The Wall Street Journal: Gun owners are setting themselves up for gun control.

[jpeyton]

The usual response from the far-right gun-owning fringe is always WE MUST OPPOSE EVERYTHING AT ALL COSTS NO MATTER WHAT.

Law-abiding gun owners in New York have been bending over and compromising on gun control for years. Some of the heaviest restrictions on ownership, capacity and the ability to carry in the country.

What did they get for it? They were recently told all their legally purchased magazines that can hold more than 7 rounds are now illegal. If Cuomo is around in 4 years, who knows what the new "safe" capacity will be (as long as it's less than 7, I'm sure he'll find the votes for it).

It's clear what happens when you compromise with the gun control crowd. Damned if you do, damned if you don't (according to Charles anyway).

So instead of bending over and taking it, I'll keep my dignity and go out with a fight.

 

[micrometers]

I agree with the article.

 

[monovillage]

Why should I expect or for that matter want the NRA to teach my children and my grand children gun safety? I can do as good if not a better job myself using the actual guns instead of a film or brochure. My father taught me to respect guns and to properly clean/ secure them when they're not being used.

As for the second amendment I have let my representatives know my feeling on how it must be protected.

You don't need the NRA and the SAF to help teach your children how to be safe with firearms, but you might need them to insure that you have safe ranges where they can practice or continue to have the right to hunt, compete, or just plink for fun. You live in Texas, if you knew how onerous and expensive the California regulations are you'd probably be a bit more concerned about some of the newer proposals.

 

[irishScott]

I agree with the article.

Which would mean something if you could actually comprehend it.

 

[blankslate]

Keep on raging against any sort of additional legislation.

Don't accept that straw purchasers or people being able to private purchase from gun shows in certain states without a background check is any sort of a problem.

Everything will be fine and there will be no more idiotic negligent discharges or murders of any kind.

 

[michal1980]

Keep on raging against any sort of additional legislation.

Don't accept that straw purchasers or people being able to private purchase from gun shows in certain states without a background check is any sort of a problem.

Everything will be fine and there will be no more idiotic negligent discharges or murders of any kind.

keep on appealing to emotion. Because you have nothing else.

 

[jpeyton]

Keep on raging against any sort of additional legislation.

Finally, some decent advice.

Don't accept that straw purchasers or people being able to private purchase from gun shows in certain states without a background check is any sort of a problem.

Straw purchasing is already against the law. Maybe if we add another law making it illegal again, straw purchasers will be doubly scared of breaking two laws instead of one? /guncontrollogic

Are private party transactions really the problem? If Newtown, Aurora, VA Tech, etc. is your evidence, then the answer is no. The problem seems to lie in the quality of the background check data, and with gun owners securing their firearms, not with private party sales.

Everything will be fine and there will be no more idiotic negligent discharges or murders of any kind.

Maybe more legislation will idiots and criminals into Rhodes scholars.

 

[zsdersw]

"Arms open, eyes closed, minds off" ... the best way to describe 90% of the people and posts in this thread.

The central problem with the "we need more gun laws" side is that laws require enforcement... and enforcement is spotty and incompetent, at best.

The central problem with the "no more gun laws, ever!" crowd, presuming they instead want better enforcement of existing law, is that enforcement.. even better enforcement.. is still going to be spotty and incompetent, at best.

No matter which "side" gets its way, stupid/insane people will continue doing stupid/insane things... and there's nothing anyone can do to prevent it or even make a nominal reduction in it.

 

[OverVolt]

Keep on raging against any sort of additional legislation.

Don't accept that straw purchasers or people being able to private purchase from gun shows in certain states without a background check is any sort of a problem.

Everything will be fine and there will be no more idiotic negligent discharges or murders of any kind.

Why does the bill ban AR-15's and "hi-cap magazines" then?

Liberals back off, back off, back off, until everyone agrees. Then...

*squeak*

inch forward a bit in "compromise" again hah. Well everyone is keen to the ways now.

 

[Alex C]

Finally, some decent advice.


Straw purchasing is already against the law. Maybe if we add another law making it illegal again, straw purchasers will be doubly scared of breaking two laws instead of one? /guncontrollogic

Are private party transactions really the problem? If Newtown, Aurora, VA Tech, etc. is your evidence, then the answer is no. The problem seems to lie in the quality of the background check data, and with gun owners securing their firearms, not with private party sales.

