US gun law reforms

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Plumbnut

Well at least you agree more effective background checks would help stop some gun crimes. Its a stretch to say people will use other more deadly weapons because of more effective background checks.

I don't think that's any stretch at all. If a person wants to kill other people, he/she will use whatever tool(s) available. If he/she can't buy a gun, he/she will build a bomb, use a knife or an axe or a machete, or drive a car into a crowd of people on a sidewalk.

There was a recent case of a guy of middle eastern ethnicity (living in Arizona, I believe) who thought his daughter was becoming too westernized. She actually had a (gasp!) boyfriend. So he followed her and the boyfriend's mother one day when they went shopping, and ran them down with his car. He was captured after he fled to Mexico and was trying to fly back to his native country.

The fact he didn't have a gun -- regardless of the reason -- didn't help his daughter or the boyfriend's mother. You are buying into the anti-gunners' mantra of demonizing the tool so they can avoid addressing the actual problem, which is dealing with people who want to kill other people.

[manta49]

However, unless they can be proven to be a deterrent to crime, I don't see any reason to support them. They represent unnecessary meddling.

If someone wants a firearm enough they can get one illegally. But that would be illegal and there would be a penalty if they were caught. I think there is a difference if someone illegally obtained a firearm and governments not putting systems in place to stop individuals that shouldn't have a firearm getting one legally. They have checks here and the thought of some individuals here legally being able to get firearms with no checks sends shivers down my back.

[tyme]

http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/11/wh...et-their-guns/

Look at those stats, from a poll of convicts, who know where they got their guns better than anyone else.

If you don't believe convicts themselves, try this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ocon/guns.html

It's from PBS, but think about what it's saying... criminals get their guns primarily from a few sources:

Straw sales (with the gun dealer unaware that it's a straw purchase). There's no way to prevent that, if the criminal has a friend who has a clean record.

Shady dealings by FFLs. Again, background checks have no effect, because FFLs are already required to conduct background checks (or equivalent) prior to transfers.

Other methods of acquiring firearms include obtaining them from friends, or stealing them.

In that liberal (PBS) reporting of an ATF-sponsored report, there is not a single mention of private transfers, as in unsuspecting upstanding citizens selling to criminals.

Personally, I've never sold any firearms privately, but if I did I'd ask the buyer to bring one or two other guns, to demonstrate that they were able to acquire guns before, and that I'm not selling to someone who is desperate for a single gun with which to commit a crime. It seems like a good proxy for a background check to me. It avoids the hassle of a background check, and if the buyer ended up committing a crime with gun I sold him or her, at least I have the peace of mind that the buyer had other guns they could have committed the crime with, making my karmic (not legal) responsibility essentially nil.

[jnichols2]

Originally posted by manta49

If someone wants a firearm enough they can get one illegally. But that would be illegal and there would be a penalty if they were caught. I think there is a difference if someone illegally obtained a firearm and governments not putting systems in place to stop individuals that shouldn't have a firearm getting one legally. They have checks here and the thought of some individuals here legally being able to get firearms with no checks sends shivers down my back.

What you say is true. But I could also apply the statement to: having children, being a teacher, owning animals, being a politician, drive a car, etc.

As far as I know, none of those require a background check either.
I always thought you needed one to be president, but I was proven wrong.

What if we insisted on background checks for every and any device or activity that could bring anyone harm? Why stop at guns? Hammers are very dangerous. So are cars and swimming pools.

Many dangerous items and activities in our society are routinely accepted. Yet gun owners are singled out for background checks, registration, confiscation, bans, etc.

[Plumbnut]

Jnichols2,

You have to have a permit to build a swimming pool. Homeowners insurance costs more when you have a pool. You must have a fence around the pool.

See where I'm going?

Cars.....you have to have a drivers test to operate a car in public. Your required to have insurance to operate your car on public roads,
Your required to have a license in your pocket and a license plate on the car.
Your required to have your car checked for function in some states.

Get the point?

We are not talking about either but since you brought it up.

I dont see you jumping up and down about all those restrictions.....

[manta49]

Many dangerous items and activities in our society are routinely accepted. Yet gun owners are singled out for background checks, registration, confiscation, bans, etc.

I am not saying it should happen in America. Personally I don't think it would make any difference in stopping mass shootings etc.
As far as checks go here it would be very difficult for a prohibited person as they are called here to legally get a firearm. Having a criminal record does not automatically prevent someone obtaining a firearm here it depends on the crime.

