If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Politics & ReligionWell Since every damn forum has one. Might as well leave it out there. This place is loosely moderated and should not be entered if you're weak of heart.
Killer, your registration idea has merit...except...how do you account for the guns our government is providing to gangs (Iran Contra) and military thugs (mexico and central/south American militaries) that end up being smuggled back into and sold in the US?
__________________
When the government's boot is on your throat, does it matter if it is a boot from the left or a boot from the right?
Killer, your registration idea has merit...except...how do you account for the guns our government is providing to gangs (Iran Contra) and military thugs (mexico and central/south American militaries) that end up being smuggled back into and sold in the US?
What percentage of the illegally owned guns currently in the US are smuggled into the country? How many do you think are initially purchased legally and then end up on the black market?
Also, is this some kind of conspiracy theory you conjured up?
Well, since there is no fucking way in hell to predict who is going to pull a 180 in their life and go around shooting up a school or something, there is no way to regulate things in that case. Fortunately, if he was law abiding when he got the weapon under my proposal, he would be linked to the crime and so would his gun.
I'm just trying to put it in your head that being able to trace a gun to a person and vise versa is a positive thing, its not intrusive, and it should be able to keep NEW and existing registered guns from getting in the hands of people who are already criminals. Currently, anyone who can forge a signature on a photocopied piece of paper and produce a drivers license at the local gunshop can buy any gun they want in my county. I'm just saying the current system is a stupid and ineffective way of ensuring the wrong people don't purchase firearms and put them into the black market.
The redneck way is not common sense, its reckless and allows criminals easy access to guns.
First off, their is no way to tell if someone will snap or not. Nothing, so again, people are not just criminals, they become so over time. Now lets say someone is a felon, they get their guns thru friends, family, theft, and street purchases, the stats have been put up over and over again, obviously you have ignored them. So now, lets say you have the perfect tracking system, great, you just caught the murderer, congrats, cept guess what, People were ALREADY FUCKING KILLED. So your reacting to something that already happend and not solving a damn thing. But lets go further into this, lets look at the latest shooting rampages, again, your system will not work, why? Becouse they either killed themselves (usually the case) or someone else killed them.
So again, all you are doing is making the purchase of a gun more difficult for absolutly no reason whatsoever except Emotion.
Now read this damn article, and again, Denmark is extremely, and extremely strict on weopons, Again, only a .22 or a shotgun if you have land and reason to own it, all shot other than bird shot for a shotgun is Illigal.
its not even legal to carry a pocket knife. See bad guys still get guns. Shootout continues in Copenhagen - Politiken.dk
Currently, anyone who can forge a signature on a photocopied piece of paper and produce a drivers license at the local gunshop can buy any gun they want in my county. I'm just saying the current system is a stupid and ineffective way of ensuring the wrong people don't purchase firearms and put them into the black market.
really? so the pawn shop doesn't have to call N.I.C.S? the fbi doesn't do an instant back ground check? they don't put holds on persons that they can't readily identify? they don't DENY people that shouldn't have a weapon? how many LEGAL dealers do you think would risk their livelihood to sell a weapon to a person that N.I.C.S. has turned down? or forge the paperwork? you know, the BATF does do very thorough on the spot inspections.... without prior notification
__________________ 2001 SUZUKI TL1000R
RACETECH SPRINGS VIA TRAXXION
YOSHIMURA RS-3 CANS
TRE MOD
BARNETT CLUTCH_SPRINGS
QUICK RELEASE TANK AND SEAT MODS
MANUAL FAN SWITCH MOD
GALFER BRAIDED LINES WITH EBC PADS
GAP/TRAY MOD
LP FLUSH MOUNT CLEAR SIGNALS
HOT BODIES UNDERTAIL
PYRAMID HUGGER
ZERO GRAVITY DOUBLE BUBBLE
TOBY STEERING DAMPNER
really? so the pawn shop doesn't have to call N.I.C.S? the fbi doesn't do an instant back ground check? they don't put holds on persons that they can't readily identify? they don't DENY people that shouldn't have a weapon? how many LEGAL dealers do you think would risk their livelihood to sell a weapon to a person that N.I.C.S. has turned down? or forge the paperwork? you know, the BATF does do very thorough on the spot inspections.... without prior notification
Good point, I missed that statement in his blither, Havint purchased guns from at least a dozen differnt dealers Im here to say that every single one has checked ID, and since they have required to call in I have been with people who were delayed, never anyone who is denied, but delayed and the stores were simply "I cannot sell it yet"
I think he's been watching a wee bit to much bowling for columbine.
