Is the violence more about mental health and less about gun control?

KingGorilla wrote:

Colt, who got the Contract with the US Military on the M16 was only able to make the gun and sell it to the army because it could do so in large numbers, millions.

Why wouldn't police departments have access to the same suppliers as the U.S. military? At a minimum, police departments could buy weapons from overseas vendors, like they already do.

OG_slinger wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

These AKs are functionally no different from all the other semi-auto rifles manufactured and sold in the US.

And yet they'll still be snapped up by the gun crowd for the sole reason they look like AKs...

And? Whether an AK or any other semi-auto?

OG_slinger wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

And whether at gun stores or gun shows, these new AKs are sold by FFL dealers who have to follow the same laws regardless of location. I mean, we spent most of this page discussing that.

And we've also talked about how there are numerous loopholes, purposely convoluted rules, and toothless laws that make it very easy for the wrong people to buy guns. So which is it? The system functions perfectly and robust laws and strict regulation keeps guns out of the hands of baddies? Or that anyone with $200 and the time to fill out some paperwork can become an FFL and they can sell unlimited numbers of weapons to people they know are shady with the full confidence the underfunded ATF will never have the resources to figure out where those guns were going and, even if they do, that the NRA will have their back.

Fortune just wrote an investigative piece about Fast and Furious that found the exact opposite of what the pro-gun crowd has been screaming about. Importantly, the US Attorney's office refused to indict any of the suspects because they felt there was a lack of probable cause. This was after the ATF had manually tracked all the gun purchases (manually, because the NRA has gotten Congress to specifically forbid a database of gun purchases) and found that 20 people had purchased more than 650 guns for $350,000 in cash. The most was one guy bought 20 guns in one day for $20,000.

Where's the common sense that those weapons aren't going to be used for home defense or hunting. They're going straight into the hands of criminals. That was shown by Fast and Furious and by theWashington Post expose two years ago about DC and Maryland gun dealers.

I'm not sure which loopholes you're referring to here. I was talking earlier about the "gun show loophole" being made up. And the BATF's website indicates that the process of becoming an FFL is a bit more involved than you describe.

I mention FFLs because they are the ones required to do the background checks everyone insists are so important, even at gun shows. Now straw purchases, they are a problem. And that goes back to what I talked about before with the guns shows: private sales. Straw purchases are illegal, but how do you prove it was a straw purchase?

I was interested to see that the Forbes article was updated. The original version of it I read said there was no law against trafficking firearms out of the US. I'm glad to see that they fixed it, though I wish there was more information centered on the actual smuggling.

With all that said, neither the theater shooting in Colorado or the shooting at the Sikh temple involved any of the things we've been talking about (bringing the discussion back to the thread topic). All the guns were purchased legally, by the shooters and not straw purchasers, from gun stores, not gun shows, through FFLs and with the background checks. The VT University shooter likewise bought his guns with background checks, he even waited the required month between purchases. The Tucson killer who shot Rep. Giffords also bought his own gun, at a gun store not a gun show or private transaction.

I'm in this discussion because I want to talk about what will stop these from happening, not just passing laws that make people feel safe but don't actually help the problem. I've only posted here to correct what I feel are misconceptions or misunderstandings.

KingGorilla wrote:

Well, unlicensed vendors can and do sell their wares at gun shows. In states with stricter gun laws, they still get around by catering in collectables.

The unlicensed vendor factor is what most people discuss as a loophole in the news, to be sure. Which makes for a nice shock piece. But dealing in stolen or illegally modified guns goes well beyond licensing.

In my (purely anecdotal) experience, there aren't many private sellers paying for booths at gun shows. Unless they sell in bulk, time time and expense (booth fees) involved don't make it practical to sell just a couple guns. If they're selling in bulk, it's generally because they're selling off some of their personal collection for financial needs, or they're selling a collection they inherited. They can't do so often or they'll run afoul of the BATF:

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/curi...

The term “engaged in the business,” as applicable to a firearms dealer, is defined as a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.

