No new gun laws, enforce existing ones!

[mysticjbyrd]

How so?

In this case, it's called a red herring.

example,

Argument:
Close Loop holes

Rebuttal:
Enforce the laws we have!

What does this have to do with closing of gun sell loopholes? Nothing. What does this statement even mean? Nothing... No reasonable person is going to argue with this statement at face value, which is why it's such an effective red herring for idiots to parrot. Of course, as another poster pointed out, they aren't even interested in enforcing the laws. It's all bullshit.

It would be like advocating to outlaw statutory rape, while the opposition claimed we should just enforce the current laws. In other words, the opposition is merely stating it's okay with statutory rape, but isn't offering a logical reason as to why.

They want to keep the gun sell loopholes, but they don't want to tell you why, never mind tell you a reasoned argument as to why it would be better for society.

 

[HumblePie]

Ugh, you people don't know what loophole means.

Private sells are not loopholes.

If the intent of our guns laws is to maintain records of all ownership of firearms to any individual, then private sales that don't allow for tracking would be a "loophole" to such a system.

Our gun laws are not designed with the express purpose of tracking and registering all firearm ownership. So calling it a loophole is ignorant at best.

Here is an analogous example. There are tax code loopholes. Why do we call them loopholes? Because our tax system is designed with the express intent that EVERYONE pays their fair share of the tax burden for our society. When the law(s) allow individuals to not pay their fair share burden and do so without legal reprisal, those are considered loopholes in the tax system.

Since the US doesn't have a registration and tracking of firearm ownership set of laws or system, there are no fucking loopholes if private sales between people aren't tracked.

 

[thraashman]

Ugh, you people don't know what loophole means.

Private sells are not loopholes.

If the intent of our guns laws is to maintain records of all ownership of firearms to any individual, then private sales that don't allow for tracking would be a "loophole" to such a system.

Our gun laws are not designed with the express purpose of tracking and registering all firearm ownership. So calling it a loophole is ignorant at best.

Here is an analogous example. There are tax code loopholes. Why do we call them loopholes? Because our tax system is designed with the express intent that EVERYONE pays their fair share of the tax burden for our society. When the law(s) allow individuals to not pay their fair share burden and do so without legal reprisal, those are considered loopholes in the tax system.

Since the US doesn't have a registration and tracking of firearm ownership set of laws or system, there are no fucking loopholes if private sales between people aren't tracked.

The loophole in this case is that it is a way to purchase a firearm without going through a background check. A person who has a violent history who shouldn't have a firearm could just jump on craigslist and find a private seller and get a gun with no problem and no background check (I don't know if craigslist allows firearm sales, it's an example) which they would have failed if they went to a dealer. So yes, it is indeed a loophole. You're trying to be semantic, but you're just being wrong.

 

[bradly1101]

Ugh, you people don't know what loophole means.

Private sells are not loopholes.

If the intent of our guns laws is to maintain records of all ownership of firearms to any individual, then private sales that don't allow for tracking would be a "loophole" to such a system.

Our gun laws are not designed with the express purpose of tracking and registering all firearm ownership. So calling it a loophole is ignorant at best.

Here is an analogous example. There are tax code loopholes. Why do we call them loopholes? Because our tax system is designed with the express intent that EVERYONE pays their fair share of the tax burden for our society. When the law(s) allow individuals to not pay their fair share burden and do so without legal reprisal, those are considered loopholes in the tax system.

Since the US doesn't have a registration and tracking of firearm ownership set of laws or system, there are no fucking loopholes if private sales between people aren't tracked.

So anyone of any ilk should be able to buy guns from a private seller at a gun show, even if they have been convicted of gun violence? The saturation of humans on this planet makes saving it virtually impossible, much like the saturation of guns makes enforcement of any gun laws almost impossible no thanks to the gun lobby. My point is that they're not not trying as the right keeps incorrectly claiming. If they truly wanted less gun violence they would be working for less guns. There..are..just..too..many..of..them.

 

[Fenixgoon]

So anyone of any ilk should be able to buy guns from a private seller at a gun show, even if they have been convicted of gun violence? The saturation of humans on this planet makes saving it virtually impossible, much like the saturation of guns makes enforcement of any gun laws almost impossible no thanks to the gun lobby. My point is that they're not not trying as the right keeps incorrectly claiming. If they truly wanted less gun violence they would be working for less guns. There..are..just..too..many..of..them.

anyone of any ilk can always buy a firearm in a private sale. whether that sale is legal or illegal is a different matter.

just open up NICS to individuals and i think you'd find most people more than happy to oblige.

considering homicides and violent crime have been dropping for 20 years straight, we're not doing too badly. also consider that the number of homicides and australia and the UK did not drop dramatically after they enacted firearms bans.

US: http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/State/TrendsInOneVar.cfm
(you have to manually select murder + non-negligent manslaughter)
UK: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime...pter-2.html#tab-Offences-recorded-as-homicide
Australia: http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

 

[Venix]

They want to keep the gun sell loopholes, but they don't want to tell you why, never mind tell you a reasoned argument as to why it would be better for society.

