The house passes gun control bills

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Would either of these laws have prevented any of the 173 mass shootings the articles mentioned? And how does it address gun shows? Any gun dealer at a gun show already has to have an FFL and conduct a background check. Online sales from my experience also require an FFL as the vast majority of auctions are by dealers.

Im fine with private sales background checks. But will the govt create easy access to NICS for private sellers?
 

cmcartman

Member
Aug 19, 2007
184
34
101
Would either of these laws have prevented any of the 173 mass shootings the articles mentioned? And how does it address gun shows? Any gun dealer at a gun show already has to have an FFL and conduct a background check. Online sales from my experience also require an FFL as the vast majority of auctions are by dealers.

Im fine with private sales background checks. But will the govt create easy access to NICS for private sellers?

Online sales basically have to go through an FFL, even if they are private. There really aren't too many situations that you can legally ship one to someone that isn't an FFL.
 

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
That's actually not what he said. You make it sound as if he'd go out randomly killing civilians. What would you do when someone comes to your home and tells you they're coming in to take items you own? I think most people would consider it legal to use whatever force is necessary to stop them. I don't see a whole lot of difference in them coming in to take items that were a constitutional right when they were purchased and now arbitrarily illegal. You act like a person would have to be crazy to think like that. A person would have to be crazy to think differently than that.

I find it humorous of all this talk of we're not coming to take your guns, we just want common sense laws. When those don't change things just a few more common sense laws. You both seem perfectly fine with removing gun ownership completely and wonder why those who do own them become alarmed.

Make no mistake, it would cause a civil war. And it wouldn't be the military going after just the civilians. I work in an industry that heavily recruits veterans and this discussion has come up many times. I would argue from my experience that Paladin3 is correct and the vast majority of them would be on the other side.

What's humorous is the repeated attempts to downplay the difference between guns and most other possessions that someone might own; they are not mere 'items'.

It's plain dishonest.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Online sales basically have to go through an FFL, even if they are private. There really aren't too many situations that you can legally ship one to someone that isn't an FFL.

Yeah, that has been my experience as well. I have used Cabellas as the FFL.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
I'm all for private background checks on all gun sales, but I'm not entirely sure it'll help much. Maybe over time it will have an impact, but I'm not sold on it helping all that much. But, it is a step and doesn't harm our rights. What I'm not for is stupid do nothing regulations like banning bump stocks, suppressors, folding stocks, capacity limits, etc. Those are regulations that do harm rights and will achieve very, very little to nothing.
 

cmcartman

Member
Aug 19, 2007
184
34
101
@cmcartman & @Clump

Quick questions. What if the common sense gun laws had no impact on “good gun owners”?

Why do good gun owners treat every gun as if it was loaded?

In principle I would probably agree to some. The problem is that I have yet to see one that didn't have an impact on "good gun owners". You have laws banning cosmetic features of guns because they somehow make them more dangerous. There is also the slippery slope argument which I believe does have some validity to it. It's gotten to the point though that very few gun owners actually believe that it will stop there. There is a very large group of people that have no experience with firearms. They are scared of them and want them banned period.

In regards to private gun sales, if you could devise a way for a check to be made online for free or low cost I would probably be ok with that. As of right now there are very few people I would sell or give a gun to FTF without going through the hastle and expense of a FFL so basically I don't do it.

I had a rifle that was my grandfathers' that was given to me by my father recently. Should I have had to take that to an FFL to pay $30 to have a NICS check to get it transferred? What about a gift from or to a friend I shoot regularly with and have known most of my life?
 

cmcartman

Member
Aug 19, 2007
184
34
101
What's humorous is the repeated attempts to downplay the difference between guns and most other possessions that someone might own; they are not mere 'items'.

It's plain dishonest.

It's not plain dishonest, that's the whole point. I'm attempting to make you understand how the people that own guns are going to view it. And you are correct, to most of them they would be even more than mere 'items'. Just because you think it would be justified in your personal world doesn't mean they will see it the same way. You should be the one to do it, tell me how that works out.
 

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
It is plain dishonest to classify an item that has no real practical purpose outside of the realm of killing, to be the same as regular possessions that do.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
It is plain dishonest to classify an item that has no real practical purpose outside of the realm of killing, to be the same as regular possessions that do.

There is such a thing as sport shooting. I own several guns. Never killed anything except plastic bottles, beer cans, and paper targets.
 

Clump

Member
May 12, 2009
43
1
71
I asked what point you think you're making, yet all you've done is repeat what you said before.