I'm not sure if by collectibles you mean "curios & relics" or "antiques". The latter is defined as matchlocks, flintlocks, and percussion caps manufactured before 1898 and they are not subject to the federal gun control act of 1968. The former has a special collector's license you can get to simplify interstate transactions, however the collector's license does not grant the ability to sell on a regular basis. That would still require an FFL if it meets the "engaged in the business" definition above.

Funkenpants wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Colt, who got the Contract with the US Military on the M16 was only able to make the gun and sell it to the army because it could do so in large numbers, millions.

Why wouldn't police departments have access to the same suppliers as the U.S. military? At a minimum, police departments could buy weapons from overseas vendors, like they already do.

A Military contract is a very lucrative but consuming one. Even our foreign partners-Glock, H&K have major contracts with the US military, NATO, the UN. And these are strict contracts for supply, parts, repair, etc.

To release to the police would mean a separate contract, investing in separate manufacturing, separate orders on a very small scale compared to military or to making public guns. And that can in no way impede on the military contract or civilian arms, the bread and butter of arms manufacturing. In order to justify opening arms up to civilians, which the police are a part of keep in mind, there needs to be enough potential customers for that to make sense. That means also that they need to make arms in sufficient quantities that the price is workable to the audience. When it comes to pistols and shotguns that is pretty simple.

When it comes to arms previously illegal for civilians-Sub Machine Guns, Assault Rifles, diverting supply from the military is not an option. If it means diverting resources away from the manufacture of legal civilian arms-pistols, shotguns, hunting rifles, that makes small business sense. If it means making new manufacturing and new supply, you need to make sure you have customers. Now if we are talking about selling to police only, you need to find a way in one of these scenarios to eek out a few thousand weapons. Open that up to the greater population, it starts making more sense. It comes down to do you cannibalize existing manufacturing or invest in new.

Now what used to happen was police would buy up military surplus. About 10 years ago many police began snapping up M16 rifles as the Army and Marines moved to the M4. That still means that the police are working with 30-40 year old hardware, not ideal.

KingGorilla wrote:

A Military contract is a very lucrative but consuming one. Even our foreign partners-Glock, H&K have major contracts with the US military, NATO, the UN. And these are strict contracts for supply, parts, repair, etc.

To release to the police would mean a separate contract, investing in separate manufacturing, separate orders on a very small scale compared to military or to making public guns.

Defense companies frequently take small orders from other countries and paramilitary/parapublic entities. They don't need a separate assembly line to make the same product for a foreign or civil customer.

KingGorilla wrote:

I am not one of those people calling for a return to 80's or 90's level gun bans. Those did more harm than good for a major reason. No civilian market for certain classes of weapons means Police cannot get access to them. Colt, who got the Contract with the US Military on the M16 was only able to make the gun and sell it to the army because it could do so in large numbers, millions. A Police department cannot order millions of rifles, and with no civilian market a company like Colt can only justify manufacturing to their one client- the Military. This put our police at a disadvantage with many criminals, look of the LA Bank of America shoot-out. I want a civilian market for assault rifles, because it keeps them in the hands of SWAT teams and get them in the trunks of police officers. Drum clips, and extended Glock clips we can discuss.

There wasn't any civilian ban that put the police at a disadvantage in the North Hollywood shoot-out. The LAPD just didn't think patrol officers needed rifles, semi-auto or otherwise. SWAT had them and used them, once they arrived. SWAT teams have full-auto weapons, despite there being no civilian market for them (even civilians with ATF approval to own machine guns can only own automatic weapons manufactured before May 19, 1986).

KingGorilla wrote:

Well, unlicensed vendors can and do sell their wares at gun shows. In states with stricter gun laws, they still get around by catering in collectables.

The unlicensed vendor factor is what most people discuss as a loophole in the news, to be sure. Which makes for a nice shock piece. But dealing in stolen or illegally modified guns goes well beyond licensing.

All sides of this debate, so far as the talking heads, are largely wrong. They deal in lies, ghost stories, and faulty logic. The same can be said for how we approach terrorism, drugs, etc. But data and experts use big words, require thinking, that makes things iffy.