Practically anyone opposed to "universal background checks" will tell you exactly why. Even the demonic NRA explains its reasoning. You don't have to agree with their arguments, but to claim that "they don't want to tell you why" is just as disingenuous as the OP's insistence that "enforce existing gun laws" has no meaning.

In general, most people's complaint is that "universal background checks" really means "criminalize private party sales, gifts, and loans." For example, under Washington's implementation, a father who wants to borrow his adult son's rifle is required to meet at a gun store, pay a $25+ facilitation fee to the dealer, and fill out a Form 4473 (which is kept on file for decades and can be viewed by the ATF). The same process must be followed again--including another $25+ fee--when the father decides to return the son's rifle. That's needlessly complicated and effectively unenforceable, which explains the extremely low compliance rate.

An honest "universal background checks" solution that's really just about background checks--like simply allowing private sellers to call into NICS--would be welcomed by almost everybody. It's unfortunate that neither shitty political party is interested in proposing simple and effective solutions.

 

[HumblePie]

The loophole in this case is that it is a way to purchase a firearm without going through a background check. A person who has a violent history who shouldn't have a firearm could just jump on craigslist and find a private seller and get a gun with no problem and no background check (I don't know if craigslist allows firearm sales, it's an example) which they would have failed if they went to a dealer. So yes, it is indeed a loophole. You're trying to be semantic, but you're just being wrong.

LOL!!!!!

The invention of firearms caused the loophole that allows criminals to obtain guns.

For reference, that is NOT the definition of a loophole. A criminal buying a gun through a private party is not obtaining the gun legally. Thus it is NOT a loophole. Illegal is still illegal. Hard to catch is something entirely different. A legal loophole means the outcome, despite the intention of the legal system in place, is a legal outcome under the law.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

like simply allowing private sellers to call into NICS--would be welcomed by almost everybody.

That would be an incredibly bad idea.

 

[HumblePie]

That would be an incredibly bad idea.

Correct, as that could put onus on the private seller for due diligence beyond using NICS. Did you ID the person properly for example? Which may then carry legal repercussions if that person ends up not being who you thought it was as it can for retailers.

 

[OutHouse]

what mass shootings would have been prevented if a universal background check was in place 10 years ago?

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Correct, as that could put onus on the private seller for due diligence beyond using NICS. Did you ID the person properly for example? Which may then carry legal repercussions if that person ends up not being who you thought it was as it can for retailers.

Not just that, but serious privacy issues for gun owners and non gun owners alike. Like I said before, the ACLU, even though they are not opposed to universal checks in principle, oppose it because it's hard to implement such a system without serious issues.

But hey, won't somebody think of the children.

 

[BoberFett]

The loophole in this case is that it is a way to purchase a firearm without going through a background check. A person who has a violent history who shouldn't have a firearm could just jump on craigslist and find a private seller and get a gun with no problem and no background check (I don't know if craigslist allows firearm sales, it's an example) which they would have failed if they went to a dealer. So yes, it is indeed a loophole. You're trying to be semantic, but you're just being wrong.

Guess what you buffoon: A law that requires background checks for online and gun show purchases wouldn't stop someone from buying a gun over Craigslist.*

The transaction happens in person. The people meet online, but cash and handover of the weapon happen in the real world. There's no money exchanged online, the weapon isn't shipped to the buyer.

If someone has an estate sale, advertises it online as having furniture and guns to sell, and sells their dad's guns out in the front yard, it's not an online gun sale.

This is why the language is important, you buffoon. When people say they want gun show and online gun sales to require a background check, that does nothing to stop a Craigslist* sale.

So if you pull your head out of your ass for just one moment, you'll realize that I'm right, and you and eskimospy are dipshits.

*Craigslist doesn't allow firearms AFAIK, but we'll use it for this example.

 

[BoberFett]

So anyone of any ilk should be able to buy guns from a private seller at a gun show, even if they have been convicted of gun violence? The saturation of humans on this planet makes saving it virtually impossible, much like the saturation of guns makes enforcement of any gun laws almost impossible no thanks to the gun lobby. My point is that they're not not trying as the right keeps incorrectly claiming. If they truly wanted less gun violence they would be working for less guns. There..are..just..too..many..of..them.

So how do you stop a private seller from selling a gun in the parking lot outside the gun show? Oh, you ban private sellers from selling in the parking lot? What if they're across the street from the parking lot? Do you ban that too? What if they're in their own garage 1 mile away from the gun show? Do you ban that?

Try being honest for once. You want to ban private sales and ensure every transaction is recorded.

 

[Venix]

That would be an incredibly bad idea.

It would be helpful if you'd elaborate on why. Are you concerned about the privacy implications?

To be clear, I was using "call into NICS" as a simplification for some "validate buyer's eligibility without FFL facilitation" solution. The actual details of designing a publicly-accessible background system were a bit beyond the scope of that post.

