thoughts on guns in the USA

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Pot isn't addictive. Legalizing it won't do much. When people have to get their fix, they'll kill folks to get it if they have to.

well which is it... not addictive or worth killing to get? and it may not be physically addictive, but ive seen many people that not only rely on it, crave and need it to get through a day. that is all mental there, which is just as bad as physical in most cases. either way, legalizing pot wont do a damn thing to the gun related crime rate. c

Sorry if it was worded goofy, I was addressing two points.

Pot isn't addictive being one.
The other being that people will kill in order to get $$$ so they can buy their fix, being heroin, crack, etc. (not pot).

I've never known anyone on pot to go railing against the police like someone on PCP does. There are probably instances where someone got killed because a guy was robbing a house to go pawn a tv so he could buy pot. But I doubt deaths as a result of pot are very high. Where as those related to severely addictive drugs like heroin makes folks a lot more aggressive when it comes to getting $$$.

I've been in the room when the dealer I get most of guns from called. They took the serial number from the gun(s).

Plus, the dealer keeps paperwork too.

Fern

Like Nebor said, the serial numbers don't get called in, just your personal info. It's pretty much registration since the 4473 gets kept by the dealer and can be inspected by the ATF without notice.

I consider it registration since the records are kept for .gov review at any time even if not related to a search but routine inspection.

The ATF can't keep the NFA Registry maintained on computer.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Nebor
-snip-
There's no FBI national database. They call in your identifying info off the 4473, and you either pass or fail the background check. Then according to your age they say whether you can buy rifles or pistols. That's it. No serial numbers, or the make or brand of the firearm are ever given to the NICS operators.

I've been in the room when the dealer I get most of guns from called. They took the serial number from the gun(s).

Plus, the dealer keeps paperwork too.

Fern

The dealer takes the serial number and it goes on the 4473, which the dealer is required to keep for 10 years. But the serial number is not required by NICS, since it's only purpose is to determine your eligibility to buy a firearm.

Plus the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 explicitly outlawed any kind of federal gun registry.

But if you feel safer thinking your guns are "registered" with Big Brother, more power to you. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. I promise none of mine are though.

OK

No, I'm happier if they are not "registered".

Fern

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Like Nebor said, the numbers don't get called in, just your number. It's pretty much registration since the 4473 gets kept by the dealer and can be inspected by the ATF without notice.

I consider it registration since the records are kept for .gov review at any time even if not related to a search but routine inspection.

The ATF can't keep the NFA Registry maintained on computer.

And in recent years the ATF has taken to finding small clerical errors and presenting gun dealers with 2 options: 1) Defend yourself in court against the United States, or 2) Voluntarily surrender your FFL.

That's why we've seen an insane 60% loss of gun dealers in the last couple years, with more getting put out of business every year.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Like Nebor said, the numbers don't get called in, just your number. It's pretty much registration since the 4473 gets kept by the dealer and can be inspected by the ATF without notice.

I consider it registration since the records are kept for .gov review at any time even if not related to a search but routine inspection.

The ATF can't keep the NFA Registry maintained on computer.

And in recent years the ATF has taken to finding small clerical errors and presenting gun dealers with 2 options: 1) Defend yourself in court against the United States, or 2) Voluntarily surrender your FFL.

That's why we've seen an insane 60% loss of gun dealers in the last couple years, with more getting put out of business every year.

Woops my words were messed up. The serial #s don't get called in, just personal info like you said.

The ATF is in the business of keeping people out of business.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I love how it works in the US, a registred gun is bought, used to shoot someone with and then found with the serial filed off of it, so it's ... an illegal gun, not part of the issue with legally bought guns, tens of thousands of stolen guns, all registred are all found with the serial filed off of them, so they are illegal guns.

So the gun nut speaks "legal guns are never used in homocides, only illegal guns" and people BUY that?

It's just mindblowing.

Now i'm not going to argue against gun ownership in the US though, you sure seem to need it, take someone like Nebor, he has been in several gun fights, me, if i ever felt the need to arm myself in my home or when going out, i'd move.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I love how it works in the US, a registred gun is bought, used to shoot someone with and then found with the serial filed off of it, so it's ... an illegal gun, not part of the issue with legally bought guns, tens of thousands of stolen guns, all registred are all found with the serial filed off of them, so they are illegal guns.

So the gun nut speaks "legal guns are never used in homocides, only illegal guns" and people BUY that?

It's just mindblowing.