I've been to dozens of gun shows and trapping conventions. There's a hole lot of sh*t that goes on that skirts the law. I don't know if it's still happening but I remember guys selling the AK's that are semi-auto two tables down from a guy that sells extended magazines and the kits to make them fully auto. If I remember correctly, the loophole was that possessing a fully automatic rifle is illegal but selling the kit is not. I don't know if that's still true.

On a side note, my son's troop volunteers to help out the dealers at the local show here at the state fairgrounds. There's a lot of by the book guys but there's also a fair number of "dealers" that are extremely shady. I can't tell you the number of "dealers" I've had to confront over years for selling huge, think K-Bar, knives to 12 year olds despite NYS law saying you need to be 18. I'm usually met with some guy who's belief is that the law is "stupid" and "intrusive".

Quintin_Stone wrote:

I'm not sure which loopholes you're referring to here. I was talking earlier about the "gun show loophole" being made up.

And I didn't buy your story on it not being a loophole. If firearms can be sold outside the established regulatory system then it's a gigantic loophole. You might claim that it's some fine distinction in the law, but the reality is it means massive amounts of firearms can change hands without any oversight. And since the entire system was supposedly set up to prevent such things from happening, it's a loophole.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

And the BATF's website indicates that the process of becoming an FFL is a bit more involved than you describe.

Not really. What steps did I miss? Fingerprints, an electronic background check, and having an overworked AFT agent ask you a couple of questions. In 60 days you can sell firearms. That's way too easy and only paying $200 ($90 to renew) to get your license is an absolute joke. That's also why we have some 100,000 FFLs in the country. And, because the NRA successfully lobbies Congress to starve the ATF of resources, all those FFLs can go years without ever having an AFT agent audit their business.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

I mention FFLs because they are the ones required to do the background checks everyone insists are so important, even at gun shows. Now straw purchases, they are a problem. And that goes back to what I talked about before with the guns shows: private sales. Straw purchases are illegal, but how do you prove it was a straw purchase?

You prove it by requiring a central database of all firearm purchases. That would make straw purchasers blindingly obvious because they'd be the ones buying multiple guns from multiple gun stores over short amounts of time.

A central firearm database would provide the ATF or local LEO with a very short list of people to check out and, if they didn't couldn't produce the weapons, they get slapped with a straw purchase charge or failing to report a lost or stolen firearm or whatever toothless law might be on the books. Either way, society's in better shape because fewer guns are going to criminals.

But, sadly, we can't have that database because someone's afraid of black UN helicopters...

Private sales can be addressed by requiring every firearm transaction to go through an FFL (and be entered into the database).

Quintin_Stone wrote:

With all that said, neither the theater shooting in Colorado or the shooting at the Sikh temple involved any of the things we've been talking about (bringing the discussion back to the thread topic). All the guns were purchased legally, by the shooters and not straw purchasers, from gun stores, not gun shows, through FFLs and with the background checks. The VT University shooter likewise bought his guns with background checks, he even waited the required month between purchases. The Tucson killer who shot Rep. Giffords also bought his own gun, at a gun store not a gun show or private transaction.

I'm not sure you get where I'm coming from. I don't care if all those people purchased their firearms legally because the system is so broken. It has one purpose--keep firearms out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them--and it fails spectacularly at that. What's the point of having a system that dots every 'i' and crosses every 't' to make a firearm purchase legal, but sells it to someone who is mentally unbalanced or someone who is just going to hand it over to a criminal?

Mentally unbalanced people shouldn't be able to get firearms. They should be screened out by requiring a doctor to examine each person that wants to buy a firearm. We shouldn't be relying on incomplete or non-existent health records. That would help tremendously with all the idiot lone gunman as well as the thousands and thousands of people who commit suicide with firearms every year.

Criminals shouldn't be able to exploit procedural loopholes and a willful blindness in the system that allows them to essentially buy their weapons wholesale from FFLs. That guy who's buying five, ten, or twenty cheap handguns with cash isn't going hunting nor is he a collector. It's obvious as the nose your face where those weapons are going.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

I'm in this discussion because I want to talk about what will stop these from happening, not just passing laws that make people feel safe but don't actually help the problem. I've only posted here to correct what I feel are misconceptions or misunderstandings.