It's against the law, yes, but there is currently no way to enforce or even discourage it. You really think that's something not worth discussing? That there can be no possible way to prevent a small number of criminals from legally buying huge amounts of guns and reselling them on the street? That any steps taken to prevent that will somehow end up with your guns being taken away?

http://www.showmasters.us/Portals/0/pdf/Firearms Use by Offenders.pdf

Is 40% of criminals acquiring guns through private sales not a problem?
Newtown and other mass shootings are terrible, but they're a drop in the bucket compared to the other 8,000+ firearm related homicides each year. Another Newtown is going to be hard to stop, but keeping guns out of the hands of dumb thugs should be a much easier task. And it should be possible without sweeping bans, magazine limits, or the other nonsense the gun control crowd is pushing for. Refusing to even consider that there might be something that can be done to help is absurd. Gun control itself isn't a problem, it's the ineffective laws that only affect law abiding gun owners that should be opposed. The people most qualified to shape good effective laws have walked away from the table because they've bought into the crazy us vs them ideology the NRA is pushing.

The majority of Americans believe gun violence is a huge problem, and right now only one side is proposing solutions. Most people don't know enough about guns and violence to understand those solutions aren't going to work, so that's what they're going to vote for.

 

[OverVolt]

It's against the law, yes, but there is currently no way to enforce or even discourage it. You really think that's something not worth discussing? That there can be no possible way to prevent a small number of criminals from legally buying huge amounts of guns and reselling them on the street? That any steps taken to prevent that will somehow end up with your guns being taken away?

http://www.showmasters.us/Portals/0/pdf/Firearms Use by Offenders.pdf

Is 40% of criminals acquiring guns through private sales not a problem?
Newtown and other mass shootings are terrible, but they're a drop in the bucket compared to the other 8,000+ firearm related homicides each year. Another Newtown is going to be hard to stop, but keeping guns out of the hands of dumb thugs should be a much easier task. And it should be possible without sweeping bans, magazine limits, or the other nonsense the gun control crowd is pushing for. Refusing to even consider that there might be something that can be done to help is absurd. Gun control itself isn't a problem, it's the ineffective laws that only affect law abiding gun owners that should be opposed. The people most qualified to shape good effective laws have walked away from the table because they've bought into the crazy us vs them ideology the NRA is pushing.

The majority of Americans believe gun violence is a huge problem, and right now only one side is proposing solutions. Most people don't know enough about guns and violence to understand those solutions aren't going to work, so that's what they're going to vote for.

Why does the bill ban "assault" AR-15's and hi-cap magazines then?

 

[zsdersw]

Why does the bill ban "assault" AR-15's and hi-cap magazines then?

Forget about the bill... what do you think should be done, if anything?

 

[blankslate]

Finally, some decent advice.

It's great advice. Until another Massacre happens... but wait it won't because we'll all focus on video games like Wayne LaPierre suggests.

Straw purchasing is already against the law. Maybe if we add another law making it illegal again, straw purchasers will be doubly scared of breaking two laws instead of one? /guncontrollogic

Yeah that's why Az. prosecutors let instances of it slide. In those cases they may as well have not had any laws regarding straw purchasers.

Are private party transactions really the problem? If Newtown, Aurora, VA Tech, etc. is your evidence, then the answer is no. The problem seems to lie in the quality of the background check data, and with gun owners securing their firearms, not with private party sales.

Yes, because mass murders account for the majority of people killed with firearms. Since background check problems exist... the obvious answer is to leave them as they are and let the loopholes stand.

Great solution.

Maybe more legislation will idiots and criminals into Rhodes scholars.

Maybe doing nothing will reduce crime and everyone will forget about the latest mass shooting.

You're post and Wayne Lapierre's blathering are the equivalent of a 5 year old covering their ears and yelling loudly.

 

[jpeyton]

Is 40% of criminals acquiring guns through private sales not a problem?

It's not a problem because 40% of criminals don't acquire guns through private sales.

According to the paper you provided:

12.8% purchased/traded from a friend/family
1.7% purchased/traded at a flea market or gun show

Can someone bust out a calculator and add that up for me? I'm not coming up with 40% for some reason.

Furthermore, we don't have the ability to predict the future. Criminals have to start somewhere, they weren't born with a felony on their record. But we as a nation aren't stupid enough (or are we) to restrict the rights of 300 million people because of a few law-breakers.

 

[zsdersw]

Guys and gals, stop being IDIOTS for a second and answer this question:

If you're pro-gun control, what should be done instead of more laws?

If you're anti-gun control, what should be done within existing laws?

 

[highland145]

Guys and gals, stop being IDIOTS for a second and answer this question:

If you're pro-gun control, what should be done instead of more laws?

If you're anti-gun control, what should be done within existing laws?

I think you'd have to just look at laws on the federal level since every state has their own set. And some of them may be to vague to be of any use.

 

[Alex C]

Why does the bill ban "assault" AR-15's and hi-cap magazines then?

Where did I say anything about supporting the bill? I believe my point was that people knowledgeable about guns and violence should be having more input in these bills so that they aren't nonsense.

It's not a problem because 40% of criminals don't acquire guns through private sales.