Some of the examples of how criminals obtain firearms in America could not happen here. Handguns for example a ballistic test is done so if the firearm was used for something it shouldn't be it would be traced back to the original owner. The firearms you own are on your certificate and are traceable to owner.

Example of a prohibited person. Anyone can take up shooting, and with it the opportunity to own their own firearms, unless they are a prohibited person, this, in short, is a person who has been imprisoned for a sentence of 3 or more years. Persons who are sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 3 months or more but less than 3 years must not possess firearms until five years have passed since the date of release.

[Salvarus]

yet no one is talking about banning cars,pools or hammers. what is the point?driving a car is not a constitutional right nor is owning a pool or possessing a hammer.

we are discussing a infringement on a constitutional right.

respectfully
JR

[2ndsojourn]

From manta:
"Handguns for example a ballistic test is done so if the firearm was used for something it shouldn't be it would be traced back to the original owner. The firearms you own are on your certificate and are traceable to owner."

New handguns purchased here have the same requirement. But if it's a reliable procedure, they can only trace it to the original owner. After that, then what?

What restrictions do you have in the UK for private sales?

[Gallstones]

It isn't difficult to alter the ballistic marks. Just because a new gun marks the bullet in a certain way does not mean it will always and only make those same marks. They aren't really like fingerprints.

[manta49]

New handguns purchased here have the same requirement. But if it's a reliable procedure, they can only trace it to the original owner. After that, then what?

The ballistic test has to be done every time the handgun changes hands. You get a notification from the police to take it to the police they take it for testing.

What restrictions do you have in the UK for private sales?

You would have to do the paper work . It would then have to go to the police firearms branch for approval. The owner would keep procession of the firearm until it was approved. The firearms make model and serial number would be put on your certificate. Only then could you take procession of the firearm sounds a lot but can usually be done in a couple of weeks.

[jimbob86]

No not really,I think the goverment could check better than I could or would.

Because they know best, right?



All the Billions of dollars spent, and even with all the "Experts" in the DHS protecting us from terrorists, and after 10 years, we still have Jihadi students overstaying their visas, and killing Americans right here in America ......yet the fed.gov is worried that you might lend a gun to your neighbor that you have known all your life .....

They borrow 40 cents of every dollar they spend, and perform what they do so poorly, yet are out looking for more things to get into and screw up?

Seriously?

I'll bet even you can balance your checkbook, right?

[Plumbnut]

No because they have a national data base of criminals thats more complete than my home P.C. has access to.

This is really not that difficult to understand if you want to....

When a gun is sold you have to fill out paperwork just like you do now at your local gunshop. If your giving the gun away then the same background check that you fill out at your local gunshop would be done.

No more and no less.

I would expect people who are responsible enough to own guns wouldn't have that much trouble undersanding this concept.

But then thats no fun because you still have the right to have guns and you dont get to talk about how the "gubernment" is doing you so wrong and wants to take away your rights and your guns......how boring


All my fiends who own guns understand it perfectly...MY FFL dealer understands it perfectly.

No one is asking for anything else in my camp.

I'm not for any past gun laws that failed.....it included too much other crap.

Real simple folks.

[manta49]

All the Billions of dollars spent, and even with all the "Experts" in the DHS protecting us from terrorists, and after 10 years, we still have Jihadi students overstaying their visas, and killing Americans right here in America ......yet the fed.gov is worried that you might lend a gun to your neighbor that you have known all your life

I don't think its that simple. You only hear of the terrorists that get trough and not the ones that are stopped no security can stop them all. As a spokesman for a terrorist organisation here said referring to the government and security services Quote. Hours after narrowly failing to murder Margaret Thatcher in the Brighton bomb, the IRA calmly announced: “Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once – you will have to be lucky always.”

The question is not if checks could be done ( because they could ) But if they should.

[JWT]

If I sell, or give, a gun to a family member or a friend as a private transaction I currently do not have to go through FFL for a background check. I see no reason to change that. I would never give or sell a gun to anyone I do not know.

The so call gunshow loophole is a figment of Mayor Bloombergs imagination.

[Flea21]

I go thru an ffl regardless.. the peace of mind is worth its weight in gold. After having a scare recently with almost selling one to someone with all the appropriate credentials, i decided to use an ffl just because.. thank god I did because this person did not pass the background check, apparantly he had a "little felony" as he called it.. bit neglected to tell me that prior. No more bill of sales for me ever, background checks shouls be mandatory and we as non ffl citizens that sell and trade guns from time to time should have a system in place to check fod our protection from prosecution and other headaches after the potential sale.