The problem is the system itself. It's broken. And it's broken because the pro-gun crowd designed it that way. Pro-gun advocates seem happy to see the world burn just so long as nothing gets in the way of their ability to buy whatever firearm they want.

OG_slinger wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

I'm not sure which loopholes you're referring to here. I was talking earlier about the "gun show loophole" being made up.

And I didn't buy your story on it not being a loophole. If firearms can be sold outside the established regulatory system then it's a gigantic loophole. You might claim that it's some fine distinction in the law, but the reality is it means massive amounts of firearms can change hands without any oversight. And since the entire system was supposedly set up to prevent such things from happening, it's a loophole.

Loophole is a scare word. It's used to frighten people by making it sound like some unintentional gap in the law is being used by criminals to thumb their noses at the US government. It's bullsh*t and does not exist here. Before the Gun Control Act of 1968 there were no FFLs. ALL sales were private sales. The biggest goddamn loophole in the history of loopholes, apparently!

The GCA created the FFL system and the laws regulating how FFLs can operate and was never purported to be a way to regulate all sales. You can't pretend it was an oversight or unintentional. It was not. Repeatedly saying "loophole loophole loophole" is no different from FoxNews scare quote bullsh*t. For f*ck's sake, talk about the problem with private sales but stop pretending it's some kind of loophole. Every single thing you don't like you call a loophole and it's ridiculous.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Loophole is a scare word. It's used to frighten people by making it sound like some unintentional gap in the law is being used by criminals to thumb their noses at the US government. It's bullsh*t and does not exist here. Before the Gun Control Act of 1968 there were no FFLs. ALL sales were private sales. The biggest goddamn loophole in the history of loopholes, apparently!

The GCA created the FFL system and the laws regulating how FFLs can operate and was never purported to be a way to regulate all sales. You can't pretend it was an oversight or unintentional. It was not. Repeatedly saying "loophole loophole loophole" is no different from FoxNews scare quote bullsh*t. For f*ck's sake, talk about the problem with private sales but stop pretending it's some kind of loophole. Every single thing you don't like you call a loophole and it's ridiculous.

I'll make a deal with you. I'll stop saying "scare words" like loopholes when the pro-gun crowd stops doing the same. Tracking firearm purchases isn't government tyranny or the first phase in bringing the One World Government to life nor is reasonable regulation of firearms the boot of government thugs on your neck.

OG_slinger wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

I mention FFLs because they are the ones required to do the background checks everyone insists are so important, even at gun shows. Now straw purchases, they are a problem. And that goes back to what I talked about before with the guns shows: private sales. Straw purchases are illegal, but how do you prove it was a straw purchase?

You prove it by requiring a central database of all firearm purchases. That would make straw purchasers blindingly obvious because they'd be the ones buying multiple guns from multiple gun stores over short amounts of time.

A central firearm database would provide the ATF or local LEO with a very short list of people to check out and, if they didn't couldn't produce the weapons, they get slapped with a straw purchase charge or failing to report a lost or stolen firearm or whatever toothless law might be on the books. Either way, society's in better shape because fewer guns are going to criminals.

But, sadly, we can't have that database because someone's afraid of black UN helicopters...

Private sales can be addressed by requiring every firearm transaction to go through an FFL (and be entered into the database).

The ATF already knows who is buying multiple weapons in short amounts of time. Are you not aware that FFLs have to report multiple purchases to the ATF? Or that, though the ATF is currently not allowed to keep a database, the NICS audit log records are kept for 6 months for FBI review? Even funneling all private sales through the instant check system wouldn't require a full registry or database, since the problem with straw purchasers is that they turn around and sell the weapons to people who wouldn't pass a background check to begin with.

OG_slinger wrote:

I'll make a deal with you. I'll stop saying "scare words" like loopholes when the pro-gun crowd stops doing the same. Tracking firearm purchases isn't government tyranny or the first phase in bringing the One World Government to life nor is reasonable regulation of firearms the boot of government thugs on your neck.

Oh, I see. The "they're doing so it's okay if I do it" defense.