According to the paper you provided:

12.8% purchased/traded from a friend/family
1.7% purchased/traded at a flea market or gun show

Can someone bust out a calculator and add that up for me? I'm not coming up with 40% for some reason.

Source of Gun
Family or Friend: 39.6%

Whether they bought it or was given or lent, that's a private transaction with no background check.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

If you're anti-gun control, what should be done within existing laws?

Background checks required for all weapon sales (Persons making the sale can pay a small fee (Less than $10) at a federally licensed dealer/gun shop to have a background check performed). Print out of NICS check to be provided to both buyer and seller. Person purchasing the weapon must sign an affidavit stating they meet all requirements to purchase/own a weapon copy to be given to buyer. Both forms to be maintained by buyer/seller for 5 years.

Doctor must report to the NISC office whenever a person is determined mentally unstable and a risk to themselves/others. This person should not be allowed to purchase any weapon. Name and SSN provided to NICS

Courts must report all felony convictions or crimes committed with a weapon to NICS office to ensure these people can't purchase any weapons. Name and SSN provided to NICS.

All persons purchasing a weapon must show a valid ID and provide SSN card.

 

[monovillage]

Where did I say anything about supporting the bill? I believe my point was that people knowledgeable about guns and violence should be having more input in these bills so that they aren't nonsense.


Source of Gun
Family or Friend: 39.6%

Whether they bought it or was given or lent, that's a private transaction with no background check.

And the study predates the use of instant background checks which is the law so it's markedly outdated. It also magically assumes that the criminal would have a background check when he gets a firearm from another gang member or criminal that's passing on a stolen item.

 

[jpeyton]

Source of Gun
Family or Friend: 39.6%

Whether they bought it or was given or lent, that's a private transaction with no background check.

There is a big difference between a transfer of ownership (or in your own words, "private sales") and lending someone something. You're going to need a lot more ink if you intend to re-define that.

But your paper was good for something.

Look at the size of that gun-show loophole, a whopping 0.7%.

 

[zsdersw]

Background checks required for all weapon sales (Persons making the sale can pay a small fee (Less than $10) at a federally licensed dealer/gun shop to have a background check performed). Print out of NICS check to be provided to both buyer and seller. Person purchasing the weapon must sign an affidavit stating they meet all requirements to purchase/own a weapon copy to be given to buyer. Both forms to be maintained by buyer/seller for 5 years.

Doctor must report to the NISC office whenever a person is determined mentally unstable and a risk to themselves/others. This person should not be allowed to purchase any weapon. Name and SSN provided to NICS

Courts must report all felony convictions or crimes committed with a weapon to NICS office to ensure these people can't purchase any weapons. Name and SSN provided to NICS.

All persons purchasing a weapon must show a valid ID and provide SSN card.

That would require changing/adding laws... which means it will be automatically opposed by the NRA and its ilk.

 

[sm625]

You don't come to the table for the gun fearing pussies, you come to the table for the silent majority who actually determines these things.

The silent majority doesnt determine anything. These decisions are made by groups like the CFR and other globalist control groups. This is taken right out of the Genocidal Handbook.

 

[highland145]

That would require changing/adding laws... which means it will be automatically opposed by the NRA and its ilk.

What's federal law for committing a crime with a gun?

 

[jpeyton]

That would require changing/adding laws... which means it will be automatically opposed by the NRA and its ilk.

Asked and answered. The NRA isn't stupid; they realize some laws are going to be passed.

The point of this exercise is to make sure the gun control crowd expends the maximum amount of time/money/energy passing legislation.

In the end, it's all a numbers game. Assuming the gun control crowd has 100 units of time/money/energy to expend, if they expend 50 units of energy per new law, that's 2 new laws enacted. Now if the NRA and law-abiding gun owners decided to bend over and give the gun control crowd some freebies, the average amount of energy needed to be spent per law would drop, and more laws would be passed. Time/money/energy is a finite resource.

We know what the ultimate goal of all gun control advocates is: disarmament. It's the only logical progression using their flawed logic. You can make them fight for it, or you can bend over and take it like New Yorkers just did (30-->10-->7-->?).

 

[Alex C]

There is a big difference between a transfer of ownership (or in your own words, "private sales") and lending someone something. You're going to need a lot more ink if you intend to re-define that.

But your paper was good for something.

Look at the size of that gun-show loophole, a whopping 0.7%.

You are correct. Either way, there is a lack of accountability there. You can sell, give, or lend a gun to anybody without knowing if they're legally permitted to own one. It appears the majority believes this a problem. Instead of trying to come up with ways to fix that without harming law abiding gun owners, they're denying there is a problem.

Nobody said anything about a gun show loophole. Even the gun control crowd has largely figured out that the "gun show loophole" is just a dumb name for private sales.