[Plumbnut]

My brother in law lost his license to drive years ago.....guess what? No one ever told me.....I would have given him my keys ANYTIME until I found that out.

Its not like I go around asking for his license and he and my suister in law NEVER told anyone. Too embarrassed I guess.

Just goes to show you that you dont know everything you think you do about even friends and family....the older you get the more history you have.

I dont know what my cousin did 40 years ago in california.....get the point?

But if he had to fill out a background check for my gun I would....

[Gallstones]

manta49, are you content with the regulations and restrictions you are under in N Ireland?

[Gallstones]

I just don't like your ideas Plumbnut and I don't ever want to see them implemented. It really is as simple as that.

[jimbob86]

All my fiends who own guns understand it perfectly...MY FFL dealer understands it perfectly.

I'm sure he does- and would be happy to tack a "transfer fee" onto every transaction between you and whoever.


I won't sell a gun to anyone who can't show he's not a felon.

I just don't think it's any of the feds' business that they know about every gun bought or sold. That's de facto registration, and everyplace registration has happened, confiscation has eventually followed. No. Thank. You.

[dakota.potts]

Plumbnut, most of us aren't against background checks and many of us choose to do them.

What we are against is state mandated background checks. The government has no business in our private property. You can say cars are regulated etc. Cars are not constitutionally protected. Firearms are. If you choose to have a background check done, many FFL's will do that and many sellers will opt to do so for piece of mind.

[Plumbnut]

I've said this before and I'll say it again.

If the goverment really wants to take your guns.....they will take your guns.

I dont think you have the firepower to even begin to stop them.

The 2nd ammendment protects your right to bare arms.

While you have the right to bare arms the government sure has the right to REGULATE the ownership.

Plain and simple. And remember your creating a permanent record here on the internet if so worried about the governemnt knowing your business you may reconsider posting your business or thoughts.

Every google search,every post....etc.


We the people still means something to me.....i

[tyme]

Originally Posted by Plumbnut

You have to have a permit to build a swimming pool. Homeowners insurance costs more when you have a pool. You must have a fence around the pool.

See where I'm going?

Cars.....you have to have a drivers test to operate a car in public. Your required to have insurance to operate your car on public roads,
Your required to have a license in your pocket and a license plate on the car.
Your required to have your car checked for function in some states.

I see where you're going and I think that street is a dead end.

Recognizing that all analogies are false analogies, let's look at this anyway.

Cars... are OPERATED on public roads. Do you see anyone conducting target practice in public on your way to work? Live fire in public (public ranges don't count) in urban areas is banned everywhere. Nobody operates guns in public in cities, and handling guns in public is also generally illegal (it's brandishing). Sometimes people take out guns to show each other, or to adjust their holsters, but I suppose if someone sees that and gets upset, in a city with uptight police officers you'd be charged with brandishing.

Pools are not special. You need a permit to build almost any structure, to ensure that basic health and safety regs are followed. Not because the government wants to know who owns pools and who doesn't.

Homeowners insurance (which goes up if you have a pool) is required by lenders (i.e. your bank) when you get a mortgage. Is it required by the government anywhere you know of? As far as I can tell, that's not the norm.

I thought the discussion was about background checks, and your argument has gone way beyond that, and is now in territory that even the gun banners in congress know well enough not to touch.

[dakota.potts]

Plumbnut, you say these things without any proof to back things up. The government HAS started taking weapons.

If the government comes to take any of our weapons based on forums posts, they have no business knowing otherwise if we tell them we lost it in an unfortunate boating accident.

If we're required to have a background check every time, they cannot enforce it without registering us. If they register us, they know exactly who owns what when and if we somehow don't have that, it would have to be illegal.

[Plumbnut]

I didn't bring those into the subject......I was just simply showing that everything is regulated in some form after another memeber brought those int the thread.

Guns are no different and the goverment as the right to regulate.


I say things and dont have proof to back them up??? Like what?

If you plan on lying to the government Dakota I dont suggest you post it on a public forum. Infact I dont suggest you lie to anyone.

[MagnumWill]

I'm all for background checks. Only if they do them on criminals though. They figured they can't FIND the actual criminals, so they'll make some new ones that they can keep tabs on.