Classy.

So, it's not a loophole, it's a blind spot?

Well, that's much better.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

The ATF already knows who is buying multiple weapons in short amounts of time. Are you not aware that FFLs have to report multiple purchases to the ATF? Or that, though the ATF is currently not allowed to keep a database, the NICS audit log records are kept for 6 months for FBI review? Even funneling all private sales through the instant check system wouldn't require a full registry or database, since the problem with straw purchasers is that they turn around and sell the weapons to people who wouldn't pass a background check to begin with.

Are you seriously trying to say that just because FFLs have to mail, fax, or email some 14.5 million completed 3310.4 forms each year to the ATF that the ATF has that information in a timely and useful format? I'm sure the ATF is so well funded that it can handle those 40,000 forms a day and there's absolutely no backlog.

Even assuming that's true (which it's not), if you were really serious about preventing straw purchases you'd still need a database of every firearms purchase to clamp down on straw purchasers because they can exploit--you might want to hug a teddy bear here because I'm going to use a scary word--a loophole in how the system is set up.

See straw purchasers are smart enough not to buy all their guns at one store because that requires a Form 3310.4. Instead, they just purchase twenty firearms from twenty different gun stores or buy one gun every six days from the same gun store. Either way, the ATF doesn't know who's buying multiple weapons in a short amount of time because that Form 4473 is locked up at all those gun stores instead of in a central database.

If you had bothered to read the Fortune article I linked to, you would have read how the ATF agents in Operation Fast and Furious had to spend all their time physically visiting gun stores to get that information.

Without a real-time database of gun sales, they had to perform a laborious archaeology. Day after day, they visited local gun dealers and pored over forms called 4473s, which dealers must keep on file. These contain a buyer's personal information, a record of purchased guns and their serial numbers, and a certification that the buyer is purchasing the guns for himself. (Lying on the forms is a felony, but with weak penalties attached.) The ATF agents manually entered these serial numbers into a database of suspect guns to help them build a picture of past purchases.

And why does all my taxpayer money have to wasted on that effort? Because the pro-gun crowd is absolutely convinced that the government will use that information to target gun owners when the race war, next revolution, One World Government, insert your tinfoil hat conspiracy theory here comes.

But if that information was in a database, not NICS audit logs that still have to be trawled through, it could instantly ping ATF agents that someone was doing something funky, like buying a single firearm from multiple stores, and swoop in to at least question them about why they are doing something so fishy.

There is no legitimate reason as to why the agency charged with managing firearms doesn't have detailed and real-time information available about firearms in America. At least there's no reason that doesn't involve a sh*tload of paranoia on the part of gun owners. Seriously. Tell me why a database of firearm owners is a horrible idea (one that doesn't involve paranoia). I mean Walmart has more detailed and instantly available information about where a case of toilet paper is in its supply chain than the ATF has about where firearms are.

And I don't just want private sales through the background check, I want the transfer of ownership recorded in that sadly non-existent central database. That's because to understand the problem of straw purchases or illegal transfers you need data and you need paper trails. Requiring ownership transfers on guns, much like we require for cars, law enforcement will be able to track and analyze how legal firearms become illegal firearms (and likely identify the people who are breaking the law).

I seriously can't understand how the pro-gun crowd can say it supports law enforcement when it wants to purposely keep them ignorant about who purchases firearms or make it so difficult to do their job that it rarely happens.

That's why I say the pro-gun crowd *is* the problem. Your opening comment is a perfect example. Your claim that the ATF already knows who's buying multiple firearms is, at best, technically true. It's technically true only because the information is located in a mountain of paper at the end of some ATF fax machine, but it certainly isn't in useful form. Nor does account for straw purchasers who have an IQ higher than a rock and who know how to skirt the law (loophole). But you still get to dismiss my legitimate issue by pointing to Form 3310.4 and saying that because the letter of the law is met so is the spirit of the law.

But that's how we end up with mentally disturbed people "legally" buying firearms and criminals getting a steady stream of firearms from straw purchasers who only made "legal" purchases.

Bear wrote:

I think we need an amendment 2a that states: the right of the people to not be shot in the face by gun toting fruitcakes shall not be infringed.