Now i'm not going to argue against gun ownership in the US though, you sure seem to need it, take someone like Nebor, he has been in several gun fights, me, if i ever felt the need to arm myself in my home or when going out, i'd move.

You showed your ignorance of the issue, and your unwillingness to even read the thread, by referring to all of our "registered guns."

Our guns aren't registered (with the exception of a few STATES.) The government doesn't know where they are. I have a friend who regularly buys and sells guns in face to face transfers through Craigslist. Neither the ATF, the FBI, or my friend knows where those guns go.

You don't seem to have any concept of what gun ownership in America is about, or how it works.

 

[NeoV]

Again, mostly solid replies here - thank you.

Look - if the ATF is shutting down stores for clerical errors, then shame on them - and this famous case of the gun mis-firing and a guy going to jail for that - is completely ridiculous.

What I'm getting at, though, isn't taking guns away - and Nebor - I have a HUGE problem with your friend buying guns at gun stores and then re-selling them through unregulated means like Craigslist - this is part of the problem folks - do you care, or does your friend care, that the only reason people are buying guns that way is that they likely wouldn't pass the minimal background check that is required at a real gun store? Is what your 'friend' is doing even legal? If it is - then it's another issue to tackle - you should not be able to sell a gun the same way you can sell a car or a used set of golf clubs - these are weapons, not toys.

I think it's a myth that all of these guns used in crimes are 'underground', or smuggled in from Mexico - most of the illegal immigrants here from Mexico came here to work, not to bring guns with them - besides, I'd venture a guess that there are more guns moving from the US into Mexico than there are the other way around. I think this is one of the 'boogeymen' myths about guns and there availability today. Guns come from gun dealers - yes, criminals may not be the ones walking into gun stores and buying them, but what is wrong with trying to stop these middlemen from buying guns in large quantities for obvious re-sale purposes? I'm not proposing anything that makes it more difficult for any lawy-abiding citizen to arm themselves.

Interesting article here on the decline in the number of gun dealers in the US - which by the way still has over 50,000.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0314/p02s01-ussc.html

I would argue that both an increase in concealed carry laws AND tighter regulations that got rid of a number of illegitimate gun dealers led to the decline in gun crime - but the rate and amount of those crimes continues to be well above that of other nations.

More stats on the reduction available here:

http://www.vpc.org/press/0603dealers.htm

Isn't shutting down these shady gun dealers a good thing? Despite these reductions, you still seem to have a small percentage of stores being traced to a large percentage of crimes where the gun is successfully traced back - and those are the stores I want to target.

Given the huge number since-closed gun dealers/shops - I think it's pretty clear where all of our guns come from, and why they are widely available to people who are looking for them.

 

[GTKeeper]

A question for pro-gun folks:

Why are pro-gun people so against more background checks / regulation of the industry? Are you scared that this is the beginning of getting your guns taken away?

I think one of the core issues and what NeoV stated in his original post, is how easily it is to purchase a gun, but how impossible it is to trace it once its purchased.

I think we should look at the possibility of really increasing the thoroughness of a background check. I for one, believe that you need to be mentally fit in order to purchase a gun.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
A question for pro-gun folks:

Why are pro-gun people so against more background checks / regulation of the industry? Are you scared that this is the beginning of getting your guns taken away?

I think one of the core issues and what NeoV stated in his original post, is how easily it is to purchase a gun, but how impossible it is to trace it once its purchased.

I think we should look at the possibility of really increasing the thoroughness of a background check. I for one, believe that you need to be mentally fit in order to purchase a gun.

Background checks are essentially registration, and registration inevitably leads to confiscation.

The ability to vote is far more dangerous than the ability to own a gun. Should we institute tests for that as well?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
A question for pro-gun folks:

Why are pro-gun people so against more background checks / regulation of the industry? Are you scared that this is the beginning of getting your guns taken away?

I think one of the core issues and what NeoV stated in his original post, is how easily it is to purchase a gun, but how impossible it is to trace it once its purchased.

I think we should look at the possibility of really increasing the thoroughness of a background check. I for one, believe that you need to be mentally fit in order to purchase a gun.

Even if you implemented a mental health check (which, btw, some states already do) you're not going to stop many problems because most crimes and violence aren't committed by the person who lawfully purchased the weapons in the first place. When they are it's seldom someone with a history of mental illness...any mental conditions arise later. Remember, crimes with weapons are not committed with lawfully purchased weapons.