 

[HumblePie]

Guess what you buffoon: A law that requires background checks for online and gun show purchases wouldn't stop someone from buying a gun over Craigslist.*

The transaction happens in person. The people meet online, but cash and handover of the weapon happen in the real world. There's no money exchanged online, the weapon isn't shipped to the buyer.

If someone has an estate sale, advertises it online as having furniture and guns to sell, and sells their dad's guns out in the front yard, it's not an online gun sale.

This is why the language is important, you buffoon. When people say they want gun show and online gun sales to require a background check, that does nothing to stop a Craigslist* sale.

So if you pull your head out of your ass for just one moment, you'll realize that I'm right, and you and eskimospy are dipshits.

*Craigslist doesn't allow firearms AFAIK, but we'll use it for this example.

Texas Gun Trader or Armslist would be better examples.

Although I've bought a few firearms from Armslist from dealers though which I obviously had to fill a 4473 out for.

 

[ivwshane]

So how do you stop a private seller from selling a gun in the parking lot outside the gun show? Oh, you ban private sellers from selling in the parking lot? What if they're across the street from the parking lot? Do you ban that too? What if they're in their own garage 1 mile away from the gun show? Do you ban that?

Try being honest for once. You want to ban private sales and ensure every transaction is recorded.

Why would private sales have to be banned? People sell their cars privately all the time and the government tracks it with very little issues. Is there a reason such transactions shouldn't be recorded if the goal is to keep guns out of the wrong hands? Wouldn't you as a law abiding citizen want to know that your guns are being sold to another law abiding citizen?

 

[Kwatt]

Why would private sales have to be banned? People sell their cars privately all the time and the government tracks it with very little issues. Is there a reason such transactions shouldn't be recorded if the goal is to keep guns out of the wrong hands? Wouldn't you as a law abiding citizen want to know that your guns are being sold to another law abiding citizen?

Cars are registered,tagged, and taxed.

Is that the goal here?

.

 

[TheSlamma]

Cars are registered,tagged, and taxed.

Is that the goal here?

.

The registered part is for sure, I don't think tagged and taxed is though

 

[Fenixgoon]

Why would private sales have to be banned? People sell their cars privately all the time and the government tracks it with very little issues. Is there a reason such transactions shouldn't be recorded if the goal is to keep guns out of the wrong hands? Wouldn't you as a law abiding citizen want to know that your guns are being sold to another law abiding citizen?

most privately owned cars are operated on publicly maintained roads.

the state couldn't care less about privately owned vehicles operated on private land.

OTOH, most privately owned firearms are operated on privately owned spaces - except for CCW (which is operated in public and requires you be licensed/registered).

 

[ivwshane]

what mass shootings would have been prevented if a universal background check was in place 10 years ago?

Thank you for illustrating the fact that there is no one single thing that can be done and that a comprehensive approach should be taken!


Dumbass!

 

[ivwshane]

most privately owned cars are operated on publicly maintained roads.

the state couldn't care less about privately owned vehicles operated on private land.

OTOH, most privately owned firearms are operated on privately owned spaces - except for CCW (which is operated in public and requires you be licensed/registered).

Not true. Usually limited use vehicles like farm equipment don't have a registration requirement but almost all regular vehicles do whether or not they are used on private property. Sure there may be a few states that have exceptions but that's not normal.

Also, whether or not a gun is only used in private property, it's besides the point as the point isn't about where the gun is used but who owns it. Just like with cars, the state doesn't care where you use it but rather to have a trail of ownership and for tax purposes,

 

[OutHouse]

Thank you for illustrating the fact that there is no one single thing that can be done and that a comprehensive approach should be taken!


Dumbass!

care to answer the question?

 

[ivwshane]

care to answer the question?

I thought I was pretty clear so let me dumb it down for you. There is no single one law/regulation that can prevent any one particular crime. That's also never been a requirement for any law, ever! Which is why focusing on one particular crime in order to stop or minimize other crimes is stupid.

But if you insist on asking a stupid question I'll give you a stupid answer: ban all guns and confiscate all them.

 

[shady28]

anyone of any ilk can always buy a firearm in a private sale. whether that sale is legal or illegal is a different matter.

just open up NICS to individuals and i think you'd find most people more than happy to oblige.

considering homicides and violent crime have been dropping for 20 years straight, we're not doing too badly. also consider that the number of homicides and australia and the UK did not drop dramatically after they enacted firearms bans.

US: http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/State/TrendsInOneVar.cfm
(you have to manually select murder + non-negligent manslaughter)
UK: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime...pter-2.html#tab-Offences-recorded-as-homicide
Australia: http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

No one here will respond to you, because your post has facts and references.

 

[OutHouse]

I thought I was pretty clear so let me dumb it down for you. There is no single one law/regulation that can prevent any one particular crime. That's also never been a requirement for any law, ever! Which is why focusing on one particular crime in order to stop or minimize other crimes is stupid.

But if you insist on asking a stupid question I'll give you a stupid answer: ban all guns and confiscate all them.

dodge. i knew you couldnt do it. its not in your nature.


serious question, why are you such an abrasive prick on here?