I, for one, have a problem with anyone owning a machine gun. Period. They are meant to do one thing only, which is to kill people. Not deer, not bears, not ground squirrels.
People. That's a problem for me.
I have a problem with you being able to own a motorcycle. Does that mean we should legislate it?
Its always possible to put a key on guns. For instance, both my bersa 380 and my Taurus have a key locking system. Lock them and you don't have to worry about them ever going off in a child's hands. It locks the slide, the firing pin, and the trigger, so even if you're out of the house and the kids start playing with it, you only have to worry about how hard you're going to spank them when you find out. The key unlocks and locks the gun in seconds and the key can be kept on you at all times on your usual key ring.
Its not intrusive, and its not adult proof.
As for the whole banning of assault weapons: I have a better idea.
Make a system that is similar to drivers education. Anyone who wishes to purchase a firearm of any kind must undergo a shooter's education class where they will earn the right to carry and purchase guns. Of course, each person will be background checked for previous felonies and upon getting charged with a felony your rights and your guns will be stripped from you. I'm talking the police will go to your house and confiscate all your guns. A better national gun registration system will be put into place where guns are tracked to their owners. Transferring a firearm to a new owner, turning in old/broken guns, and any changes to gun registration (stolen guns) should be done at the local police station or federally licensed gun dealer to avoid shady activities. If a gun is used in a felony and not by the original owner, I think the original owner should be held liable for some kind of 2nd degree felony if they didn't get their registration taken care of properly. Of course getting caught with a gun that isn't registered to you would also be a crime. I think the police should be able to identify the owner of a firearm by the serial number in a national database at the scene, much like how they identify people based on their drivers license number or a car's owner by the VIN/tag.
Realistic gun control can work and can be non-invasive. A common sense approach like this would prevent new guns from getting into the hands of criminals and would properly educate people on how to use, secure, carry, buy, and sell their guns.
Registration IS invasive. You're giving a government entity the authority and means to track and harass law-abiding citizens for exercising the rights that they possess BECAUSE of that government entity.
It's akin to letting the fox guard the hen house, while maintaining a database of hens.
And once you start to place restrictions on testing to own a firearm, it is no longer a right. Your idea wouldn't last a year before being challenged, and easily defeated, in the SCOTUS.
Well now, see? You just "shot a hole" in your own argument. You agreed that there's a whole level of unregistered firearms out there. If there are such guns, then it's reasonable to assume that they will also get bought and sold illegally i.e., no registration by buyer or seller.
That's not illegal. Private sales are not required to be recorded through FFL. There is no national gun registration.
Quote:
Second of all, even registered guns get stolen and wind up in the hands of bad guys. Or...maybe somewhere a kid like Kip Kinkle will take Dad's rifle and massacre his parents and a few school mates, like what happened in Springfield here a few years ago.
Bottom line, this is a problem that has absolutely NO solution. It's part of who were are. As long as there are people who love their shootin' irons in this country it's going to be a problem with unnecessary suicides, murders and maimings. The people who make and sell, repair, and trade in guns, the hunting industry, etc., have a vested interest in seeing to it they remain as much without restrictions in their commerce as possible. It's that simple.
And even if there were a complete ban on firearms, we'd still have problems with unnecessary suicides, murders, and maimings. Firearms have nothing to do with it, aside from the fact that they are the most effective tool.
Quote:
And there are a lot of Americans that equate gun ownership with freedom. It ain't so. A Brit or a Spaniard, a Swede or a Frenchman is no less free than we are. They just live by more progressive rules.
I disagree.
Government can't tell me I can't own a pistol for self defense. The Frenchman doesn't have the freedom to do so.
The term "progressive" is a misnomer, as it's a matter of opinion. I consider it oppressive. Neither of us is wrong, you just don't realize that it's not absolute.
Would break-ins fall for fear of armed resistance?
By Joyce L Malcolm
Author and academic
As gun crime leaps by 35% in a year, plans are afoot for a further crack down on firearms. Yet what we need is more guns, not fewer, says a US academic.