There are two primary problems with background checks and regulation. First, there is the danger of such information falling into the wrong hands, presenting a security/safety risk, or that a corrupted government would use the information against the citizen. While this sounds ridiculous it has happened many times in history. Second, that it would not provide any significant improvement over our current situation.

How about this; please explain to me how you're going to ACTUALLY impact the situation through the means you talked about. How is it REALLY going to help. Maybe I'm just not understanding.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: NeoV

What I'm getting at, though, isn't taking guns away - and Nebor - I have a HUGE problem with your friend buying guns at gun stores and then re-selling them through unregulated means like Craigslist - this is part of the problem folks - do you care, or does your friend care, that the only reason people are buying guns that way is that they likely wouldn't pass the minimal background check that is required at a real gun store? Is what your 'friend' is doing even legal? If it is - then it's another issue to tackle - you should not be able to sell a gun the same way you can sell a car or a used set of golf clubs - these are weapons, not toys.

Reading comprehension FTW. I never said he was buying guns at gun stores. In fact I think he's only bought 2 or 3 guns that required filling out a 4473 in his life, and he's owned more guns than anyone I know (hundreds over the years.) He buys and sells on Craigslist, and other gun enthusiast forums, meets up with people and trades face to face.

I'm sorry, I think a gun is private property, just like anything else, and the exchange of it between private citizens is no one's business, certainly not the government. For a lot of target shooters, their gun is just an instrument of their sport. Me? I don't play golf. To me, a golf club is just a weapon.

 

[NeoV]

Well then what is the point of a background check at a store that sells guns if you can just go onto Craigslist or some alternative and buy/sell guns with no checks in place?

Bober - "registration leads to confiscation" is the kind of NRA BS that the gun discussion can do without. I'm pretty sure your car is registered, I'm pretty sure every house purchase is on record somewhere - it's just the there is this paranoia about things like this with gun owners.

Also, I have to disagree on the statement "Remember, crimes with weapons are not committed with lawfully purchased weapons. " The weapons were at one point legally sold - likely to people intent on re-selling them. Heck, a few posts back showed a ~70% decrease in the number of legal gun dealers when the regulations got a little tighter - do you think those 70% were all selling guns by following all of the laws we have in place? Sure, there was some percentage of those that were legit, trying to get wholesaling pricing, etc - but I have to believe a large percentage of those gun dealers were just in the business to make a buck, and a ton of guns went out of their stores and into the hands of criminals.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: NeoV
Bober - "registration leads to confiscation" is the kind of NRA BS that the gun discussion can do without. I'm pretty sure your car is registered, I'm pretty sure every house purchase is on record somewhere - it's just the there is this paranoia about things like this with gun owners.

You think you can dictate what does and does not belong in the discussion? Fuck you, you elitist fucking prick. The world can do without people like you completely, demanding everyone else bend to your whims and live the way you tell them.

Find me a historical precedent where registration did not lead to a ban, or STFU asshole.

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
A question for pro-gun folks:

Why are pro-gun people so against more background checks / regulation of the industry? Are you scared that this is the beginning of getting your guns taken away?

I think one of the core issues and what NeoV stated in his original post, is how easily it is to purchase a gun, but how impossible it is to trace it once its purchased.

I think we should look at the possibility of really increasing the thoroughness of a background check. I for one, believe that you need to be mentally fit in order to purchase a gun.

Even if you implemented a mental health check (which, btw, some states already do) you're not going to stop many problems because most crimes and violence aren't committed by the person who lawfully purchased the weapons in the first place. When they are it's seldom someone with a history of mental illness...any mental conditions arise later. Remember, crimes with weapons are not committed with lawfully purchased weapons.

There are two primary problems with background checks and regulation. First, there is the danger of such information falling into the wrong hands, presenting a security/safety risk, or that a corrupted government would use the information against the citizen. While this sounds ridiculous it has happened many times in history. Second, that it would not provide any significant improvement over our current situation.

How about this; please explain to me how you're going to ACTUALLY impact the situation through the means you talked about. How is it REALLY going to help. Maybe I'm just not understanding.

Good points,

It seems to me that there is a total lack of information / coordination within the law enforcement community in regards to gun ownership and who should be able to purchase a gun.

To answer your question though, what I would like to see is background checks done on every citizen that wants to own a gun. So for example, you can't go to a gun show and buy a gun with cash and NOT have a background check. I think the check should include mental health and stability and it should be ENFORCED at each point of purchase. To drive all this though you would need a central database that keeps track of all background checks.