Sadly we've had people on this forum say that their right to own guns--even they were just used for entertainment purposes--trumped everyone else's right not to be killed by said guns.

I'm really confused by the entire gun control debate and how it continues in this endless loop despite an ever growing number of innocent people being killed and a nominal number of "self defense" rebuttals. Almost monthly some nut case freaks out and shoots up a public place and we keep getting the same NRA talking points, the same points I've been hearing back when I personally owned a dozen guns. I thought they were stupid then, they're even more idiotic now.

I think we need an amendment 2a that states: the right of the people to not be shot in the face by gun toting fruitcakes shall not be infringed.

Better yet, let's go the Tea Party route and follow the rule as set forth by our forefathers. Enjoy your right to own a musket because I'm pretty sure Jefferson wouldn't have wanted to live in a society where any random asshole can get his hands on an assault weapon.

Damn double post.

OG_slinger wrote:
Bear wrote:

I think we need an amendment 2a that states: the right of the people to not be shot in the face by gun toting fruitcakes shall not be infringed.

Sadly we've had people on this forum say that their right to own guns--even they were just used for entertainment purposes--trumped everyone else's right not to be killed by said guns.

I dont see how your database you keep harping about will help. It's already been pointed out that those that want to do others harm will still be able to do so. Legally. Nothing that's been discussed in this thread stops that. Nothing.

If it meant or there was proof that reporting the guns we have would actually matter or help you may find more people agreeing with you. The rest is just annoying paper work and political bullsh*t slung by both sides.

ranalin wrote:

I dont see how your database you keep harping about will help. It's already been pointed out that those that want to do others harm will still be able to do so. Legally. Nothing that's been discussed in this thread stops that. Nothing.

If it meant or there was proof that reporting the guns we have would actually matter or help you may find more people agreeing with you. The rest is just annoying paper work and political bullsh*t slung by both sides.

What the hell proof do you want? The Washington Post article I linked to earlier (and that we discussed years ago) and the Fortune article about Fast and Furious showed that criminals are most definitely getting their guns from FFLs.

Having a database will allow the AFT to instantly see if people are trying to skirt existing laws by spreading firearms purchases out over multiple gun stores or pacing their purchases so that no laws are technically violated (like buying two firearms from the same FFL within five days). A simple database query will spit out the people who need a second look because they are acting like straw purchasers. Going after likely straw purchasers will reduce the number of firearms getting to criminals.

And it wouldn't even increase the paperwork. It would likely decrease it. FFLs already have to fill out and store 4437s. All we're talking about is making them enter the information into a database instead of keeping that information locked in paper forms that are only stored on site.

Will it solve every problem? No. But I never claimed that.

Besides that, it will provide the AFT with actual data about firearm purchases which can be further analyzed to determine trends or otherwise be used to inform policy making.

OG_slinger wrote:

Sadly we've had people on this forum say that their right to own guns--even they were just used for entertainment purposes--trumped everyone else's right not to be killed by said guns.

I really don't understand how gun owners can say that anymore. You'd think that all of the responsible gun owners would be screaming for better control. I'm not some far left tree hugging liberal. I loved by Mossberg 500, my Remington 1100, my Remington .243, Winchester 30-30. etc. For a few years I was the king of woodchuck termination!

I'm just astounded at the idiocy of this debate. I grew up in the shadow of Remington Arms in Ilion, NY. My best friend's father was the plant manager at Remington Arms but how we got here I have no idea but I know it's insanity............

Maybe every gun owner should be required to explain to someone whose lost a loved one to senseless gun violence why their rights trumps theirs.

ranalin wrote:

I dont see how your database you keep harping about will help. It's already been pointed out that those that want to do others harm will still be able to do so. Legally. Nothing that's been discussed in this thread stops that. Nothing.

If it meant or there was proof that reporting the guns we have would actually matter or help you may find more people agreeing with you. The rest is just annoying paper work and political bullsh*t slung by both sides.

You're probably right about this Ranalin and I think the honest truth is that unless we're willing to move to a society where there are no guns then innocent people will continue to die.