"If guns are outlawed," an American bumper sticker warns, "only outlaws will have guns." With gun crime in Britain soaring in the face of the strictest gun control laws of any democracy, the UK seems about to prove that warning prophetic.
For 80 years the safety of the British people has been staked on the premise that fewer private guns means less crime, indeed that any weapons in the hands of men and women, however law-abiding, pose a danger.
JOYCE L MALCOLM
Professor of history, Bentley College, US
Author of Guns & Violence: the English Experience
Senior Advisor, MIT Security Studies Program
Government assured Britons they needed no weapons, society would protect them. If that were so in 1920 when the first firearms restrictions were passed, or in 1953 when Britons were forbidden to carry any article for their protection, it no longer is.
The failure of this general disarmament to stem, or even slow, armed and violent crime could not be more blatant. According to a recent UN study, England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for "very serious" offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed.
But would allowing law-abiding people to "have arms for their defence", as the 1689 English Bill of Rights promised, increase violence? Would Britain be following America's bad example?
The 'wild west' image is out of date
Old stereotypes die hard and the vision of Britain as a peaceable kingdom, America as "the wild west culture on the other side of the Atlantic" is out of date. It is true that in contrast to Britain's tight gun restrictions, half of American households have firearms, and 33 states now permit law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons.
But despite, or because, of this, violent crime in America has been plummeting for 10 consecutive years, even as British violence has been rising.By 1995 English rates of violent crime were already far higher than America's for every major violent crime except murder and rape.
You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.
Much is made of the higher American rate for murder. That is true and has been for some time. But as the Office of Health Economics in London found, not weapons availability, but "particular cultural factors" are to blame.
A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms.
When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million. But murder rates for both countries are now changing. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and by last year it was 3.5 times. With American rates described as "in startling free-fall" and British rates as of October 2002 the highest for 100 years the two are on a path to converge.
The price of British government insistence upon a monopoly of force comes at a high social cost.
First, it is unrealistic. No police force, however large, can protect everyone. Further, hundreds of thousands of police hours are spent monitoring firearms restrictions, rather than patrolling the streets. And changes in the law of self-defence have left ordinary people at the mercy of thugs.
According to Glanville Williams in his Textbook of Criminal Law, self-defence is "now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it still forms part of the law".
Nearly a century before that American bumper sticker was slapped on the first bumper, the great English jurist, AV Dicey cautioned: "Discourage self-help, and loyal subjects become the slaves of ruffians." He knew public safety is not enhanced by depriving people of their right to personal safety.
Joyce Lee Malcolm, professor of history, is author of Guns and Violence: The English Experience, published in June 2002.
That's an island that can't blame neighboring states, and yet guns still find their way into the hands of criminals. It's almost as if criminals don't care about the law or something.
That's an island that can't blame neighboring states, and yet guns still find their way into the hands of criminals. It's almost as if criminals don't care about the law or something.
What I'm proposing is a system that will prevent otherwise legally purchased guns from being sold unknowingly to criminals. If every gun in the US gets registered to an owner, then it is easy to find out where the illegal ones are or where they are coming from. The way it is now, there are so many loopholes preventing an effective paper trail that it is too easy for people to get a gun illegally.
What loopholes? I'm curious, because besides private sales, I don't see any other loopholes.
Quote:
I know there is no 100% sure fire way to effectively stop all illegal guns, but an efficient system to catalog gun owners and their respective guns would make it far more difficult to buy them.
So, law-abiding citizens would do it by the books, as they do it now. Do you believe that a new law would be followed by people who are restricted by the system from buying a firearm?
NO. You're just making the process harder for those of us who intend to purchase our weapons legally.
Quote:
Think about it, here is the process I see:
Gun manufacturer/importer registers all serial numbers of all guns created/imported into the national database as being "not sold"
When a gun is being purchased, the FFL looks up the buyer in the database to see if they are authorized to purchase a weapon.
When the purchase is made, the paring between the new owner and the serial number is made instantly.