Now, the number of guns bought etc. would not have to be stored. In fact I would be against that since that is invasion of privacy IMHO. Now if dealers/people would not use this government database for the purchase of guns with valid background checks + mental health checks they could be prosecuted and put in jail.

Is this something that pro-gun folks would entertain, and if not why not?

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
A question for pro-gun folks:

Why are pro-gun people so against more background checks / regulation of the industry? Are you scared that this is the beginning of getting your guns taken away?

I think one of the core issues and what NeoV stated in his original post, is how easily it is to purchase a gun, but how impossible it is to trace it once its purchased.

I think we should look at the possibility of really increasing the thoroughness of a background check. I for one, believe that you need to be mentally fit in order to purchase a gun.

Background checks are essentially registration, and registration inevitably leads to confiscation.

The ability to vote is far more dangerous than the ability to own a gun. Should we institute tests for that as well?

Interesting point, but I don't necessarily see a background check as a vessel or way forward to out right confiscation.

If you open a business that serves alcohol, you need to get a liquor license, you have to register. I don't see business being shut down because they registered and applied and received a liquor license. (i.e being confiscated as you imply).

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: NeoV
Bober - "registration leads to confiscation" is the kind of NRA BS that the gun discussion can do without. I'm pretty sure your car is registered, I'm pretty sure every house purchase is on record somewhere - it's just the there is this paranoia about things like this with gun owners.

You think you can dictate what does and does not belong in the discussion? Fuck you, you elitist fucking prick. The world can do without people like you completely, demanding everyone else bend to your whims and live the way you tell them.

Find me a historical precedent where registration did not lead to a ban, or STFU asshole.

Edit: By the way, confiscation of cars and homes happens all the time so thanks for backing up my argument.

 

[NeoV]

Confiscation when they aren't paid for - which has what to do with guns? If that's backing up your argument, you fail.

When exactly have guns been confiscated in this country? Oh, right, I forgot that talking point #37 is "remember the nazi's - they knew who had guns and used that to take over the country". Wait, I'll do it for you - New Orleans, post Katrina, right? Did they go door to door with a list of gun registrations, or did they just go door to door in areas that they had been shot at? Did they print out the 'master list' of gun owners? The way New Orleans was handled - in every way shape and form - after Katrina - was an absolute disgrace - but to use that as justification - or, as the NRA so often puts it, to call it "The most important issue in the history of this organization" - is ridiculous - it's like saying we shouldn't bring emergency supplies to areas hit by disasters because it was all F'd up in New Orleans. Can you find a non-Katrina specific time when guns were confiscated in this country? I'm sorry, but if you are basing your stance on Katrina and the Nazi's, it's not much to stand on.

I'm an "elitist prick" because I want to do something about the gun violence in this country?
I'm an "elitist prick" because I want to make it more difficult for criminals to get their hands on guns?

I haven't asked one person to 'bend to my whims' - all I've asked is that we keep the "but it's our constitutional right" stuff out of this conversation - because I'm not advocating a ban on guns in this country - or that current guns be confiscated.

Your contribution, or should I say lack of contribution, has been
"Background checks are essentially registration, and registration inevitably leads to confiscation.
The ability to vote is far more dangerous than the ability to own a gun. Should we institute tests for that as well?"

I'm pretty sure that a number of jobs - well paying jobs in particular - require a background check - so are you saying that's a registration too? How exactly is a background check the same as a registration? How can you possibly justify being against a background check for someone who wants to buy a gun - trying to connect a background check with a registration is far-reaching at best, and if you can somehow justify that convicted felons should be allowed to buy guns, then more power to you.

By the way - very mature to start the name calling - it is possible to disagree with someone without resorting to name calling, but too many people such as yourself feel all high and mighty tucked safely behind their keyboards.

 

[JohnnyGage]

Unfortunately, adding more gun laws won't do anything about violence in the US. How many gun laws have been broken in the mass shootings at Columbine, VT, and Chicago? I think there were 23 gun laws broken during Columbine--firing a gun w/i city limits, having a gun w/i 1000 feet of a school and minor in possession to name a few. The VT murderer had his medical records sealed by new privacy laws. So when the background check went through there was no evidence of mental illness and he was able to acquire a gun. I don't mind a background check, but there shouldn't be registration because the govt. shouldn't know what lawful citizen has a gun and isn't breaking the law. I'm not worried about confiscation but there shouldn't be anyone telling anyone else how to protect themselves--esp. the govt. Plus look at Great Britain and Australia--both have outlawed guns and both saw a rise in violent crime--esp. home invasions. As a matter of fact Bobbies are now armed.