I guess that's the ultimate statement of where we are as a society and as a species.

Bear wrote:

Maybe every gun owner should be required to explain to someone whose lost a loved one to senseless gun violence why their rights trumps theirs.

What guilt do I bear in their deaths? Why should I apologize when I've done nothing wrong?

EDIT:

Bear wrote:
ranalin wrote:

I dont see how your database you keep harping about will help. It's already been pointed out that those that want to do others harm will still be able to do so. Legally. Nothing that's been discussed in this thread stops that. Nothing.

If it meant or there was proof that reporting the guns we have would actually matter or help you may find more people agreeing with you. The rest is just annoying paper work and political bullsh*t slung by both sides.

You're probably right about this Ranalin and I think the honest truth is that unless we're willing to move to a society where there are no guns then innocent people will continue to die.

I guess that's the ultimate statement of where we are as a society and as a species.

People will continue to kill people. Nothing can change that.

The awareness that's being brought to this issue is good. We should be discussing ways in which we can improve our society and having an honest, open, adult conversation about how and when the crazies are getting guns is a great one to have.

Unfortunately, we're just not there as a society. We can't even agree that science is a thing we should be teaching, for example.

So, I'm watching a Simpsons rerun, and, literally, as I clicked out of this thread, an ad for a local gunshow aired. They offered CC classes "before the election," which I'd say is as dog whistley as you can get.

So, maybe The Industry could do more to not market directly to the crazies.

OG_slinger wrote:

Will it solve every problem? No. But I never claimed that.

There's nothing in those arguments or in the links that would've prevented the recent spree of shootings. Those were all done with legally obtained weapons. No criminals involved until the actual crime itself. It seems this whole argument flares up when a big shooting happens in suburbia, but nothing could have stopped these.

Yet when it's ghettos and side alleys where the killings occur no one seems to care. (that last is directed at politicians... not anyone here) I'm just not a fan of any policy that gets dictated by the f*ck ups of the few.

ranalin wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

Will it solve every problem? No. But I never claimed that.

There's nothing in those arguments or in the links that would've prevented the recent spree of shootings. Those were all done with legally obtained weapons. No criminals involved until the actual crime itself. It seems this whole argument flares up when a big shooting happens in suburbia, but nothing could have stopped these.

We can all use our Magic 8-Balls to speculate on how things might have happened, but I do think under the database OG and others advocate, buying 6000 rounds of ammo might have raised a flag or two.

The CO Governor claimed that if he hadn't had guns, he'd have made a bomb, subtly it seemed to me invoking the OK City Bombing. Alas, if he'd tried to buy the sorts of chemicals that went into that bomb, he'd have found he couldn't buy them in the low volumes a bomb takes without catching some notice.

ranalin wrote:

There's nothing in those arguments or in the links that would've prevented the recent spree of shootings. Those were all done with legally obtained weapons. No criminals involved until the actual crime itself. It seems this whole argument flares up when a big shooting happens in suburbia, but nothing could have stopped these.

Yet when it's ghettos and side alleys where the killings occur no one seems to care. (that last is directed at politicians... not anyone here) I'm just not a fan of any policy that gets dictated by the f*ck ups of the few.

Those arguments weren't about mass shootings. They were about stopping criminals from buying the weapons they use through the existing FFL system by simply using a proxy. I apologize if that wasn't clear, but the mass shooting are only a small part of the problem with easy access to firearms and the discussion has bounced all over the place.

If you want to decrease the number of mass shootings by mentally unhinged people, then you make rigorous mental health screenings part of the process of purchasing a firearm. This was discussed earlier in the thread and found to be a reasonable solution by others.

The upside of those screenings would be that a good portion of the 15,000+ people that commit suicide using firearms might get the help they need instead of simply killing themselves.

I care deeply about the ghettos and the side alley killings as well as the hundreds of thousands of victims of crimes that involved a firearm. That's why I talked about tracking who buys firearms and eliminating the loophole of untracked private sales. That's because a great deal of the firearms used in crimes come from the FFL system which are then are diverted at some point.