If the gun owner wants to sell the firearm, they go to the FFL or police station with the new owner and the same process is done in reverse, the old owner gets unpaired and the new owner gets paired after their credentials are approved
If the gun is to be shipped elsewhere, it is to be brought to an FFL or police station where it is unpaired from the previous owner and registered as "in transit" or something. The new owner picks it up at the FFL or police station where they are paired with the firearm after checked.
That's remarkably simliar to what we have in place now. However:
1. National gun registration would cost billions, be ineffective, intrusive, and wouldn't stop gun crime. FFL records can already be perused by BATFE in the case of an ongoing investigation (as Bumblebee said earlier), which means guns can already be traced to the person who bought them. This is already in place, the only restriction is that they can't troll through it at will - any lookups have to be part of a criminal investigation.
2. FFLs already do the NICS background check.
3. FFLs already pair the SN with the buyer, and keep the records as regulated by the BATFE.
4. There's that registration database thing again. Will criminals do this, knowing they will not be approved for the transfer? No.
5. Guns that are sold online must be shipped to FFLs or handed off in a face to face transfer, which constitutes a private sale, and no NICS check is required.
You keep recommending this registration system, which is great in theory, but falls flat on its face in any real-world situation. The people who it is intending to stop won't use it, and those that do will be the people the authorities aren't looking for. So how is it effective?
Quote:
All this is doing is keeping guns paired to their respective owners. I think that most guns owned by criminals are actually purchased legally at one point and then sold unknowingly to the black market.
You'll never stop black market trades. And one thing the war on drugs has taught everybody: more restrictions means a stronger, more lucrative underground market.
Stopping lawbreakers by passing more laws? Great plan. Worked so well with speed limits, drug laws, tax codes, etc.
What loopholes? I'm curious, because besides private sales, I don't see any other loopholes.
Thats exactly the kind of loophole I'm talking about, and the kind that gets guns onto the black market in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bush
So, law-abiding citizens would do it by the books, as they do it now. Do you believe that a new law would be followed by people who are restricted by the system from buying a firearm?
NO. You're just making the process harder for those of us who intend to purchase our weapons legally.
How is it any different from the law abiding citizen? Its the same background check and you already have to go to the sheriff's office for a pistol permit. My plan would be less intrusive by allowing the FFL to simply look you up in a computer database. Right there. At the gun store. No need from a letter from your sheriff saying you got background checked and you can buy a gun. The only people that can't buy a gun from the FFL are the people who the system says NO to. If private sales must be done, they are done at a FFL where the registration is updated. That way, the paper trail moves to the new person. If that new person shoots people with the gun, its traced back to them. That way, the gun you bought and sold to some guy randomly a few years back doesn't end with a cop knocking down your door claiming that you shot up a mall or something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bush
1. National gun registration would cost billions, be ineffective, intrusive, and wouldn't stop gun crime. FFL records can already be perused by BATFE in the case of an ongoing investigation (as Bumblebee said earlier), which means guns can already be traced to the person who bought them. This is already in place, the only restriction is that they can't troll through it at will - any lookups have to be part of a criminal investigation.
2. FFLs already do the NICS background check.
3. FFLs already pair the SN with the buyer, and keep the records as regulated by the BATFE.
4. There's that registration database thing again. Will criminals do this, knowing they will not be approved for the transfer? No.
5. Guns that are sold online must be shipped to FFLs or handed off in a face to face transfer, which constitutes a private sale, and no NICS check is required.
You keep recommending this registration system, which is great in theory, but falls flat on its face in any real-world situation. The people who it is intending to stop won't use it, and those that do will be the people the authorities aren't looking for. So how is it effective?
I dont think it would cost billions, a simple computer system would not be difficult to put in place. Databases are cheap and easy to maintain, much more so than millions of pieces of paper. Hell it might even streamline the registration process! This process, like the DMV, needs to be brought into the 21st century anyways. Why do we keep putting it off?
The whole idea is to keep new guns from being sold illegally and to keep track of who has the registered guns to prevent that from happening. I really don't see the problem with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bush
You'll never stop black market trades. And one thing the war on drugs has taught everybody: more restrictions means a stronger, more lucrative underground market.
Stopping lawbreakers by passing more laws? Great plan. Worked so well with speed limits, drug laws, tax codes, etc.
