 trafficked firearms.


The ATF report also found that gun traffickers play a critical role in violent crime. Over half of the investigations involved firearms known to have been involved in subsequent criminal investigations, including investigations of homicide, robbery and assault. Approximately 45 percent of the trafficking investigations involved convicted felons.

Yep no problems with gun laws around sales.

An investigation by The Washington Post explored gun trafficking and ATF’s limited ability to investigate and penalize firearms dealers who contribute to trafficking.10 According to the Washington Post, ATF’s efforts are significantly hindered by a lack of sufficient funding. The number of ATF agents – 2,500 – has not changed since 1972. During the same period of time, the staffs of other government agencies have increased dramatically (for example, the staff of the Drug Enforcement Agency more than tripled during the time period).11 As a result of inadequate staffing, ATF was able to inspect less than 10% of FFL’s in 200912 and, on average, dealers are inspected only once a decade.13 This is especially alarming given the fact that, as noted above, federally licensed firearms dealers are associated with the largest number of trafficked guns.14
Federal legislation has been introduced to further weaken ATF. Such legislation would, among other things, make it harder to prosecute, and weaken penalties for, gun sales law violations; ease dealer record reporting requirements; and raise the standard required for the revocation of a license from a licensed dealer who has violated the law.15 Conversely, ATF-strengthening legislation has been introduced that would authorize ATF to hire additional investigators and agents and would crack down on “high-risk” gun dealers, such as those who are linked to short TTC crime gun traces and/or have violated federal firearms laws in the past.16

Man if only congress wouldn't keep under funding ATF.......

 

[Vilix]

You do know you're talking about the United States when suggesting that?

Barring the civil liberty side, do you have any idea how much that would cost...ignoring the fact that it would not be feasible or possible to accomplish.

It does happen with class 3 license holders.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Interesting that so many criminals get their weapons from family and friends. Why are so many gun owners, who I'm led to understand are usually paragons of responsibility and civic-mindedness, giving or selling their guns to criminals?

Criminals steal shit. Film @ 11. I can't comment on the latter inquiry personally. I don't associate with scumbags, LMAO. Every friend I have I trust with my life and I know they'd never steal anything from me. Ever. ...probably why I only have 8 close friends, LMAO. But I will say one should forfeit all of their gun rights when they knowingly sell firearms to a criminal. Also, I know where I rest at that it's required by law to report any and all lost or stolen firearms to the police asap.

Probably a visit from the police at your home, where you're required to show your guns you claim you own.

Ignoring the fact that the police can't even serve a fucking warrant without kicking in a door and shooting a 90 year old woman in the head or a 8 year old girl or a marine that thought he was being robbed or a kid with a golf club....how do you suppose they logistically accomplish this in reality?

Gun rights is purely an American thing. Totally nonexistent in every other nation, including many westernized democracies. You can harp about "rights" and "2nd amendment" all you want, but it really is just an artifact of US culture. Moreover, the idea that gun ownership is a right was only upheld by 5-4 majority. A shift in the Supreme Court will change that dramatically.

The 2nd Amendment is a purely American thing. Regardless of the count, the vote was upheld. Obama's healthcare bill was "only" upheld by a 5-4 majority. Doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do.

You may not rob a store (baby killing is a pure strawman, very few criminals do that), but you probably did steal music, ran a stoplight, smoked marijuana, etc. You also probably got angry enough at someone or something to have thoughts of killing it at one point in your life. Just saying that line between criminal and most people is a blurry line, not a hard one. As a result, it's pretty hard to stop guns from getting into the hands of so-called criminals without restricting it for a lot of people. Remember, many of the recent shootings were from people without criminal records.

Once again, I'm *really* glad you're not in charge of this, LMAO. Do you have proof of this? Proof admissible in a court of law? No. Then I'm not guilty of shit. Hell, even posts in my history that I've admitted to things are admissible in any court in this land. Thankfully so, Christ. Criminal Records or not, once you pull the trigger on a target you're not allowed to you've crossed the line to being a criminal. Period.