Also you to have to take into account (which no one does) of how many lives are saved using guns? The numbers are between five hundred thousand to two million times a year guns are used as self protection, but not reported. Even if only 10% of the lower number is used, there are still more lives saved than gun deaths.


With that, yes Marijuana should be legal and taxed to high heaven--pun intended.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
A question for pro-gun folks:

Why are pro-gun people so against more background checks / regulation of the industry? Are you scared that this is the beginning of getting your guns taken away?

I think one of the core issues and what NeoV stated in his original post, is how easily it is to purchase a gun, but how impossible it is to trace it once its purchased.

I think we should look at the possibility of really increasing the thoroughness of a background check. I for one, believe that you need to be mentally fit in order to purchase a gun.

For the sake of discussion, let's assume the SCOTUS is going to affirm that the 2nd Amendment includes the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

Now, on what basis (other than convicted felon) are you going to deny people their 2nd Amendment rights?

If you say "mental problems" (however that is to be defined), should they be denied the right of self defense, not being able to have a shotgun etc for home defense? Should their other rights also be infringed? Should "crazy" people be allowed to vote? To have free speech? etc.

I think you've got one whopping big "can 'o worms" here.

I understand how some favor a "cooling off" period. Might prevent somebody who's lost their temper from really going crazy and killing someone. Of course, might prevent the woman being stalked from defending herself and so she is murdered. There's an upside & downside.

Does gun registration information held by the federal government interfer with our right to privacy? How does the government have any "right" to keep track of all my guns, but not the right to keep track of all your telephone conversations? Conspiracy means communication - are people plotting crimes, even bombings, not dangerous?

Are gun owners to be treated as potential criminals, in a manner convicted and forfeiting rights before even committing a crime?

Is the reason "public saftey"? In the context of FISA and the fight against terrorism we often hear the old (Ben Franklin) quote "He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither", wouldn't that apply here as well?

I think that there are a lot of difficult questions about the matter. And just pleading "wouldn't it make sense etc" is woefully inadequate.

Fern

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: NeoV
Well then what is the point of a background check at a store that sells guns if you can just go onto Craigslist or some alternative and buy/sell guns with no checks in place?

Bober - "registration leads to confiscation" is the kind of NRA BS that the gun discussion can do without. I'm pretty sure your car is registered, I'm pretty sure every house purchase is on record somewhere - it's just the there is this paranoia about things like this with gun owners.

Also, I have to disagree on the statement "Remember, crimes with weapons are not committed with lawfully purchased weapons. " The weapons were at one point legally sold - likely to people intent on re-selling them. Heck, a few posts back showed a ~70% decrease in the number of legal gun dealers when the regulations got a little tighter - do you think those 70% were all selling guns by following all of the laws we have in place? Sure, there was some percentage of those that were legit, trying to get wholesaling pricing, etc - but I have to believe a large percentage of those gun dealers were just in the business to make a buck, and a ton of guns went out of their stores and into the hands of criminals.

I'm afraid you need a history lesson. Do some research into weapon confiscation by the state. You'll find a continuing story of registration leading to confiscation, right up to modern times. These were places that previously guaranteed the right of ownership to citizens, or at least never restricted it. Then came the registration for purely humanitarian reasons. Inevitably the confiscation followed. Not in EVERY country, but more than enough times to make it a genuine and reasonable concern.

You're incorrect in your logic concerning point of sale being the important point. You fail to account to theft for instance. Or for those weapons that are used by members of the household, but are not the purchasers. These constitute the VAST majority of guns used in crimes in the United States.


EDIT: I accidentally linked the wrong study. Fixed now.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
A question for pro-gun folks:

Why are pro-gun people so against more background checks / regulation of the industry? Are you scared that this is the beginning of getting your guns taken away?

I think one of the core issues and what NeoV stated in his original post, is how easily it is to purchase a gun, but how impossible it is to trace it once its purchased.

I think we should look at the possibility of really increasing the thoroughness of a background check. I for one, believe that you need to be mentally fit in order to purchase a gun.

Even if you implemented a mental health check (which, btw, some states already do) you're not going to stop many problems because most crimes and violence aren't committed by the person who lawfully purchased the weapons in the first place. When they are it's seldom someone with a history of mental illness...any mental conditions arise later. Remember, crimes with weapons are not committed with lawfully purchased weapons.