The difference between drugs and guns is that we KNOW who makes and imports guns into this country, and we CAN do something to know where the guns are going. Sure there will always be a black market for desperate criminals trying to get guns, but look at it this way. If your average gas station robber can't afford to purchase a gun on the black market because it is getting more difficult to do so, he'll probably use a knife or bat or something instead.
Thats exactly the kind of loophole I'm talking about, and the kind that gets guns onto the black market in the first place.
An insignificant percentage of guns enter the black market by a FTF sale between a legit seller and shady buyer. They're usually stolen or bought bulk.
Quote:
How is it any different from the law abiding citizen? Its the same background check and you already have to go to the sheriff's office for a pistol permit.
Don't know how they do it in NC, but you don't need a pistol permit to buy a pistol in PA. You do need to fill out paperwork for a LTCF (CCW in PA) but that's it. You can enter an FFL in PA, walk out 10 minutes later with a pistol if you pass the NICS check.
Quote:
My plan would be less intrusive by allowing the FFL to simply look you up in a computer database. Right there. At the gun store.
That's how it's done now, only over the phone.
Quote:
No need from a letter from your sheriff saying you got background checked and you can buy a gun.
That must be a NC thing.
Quote:
The only people that can't buy a gun from the FFL are the people who the system says NO to. If private sales must be done, they are done at a FFL where the registration is updated. That way, the paper trail moves to the new person. If that new person shoots people with the gun, its traced back to them. That way, the gun you bought and sold to some guy randomly a few years back doesn't end with a cop knocking down your door claiming that you shot up a mall or something.
So the guy who is going to use that gun to shoot up a mall is going to follow the law, go to the FFL to have the gun transferred to his name, THEN use that gun to kill a dozen people? No. You're simply inconveniencing those who already do things by the books.
You don't seem to understand. The idea is good in theory. It falls flat on its face in the real world.
Quote:
I dont think it would cost billions, a simple computer system would not be difficult to put in place. Databases are cheap and easy to maintain, much more so than millions of pieces of paper.
Hell it might even streamline the registration process! This process, like the DMV, needs to be brought into the 21st century anyways. Why do we keep putting it off?
Because the government has NO BUSINESS knowing what's in my gun cabinet. Twenty years ago, "common sense" meant background checks. Now that's not common sense enough? It's a slippery slope that ultimately leads to registration, restriction, and eventually confiscation. Look at California, the UK, and Australia.
And those of you who say it can't happen here apparently don't realize that you're advocating and assisting it. It's moving right along as long as you support it.
Quote:
The whole idea is to keep new guns from being sold illegally and to keep track of who has the registered guns to prevent that from happening. I really don't see the problem with it.
Then you're really not thinking about it, are you? You don't seem to get it, so I'll ask it clearly:
How will a registration system help if people who it's intended to stop aren't going to use it in the first place?
Quote:
The difference between drugs and guns is that we KNOW who makes and imports guns into this country, and we CAN do something to know where the guns are going. Sure there will always be a black market for desperate criminals trying to get guns, but look at it this way. If your average gas station robber can't afford to purchase a gun on the black market because it is getting more difficult to do so, he'll probably use a knife or bat or something instead.
YOU ARE NOT LISTENING. Black markets fill the need that is created by laws. Restrictions only make them stronger. Weed is illegal, you think I can't make some phone calls and get an ounce by the end of the day? Fuck, it's easier for me to get weed than a gun, and guns are still legal.
If you feel comfortable blowing billions in taxpayer money to implement a system that makes our lives harder, doesn't stop criminals, and is one step closer to infringing on our constitutional rights, then you haven't thought enough about this. There's consequences to any legislation. Think about it.
An insignificant percentage of guns enter the black market by a FTF sale between a legit seller and shady buyer. They're usually stolen or bought bulk.
According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -
a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%
All prisoners were asked if they had ever possessed a
handgun. Of those who said yes, the most recently acquired
handgun was obtained from the following sources:
Family or friends..................... 31%
Black market or fenced................ 28
Retail outlet......................... 27
Theft................................. 9
Other................................. 5
First, these guys are in prison, so perhaps the manner of their acquisition had something to do with it. Perhaps the statistics are different for criminals who didn't get caught.
Second, it seems you would only support a solution if it solves 100 percent of problems. That's an entirely unrealistic expectation.
FZ6 moderator 
Oh fucking hell thats funny.
Linear Mode