Canada? They have a much lower gun ownership rate than the US. Same with Israel. Switzerland tightly regulates usage of ammunition, even though they require many to own a gun as part of their militia system. They also have a very high gun suicide rate, so their total gun violence rate is actually quite high.

So if they killed themselves by jumping out of buildings that'd be better? Stop focusing on the method and zero in on the reason.

Several nations with tightly regulated gun bans don't have this problem. Australia or the UK comes to mind. Recently, there was an article on Japan that showed gun murders are nearly nonexistent in that country. Empowering criminal is really an imaginary problem.

How's that knife crime in the UK going?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9024711/Knife-crime-rises-by-ten-per-cent.html

Criminals are going to criminal. The end. A gun, knife, gas and a match, some box cutters and a flight lesson in the hands of the wrong people can result in catastrophe.

I seriously doubt that. Maybe in Latin America maybe, but not here in the US. After all, huge numbers of gang related deaths are really thing of the past, and armed robberies make up only a small part of murders. Mostly, murders come from more mundane stuff, like disputes over property or money and crap like that. That comes from the census bureau which track these things.

Yea, you're probably right. We should contact the government and tell em to take this website down:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/vc_majorthefts/gangs

It's obviously based on incorrect data.

I never had, and never intend to either. Does that disqualify me from ever speaking about guns? It doesn't matter if most gun owners never have used them for harm. I'm sure if you give every person in American a pipe bomb most will never try to kill with it. Doesn't mean you should give everyone a pipe bomb, or that pipe bomb ownership should become a right.

No, I just think you should know what you're criticizing from all angles. Not just the "bad things are bad, ban all the bad things! The police should come in your home randomly to check that you're not lying about bad things!"

..and really? You're gonna straw-man this in the form of a pipe bomb? Because the two are completely analogous, right? Well, it's a good thing people don't use pipe bombs to hunt. Or use pipe bombs for home defense. Or use pimp bombs for target practice. Or collect pipe bombs because they like the history of them. I bet you'd say "But they could!" and my counter to that would be "But they DON'T." And until they do on such a scale then I'd go so far to say your comparison is intellectually dishonest and a pretty weak straw-man.

People aren't forced to own weapons in the US. And the people that don't own them and bitch they they have a right to not be around someone that does own them legally, doesn't. Period. Sure establishments can forbid open carry in their places of business (I think) but outside of that if you're at a gas station and someone with a legal carry is next to you and you don't like it: Tough. You can leave or get over it. You don't like your neighbor owning a gun? Tough. Unless he's threatening you he/she is breaking no laws.

People chose to own firearms legally do so because they have a right to and want to. I'm personally glad I have this right. It's very empowering to have the ability to defend myself if need be.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

"hp://smartgunlaws.org[/B]/trafficking-policy-summary/"]LINK

Nice try, is it impossible for you to like SnakeswithLasers use non-garbage data and conclusions from a biased group?

It does happen with class 3 license holders.

No, that's just an internet myth about owners of NFA regulated arms (not Class 3 licence holders). You don't need a class 3 licence to own an NFA weapon. There are no inspections.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

It does happen with class 3 license holders.

Um, yea...that's an FFL, LMAO. i.e. a gun dealer or gunsmith.

"The Class 3 License appertains to a small arms dealer who’s paid a tax named the “Special Occupational Tax” to conduct business with machine guns and various other military weapons or “National Firearms Act weapons” or NFA for short. This is the type of FFL License that most enthusiasts go after. I can’t blame them either, the class 3 FFL license allows it’s holders to do all of the fun stuff, mainly buying and selling fully auto weapons.

Machine guns, Noise suppressors, Snub Barrel Rifles, Shotguns, or Any Other Weapons are checked and assessed under the control of the national Firearms Act circa 1934 ( NFA ) as altered by Title II of the Gun Control Act ( GCA ) in 1968.

If you want to deal in NFA firearms, silencers or explosives you will need to get yourself a class 3 license."

http://nmt-inc.com/federalfirearmslicense/class-3-license/

 

[Godslay]

You gun nuts are terrifying. When I'm in America next year, let me know where you are so I can avoid that city at all costs.