Currently we can't tell who's buying those weapons or where they are going. And that's because the pro-gun crowd doesn't want that information known. Not only that, they actively restrict the collection that data by the ATF. That would be like Congress banning the Bureau of Labor Statistics from collecting information about the economy.

Information about who is buying firearms (both FFL and private sales) is essential for law enforcement and for making informed policy decisions.

Reaper81 wrote:

What guilt do I bear in their deaths? Why should I apologize when I've done nothing wrong?

I never said you should apologize, I said you should explain why the right to own a gun is more important that someone else's right to live since we clearly can't control gun access.

Reaper81 wrote:

People will continue to kill people. Nothing can change that.

The awareness that's being brought to this issue is good. We should be discussing ways in which we can improve our society and having an honest, open, adult conversation about how and when the crazies are getting guns is a great one to have.

Unfortunately, we're just not there as a society. We can't even agree that science is a thing we should be teaching, for example.

You're correct, people will continue to kill each other but it's a hell of a lot harder to kill 12 people with a machete than it is with a Glock.

I don't want to strip gun rights but something has to be done to further prevent these mass shootings. They're becoming far to common.

We can't bear. Or we don't want to seriously look into that solution.

Here is an example. Everyone remember how the 90's was also the decade of the police chase? Police chases largely do far more harm than good. Hot pursuit chases caused huge property damage, led to many collateral injuries and deaths. And police departments began to lose some serious lawsuits. Our fine fraternities of sheriffs and police chiefs conducted a study, legislators passed laws. As new techniques and policies came into place and practice, those numbers went down fast. We are talking decreased road deaths thanks to the 55 mpp speed limit fast. To this day we still have officers and smaller departments clinging that 100 MPH pursuits through cities are best.

Asking how you stop deranged murderers is pointless. Supposedly the purpose of NATO and the UN is to prevent genocides and the rise of dictators, Lets take a poll in Africa or Serbia to talk about their track record on that. The league of nations was formed to prevent another large scale global war, didn't happen.

You want to know what I think we can tackle? The abyssmal national record of unsolved homicide in the US. We are talking under over 75% of murders in places like Chicago or New York going unsolved. If you know you have a good chance of getting away with murder, what stops you? If you know 2-3 people who literally got away with murder, what stops you? You shoot someone dead on the south side, your odds of winning a hand of black jack are better than your chance of being convicted of that murder.

How do we prevent murder? I am wondering more about what we are doing with the murder we already have.

KingGorilla wrote:

How do we prevent murder? I am wondering more about what we are doing with the murder we already have.

Considering that 68% of all murders in 2010 involved firearms it might make sense to start with them...

And how? Real world, researched backed, and how? I have uttered this before. Our gun laws are as open as they have been in the past 60+ years, and our crimed rates are at their lowest in the past 60+ years. We have lifted a near century old ban on automatic weapons and the rates still fell the last 10 years. Our clearance rates on homicides have gone from 90% to under 65%, but the overall crime rate is still going down, the overall homicide rate is still going down. How do you do it constitutionally, how do you do it affordably, how do you do it practically? By all of the experts of that era, the US should be like a Mad Max movie right now, but we aren't.

Assault rifles, body armor, drum magazines, extended clips were illegal in the 90's, didn't keep those out of the hands of bank robbers and gangs. The 18th amendment kept the US dry, right?

We are a large nation with unsecure borders, borders that are nigh impossible to secure. We are not an island, we are not protected by mountains, or by desert. Our constitution as it stands currently forbids public surveilance by the police (we are just now getting speeding cameras to pass constitutional muster). We still cannot get large segments of the US working on the FBI reporting system.

Licensing to buy or sell a gun from the ATF is a great idea. I love that idea. I have no damn clue how to fund that idea. Third party insulated gun purchases are simpler, roll it into existing felony statutes akin to our accomplice or get away driver laws. Opening store owners, convention vendors to civil liability would go far, along the lines of bar owners and liquor stores when it comes to drunk driving. They have a responsibility when it comes to what happens when their customers use their product. I beg of you to tell me how we can get a MADD or SADD level campaign and lobby to combat the NRA lobby.