It doesn't sound like you really have one.
There's 2 points:
1. Availability of guns=gun violence is not necessarily a logical conclusion, thus the Latin. There are countless examples of correlation not equaling causation.
2. Heroin is already illegal in the US, yet we have the highest incidence of overdose deaths in the developed world, leading to the (completely logical) conclusion that prohibition does not eliminate possession or use.

I'm sure you disagree.
 

dyna

Senior member
Oct 20, 2006
813
61
91
There's 2 points:
1. Availability of guns=gun violence is not necessarily a logical conclusion, thus the Latin. There are countless examples of correlation not equaling causation.
2. Heroin is already illegal in the US, yet we have the highest incidence of overdose deaths in the developed world, leading to the (completely logical) conclusion that prohibition does not eliminate possession or use.

I'm sure you disagree.

Those are good points and you could easily find many more bad correlations. I bet social media is a significant root cause of violence with guns and additionally suicides. Does that mean you ban/restrict computers and cell phones?
 

Clump

Member
May 12, 2009
43
1
71
@cmcartman & @Clump

Quick questions. What if the common sense gun laws had no impact on “good gun owners”?

Why do good gun owners treat every gun as if it was loaded?
I really loathe the term "common sense gun laws". It's like "undocumented", much more of a political term than a statement of fact.

I can't think of any of these proposals not having an impact on "good gun owners". Can you name 1 that can be answered specifically?

Personally, I treat every gun as if it was loaded as a matter of responsibility. Following basic handling principles virtually eliminates the chance of an accidental injury. If the point of the question is to get an acknowledgement that guns are deadly weapons I don't think any gun owner would deny that.
 

cmcartman

Member
Aug 19, 2007
184
34
101
It is plain dishonest to classify an item that has no real practical purpose outside of the realm of killing, to be the same as regular possessions that do.

It's a tool. A tool that's primary function is to kill living creatures. It is still a tool however. Arbitrarily deciding that mere ownership of such a tool by someone that has not committed any crime is reason enough to confiscate them stands against everything this country was founded on.

I've thought about this long and hard over the years, If someone could magically snap their fingers and remove all the guns in the US would I want that? The simple truth is that there might or might not be fewer deaths but human nature wouldn't change. The strong would still prey on the weak, only the weak wouldn't have a tool that makes the odds more even.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
It is plain dishonest to classify an item that has no real practical purpose outside of the realm of killing, to be the same as regular possessions that do.


I've killed a total of one deer with my guns. There are an estimated 80,000,000 - 100,000,000 gun owners in America. Are they using their guns wrongly in your estimation when 99.99999%+ of them go to bed every night without killing anyone?

Tobacco isn't meant to kill people but it does a much better job than guns at doing so. At least guns can serve a good practical purpose, every year tens of thousands of crimes are stopped thanks to armed citizens. Amazing the laser focus the left has on guns while ignoring much bigger killers.
 

cmcartman

Member
Aug 19, 2007
184
34
101
I really loathe the term "common sense gun laws". It's like "undocumented", much more of a political term than a statement of fact.

It's basically an implied insult. If you don't agree with us in our infinite wisdom you're obviously an idiot.
 

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,641
132
106
Online sales basically have to go through an FFL, even if they are private. There really aren't too many situations that you can legally ship one to someone that isn't an FFL.

What is one situation? I haven't really heard of any. Well maybe shipping from private citizen to citizen inside the same state.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,538
759
146
That's actually not what he said. You make it sound as if he'd go out randomly killing civilians. What would you do when someone comes to your home and tells you they're coming in to take items you own? I think most people would consider it legal to use whatever force is necessary to stop them. I don't see a whole lot of difference in them coming in to take items that were a constitutional right when they were purchased and now arbitrarily illegal. You act like a person would have to be crazy to think like that. A person would have to be crazy to think differently than that.

I find it humorous of all this talk of we're not coming to take your guns, we just want common sense laws. When those don't change things just a few more common sense laws. You both seem perfectly fine with removing gun ownership completely and wonder why those who do own them become alarmed.

Make no mistake, it would cause a civil war. And it wouldn't be the military going after just the civilians. I work in an industry that heavily recruits veterans and this discussion has come up many times. I would argue from my experience that Paladin3 is correct and the vast majority of them would be on the other side.