Let's hope your dinosaur mentality is breeded out within a few generations.

So much hate. Gun owners are everywhere you go in the U.S., so good luck avoiding us.

 

[HyperionX]

You do know you're talking about the United States when suggesting that?

Barring the civil liberty side, do you have any idea how much that would cost...ignoring the fact that it would not be feasible or possible to accomplish.

That's actually exactly how other nations work. Including "gun nut" Switzerland. The government can show up at your door at anytime and demand you show your guns. Not clear what the "not serious" part is all about.

 

[Chumly]

Nice try, is it impossible for you to like SnakeswithLasers use non-garbage data and conclusions from a biased group?



No, that's just an internet myth about owners of NFA regulated arms (not Class 3 licence holders). You don't need a class 3 licence to own an NFA weapon. There are no inspections.

LINK

Under the law, investigators cannot reveal federal firearms tracing information that shows how often a dealer sells guns that end up seized in crimes. The law effectively shields retailers from lawsuits, academic study and public scrutiny. It also keeps the spotlight off the relationship between rogue gun dealers and the black market in firearms.

THIS STORY
Realco guns tied to 2,500 crimes in D.C. and Maryland
Industry pressure hides gun traces, protects dealers from public scrutiny
Live chat: The hidden life of guns, Monday 1 p.m.
Such information used to be available under a simple Freedom of Information Act request. But seven years ago, under pressure from the gun lobby, Congress blacked out the information by passing the so-called Tiahrt amendment, named for Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.). The law removed from the public record a government database that traces guns recovered in crimes back to the dealers.

During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama promised to repeal the Tiahrt restrictions on local police access to national trace data. When the administration passed its budget last year, it expanded police access but also tightened restrictions on public disclosure.

But nothing is wrong! People wonder why data is so hard to come by in recent years........

 

[HyperionX]

Not how the Constitution works, bro.

Only a 5-4 majority rule. It could change.

 

[Vilix]

No, that's just an internet myth about owners of NFA regulated arms (not Class 3 licence holders). You don't need a class 3 licence to own an NFA weapon. There are no inspections.

I didn't set up a trust to get my class 3. I was photographed, finger printed, and had to get the county sherriff to sign my Form 4 to get mine. The ATF agents which visited my home back in 04 and 06 were no myths.

 

[Delusibeta]

How's that knife crime in the UK going?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9024711/Knife-crime-rises-by-ten-per-cent.html

National police figures show the number of robberies involving knives rose from 13,971 in 2010 to 15,313 last year, despite the overall number of crimes recorded by police falling by four per cent to 4.1 million, figures showed today.

Robberies in general, including the theft of smartphones, bags and cash, rose by four per cent, with approximately half taking place in London.

The four per cent increase in robberies across England and Wales was driven by a 13 per cent rise in the Metropolitan Police area and a 10 per cent increase in the West Midlands.

But Greater Manchester Police, another of the biggest forces in the country, showed a 14 per cent fall in the number of robberies.

I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

That's actually exactly how other nations work. Including "gun nut" Switzerland. The government can show up at your door at anytime and demand you show your guns. Not clear what the "not serious" part is all about.

You don't get to do that in the United States. Hell the only reason it can be done with people on parole is because they waive rights for early release. If you have any knowledge of the US legal system, constitutional law, and civil liberties, you would know that what would suggested is something that people would question if you were being serious about.

I'm not sure what your point is.

Assuming they are finally reporting them correctly.

I didn't set up a trust to get my class 3. I was photographed and finger printed to get mine. The ATF agents which visited my home back in 04 and 06 were no myths.

Did you get a dealer, manufacturer or SOT licence?

The fingerprints and photo are nothing new, it's part of the app, same with the CLEO form...wait do you have a C&R too? That you can have inspections done, but they aren't random and done by appointment? There are also C&R machineguns too.

What did you get and which state? Something is amiss here.

But nothing is wrong! People wonder why data is so hard to come by in recent years........

Don't get upset just because you lack the facts to support your conclusions. The article makes a claim with no facts to support it.