There are two primary problems with background checks and regulation. First, there is the danger of such information falling into the wrong hands, presenting a security/safety risk, or that a corrupted government would use the information against the citizen. While this sounds ridiculous it has happened many times in history. Second, that it would not provide any significant improvement over our current situation.

How about this; please explain to me how you're going to ACTUALLY impact the situation through the means you talked about. How is it REALLY going to help. Maybe I'm just not understanding.

Good points,

It seems to me that there is a total lack of information / coordination within the law enforcement community in regards to gun ownership and who should be able to purchase a gun.

To answer your question though, what I would like to see is background checks done on every citizen that wants to own a gun. So for example, you can't go to a gun show and buy a gun with cash and NOT have a background check. I think the check should include mental health and stability and it should be ENFORCED at each point of purchase. To drive all this though you would need a central database that keeps track of all background checks.

Now, the number of guns bought etc. would not have to be stored. In fact I would be against that since that is invasion of privacy IMHO. Now if dealers/people would not use this government database for the purchase of guns with valid background checks + mental health checks they could be prosecuted and put in jail.

Is this something that pro-gun folks would entertain, and if not why not?

Again, it's done in almost all sales already (except the mental health part). I wouldn't raise a high-holy stink about it, but neither do I see any way that it could make much of a difference. Again, we know that most guns used in crimes aren't used by their legal purchasers. We know that most guns legally purchased required a background check already. I don't see the logic in how this will solve anything. I certainly wouldn't be willing to entertain any expense or inconvenience over the issue, UNLESS you can demonstrate to me with supporting data that it's likely to have a positive effect.

 

[Nebor]

How can you possibly justify being against a background check for someone who wants to buy a gun - trying to connect a background check with a registration is far-reaching at best, and if you can somehow justify that convicted felons should be allowed to buy guns, then more power to you.

It's not a hard connection to make, that's why when the NICS system was created, it was written into the law that the FBI could not keep records of the calls for more than 24 hours.

I can easily justify that convicted felons should be allowed to buy guns.
1) If you don't trust them to have a gun, don't let them out of prison
2) You let them buy cars. More people are intentionally killed with cars every year than guns in the United States. And cars are FAR more devastating weapons.
3) All you do by banning them is drive their aquisition underground. I've never heard of a felon having a hard time obtaining a firearm. At least you'd know they were buying firearms. As it is, they're not even pursued for (illegally) attempting to purchase firearms through a dealer.

But that's not really what this argument is about.

There has been YEARS of outcry in the gun community for access to NICS. Everyone I know that has ever done a face to face transfer wishes they could have called the person they were trading with into NICS to verify they were a legal buyer. You realize the only change they would have to make would be to hire more people, and not ask "What's your FFL license number" at the beginning of the phone call. Then everyone selling guns in private transactions could enjoy the same information and accompanying security that dealers get. And yet, when we've asked ATF, or the FBI for access to NICS, their answer is always the same: "Don't like it? Get an FFL."

Sure, get an FFL, for hundreds to thousands of dollars, plus paperwork, plus you are legally required to be in the business of selling firearms for profit to obtain one. And then the ATF has the right at any time to search your business and check all your firearms, and all of your paperwork. Mess up? Go to prison, lose your house.

Gun enthusiasts by and large are very responsible, sensible people. We want the laws enforced. We want to be able to access NICS to verify the validity of someone wanting to buy a gun from us. But the ATF and FBI would rather pad their arrest\conviction numbers by throwing people in prison for technicalities rather than going after the people who are clearly purchasing huge quantities of firearms for illegal resale.

So, as cliche as it is, we have over 10,000 gun laws in this country. Hold those who are supposed to be enforcing them accountable, let's see how that goes, then we can talk about the need for more or less.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
A question for pro-gun folks:

Why are pro-gun people so against more background checks / regulation of the industry? Are you scared that this is the beginning of getting your guns taken away?

I think one of the core issues and what NeoV stated in his original post, is how easily it is to purchase a gun, but how impossible it is to trace it once its purchased.

I think we should look at the possibility of really increasing the thoroughness of a background check. I for one, believe that you need to be mentally fit in order to purchase a gun.

Background checks are essentially registration, and registration inevitably leads to confiscation.

The ability to vote is far more dangerous than the ability to own a gun. Should we institute tests for that as well?

I'd like for one of the anti constitution/bill of rights people to answer that question please.