WTF? This is deranged. We're talking about an employee coming out to enforce regulating guns. Not only would this not end well for them (maybe a couple thousand dollars vs. effectively ending your life), it's based on an moron's understanding of the 2nd Amendment.
 

cmcartman

Member
Aug 19, 2007
184
34
101
What is one situation? I haven't really heard of any. Well maybe shipping from private citizen to citizen inside the same state.

Actually shipping it to yourself is the only one I am certain it is legal. I think a rifle or shotgun inside the same state is legal. In both cases you would likely have to do some work to get them to accept it. I was leaving the door open because I wasn't entirely sure.
 

cmcartman

Member
Aug 19, 2007
184
34
101
WTF? This is deranged. We're talking about an employee coming out to enforce regulating guns. Not only would this not end well for them (maybe a couple thousand dollars vs. effectively ending your life), it's based on an moron's understanding of the 2nd Amendment.

You may think it's deranged. I can assure you there are many people that feel that way though. We aren't talking about someone who has committed a crime. But rather someone who hasn't done a thing and now the firearms he previously owned legally now are not. You're talking about someone who believes he has a right to defend himself and his family, has done nothing wrong, and you are coming to take the tools he has to do that.

What I think is deranged is you believing it's ok to confiscate them in the first place, and believing that everyone would just freely give them up. .
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,538
759
146
You may think it's deranged. I can assure you there are many people that feel that way though. We aren't talking about someone who has committed a crime. But rather someone who hasn't done a thing and now the firearms he previously owned legally now are not. You're talking about someone who believes he has a right to defend himself and his family, has done nothing wrong, and you are coming to take the tools he has to do that.

A lot of it is just bullshit bluster. I replied because I was dumbfounded that you think most people would think that way, including you.

What I think is deranged is you believing it's ok to confiscate them in the first place

Even Scalia admitted that it's not an absolute right, and I know many conservatives are okay with the effective full-auto ban, so the boundary of what's allowable is completely subjective. I imagine any attempt to confiscate them would include some buyback program where you get some portion of the value back just like Australia did.
 
Last edited:

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
There is such a thing as sport shooting. I own several guns. Never killed anything except plastic bottles, beer cans, and paper targets.

You have quite literally proven my point:

Guns have no real practical purpose outside of the realm of killing.
 

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
There's 2 points:
1. Availability of guns=gun violence is not necessarily a logical conclusion, thus the Latin. There are countless examples of correlation not equaling causation.
2. Heroin is already illegal in the US, yet we have the highest incidence of overdose deaths in the developed world, leading to the (completely logical) conclusion that prohibition does not eliminate possession or use.

I'm sure you disagree.

Of course I disagree.

If there are no guns, there cannot be any gun violence.

If you reduce the number of guns in circulation, you reduce incidences of gun violence.

There is actual, living proof of this right now all across the developed world.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
You have quite literally proven my point:

Guns have no real practical purpose outside of the realm of killing.


Let's say your argument is 100% correct, guns "only" exist to kill things. Tell me how that matters? They do a piss poor job of killing us compared to other things that aren't designed to do so and that you and the left don't care about doing anything more about. So why the laser focus on guns?
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
Of course I disagree.

If there are no guns, there cannot be any gun violence.

If you reduce the number of guns in circulation, you reduce incidences of gun violence.

There is actual, living proof of this right now all across the developed world.


If there were no guns you'd just have more of this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack

You cannot find a mass shooting in America that compares to the scale of damage someone did with a truck, a friggen truck.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
There's 2 points:
1. Availability of guns=gun violence is not necessarily a logical conclusion, thus the Latin. There are countless examples of correlation not equaling causation.

While that's technically true it's also not very informative. Technically the idea that smoking causes lung cancer is simply very strong correlation with a plausible causal mechanism. We don't actually have proof of causation because that's simply not how the science works. We'll never have 'proof', but we do have extremely strong evidence that smoking causes lung cancer.

Similarly with the case of guns and gun violence we have strong evidence that increased prevalence of guns leads to increases in both homicides and suicides. The logical conclusion based on the evidence is that availability of guns does in fact equal more gun violence.

2. Heroin is already illegal in the US, yet we have the highest incidence of overdose deaths in the developed world, leading to the (completely logical) conclusion that prohibition does not eliminate possession or use.

I'm sure you disagree.

While I personally think all drugs should be legal this isn't a good way to look at the question. The real question is 'everything else being equal, would making heroin legal increase or decrease use?' Nobody thinks prohibition eliminates use, but it's extremely likely that total heroin use in the US is lower than it would be if it were legal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie