who should we not allow to buy guns

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Artdeco

Platinum Member
Mar 14, 2015
2,682
1
0
Wrong. Please don't pretend you know what you're talking about.

I go to plenty of gun shows and I can tell you, without a doubt, there is NO background check for gun purchases made there.
Only pistols from FFL dealers.
There aren't even background checks required for rifles or shotguns in Ohio from brick and mortar stores.

LOL, it's a federal law, and you don't know what you're talking about, and it's a near automatic felony conviction.

The "loophole" is that sometimes people meet up as private citizens at gun shows and do private sales. Several states require private purchases to go through a FFL, and a background check, I live in one of them.
 

edro

Lifer
Apr 5, 2002
24,326
68
91
LOL, it's a federal law, and you don't know what you're talking about, and it's a near automatic felony conviction.

The "loophole" is that sometimes people meet up as private citizens at gun shows and do private sales. Several states require private purchases to go through a FFL, and a background check, I live in one of them.
That's my WHOLE point; IT IS A LOOPHOLE!
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
32,035
32,521
146
Until you come up with a workable method to keep all these guns out of the wrong hands, your list is just wishful thinking. And you are only addressing firearms purchased legally. If our failed drug war, alcohol prohibition, music sharing, etc., is any example, people get what they want one way or another even if it's illegal. Someone willing to commit mass murder doesn't care if their weapon of choice is legal or not.
Very few would dispute this reply. The bold part however, is myopic. If the guns and ammo were illegal, it would present numerous ways the suspect might be caught and/or stopped before acquiring everything necessary to carry out a violent crime using them. If the black market makes the hardware much more expensive, it would be a barrier for many would be purchasers. Some might be sponsored to commit acts of terrorism. The financing would provide opportunity for LE and other agencies to become aware. Some would need to commit other crimes to raise the cash, another opportunity to get caught before getting the weapons and ammo. Teh suspect might get caught up in a sting when going to purchase the weapons. Or run into an informant. Many scenarios that do not exist with legal ownership would come into play.

That said, I am a 2nd amendment supporter. And no matter what drastic measures were implemented, determined fanatics like this latest POS will find a way. And if they fail, another, and another will take their place until they finally do succeed. Infringing on the rights of all, is not a solution, it is a victory for those it would be intended to stop.
 

pontifex

Lifer
Dec 5, 2000
43,804
46
91
Where do you get that from? I was raised around guns. I remember the first time my dad took me quail hunting. You're falling into the false dichotomy that the NRA has created for you - either no regulation or guns will be banned.

There are very few "rights" that come w/o some sort of restriction. The right to free speech for example doesn't give you the right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater. So the idea that gun ownership should be unconditional is absurd. It's like saying everyone should be allowed to drive or fly an airplane. Except you can probably kill more people with a semiauto than a car.

Now if you accept the idea that some sort of regulation is needed, then why not accept that it is needed on the national rather than state level? In New Jersey, we have a variety of restrictions on gun ownership but people still own them legally. There's no way that we would ever have an outright ban. That's being paranoid.

And as I said before, it's only a matter of time before we get more stringent regulations at the federal level. There are only so many of these shootings people are going to tolerate before they demand that something, anything be done. Wouldn't rather have the action taken be something rational and effective rather than the typical knee jerk response we normally get from Congress?

The freedom of speech guarantee in the Constitution doesn’t give you the right to say anything you want, anywhere you want.

The First Amendment makes it unconstitutional for government to suppress speech. So your comment about yelling fire in a theater is worthless.

The same way the Second Amendment makes it unconstitutional for government to restrict firearms.

Driving or flying a plane is not a Constitutionally protected right.

Don't give me that BS that no one wants to ban guns completely. there are multiple quotes from multiple politicians who want to do just that.

What should we do that's rational and effective? Gun owners have done nothing but give up rights over the years. What have the antis given up? Compromise is a 2 way street.
 

z1ggy

Lifer
May 17, 2008
10,010
66
91
Every time this shit happens a gun debate always occurs. It's pretty pointless and moot tbh. This is a cultural and societal problem, not an "assault weapon" one.

Not to be morbid but give a half way decent shooter hunting great like a bolt action 308 or a 12 gauge shot gun, and he is still mowing down 10 to 15 people in the club.

Even if you ban all non hunting guns, they can still and will, cause serious damage.
 

pontifex

Lifer
Dec 5, 2000
43,804
46
91
Wrong. Please don't pretend you know what you're talking about.

I go to plenty of gun shows and I can tell you, without a doubt, there is NO background check for gun purchases made there.
Only pistols from FFL dealers.
There aren't even background checks required for rifles or shotguns in Ohio from brick and mortar stores.

BS

A quick google search shows that if you buy ANY firearm (rifle, pistol, shotgun) from an FFL in OH, they must do a background check. Doesn't matter if they are brick and mortar or at a gun show.

There is no gun show loophole. The law specifically allows people to do face to face transfers without a background check. How is that a loophole?
 

NutBucket

Lifer
Aug 30, 2000
27,151
635
126
And even then, that law varies from state to state.

Now, I will concede that I have no issue for ALL purchases/transfers to require NICS checks. And, AFAIK, all straw purchases are illegal anyway.

Legally, I cannot go to Nevada, purchase a gun privately (no background check) and return to CA with it. That process must go through an FFL. Point being, most things are already illegal anyway.
 

Jaepheth

Platinum Member
Apr 29, 2006
2,572
25
91
It's a bit outside the box, and probably not super effective...

but what if we outlawed civilian use of smokeless powder?

Mandating all civilian firearms use black powder:
*A mass shooter would be firing blind after a handful of shots.
*Lower muzzle energy would lead to a few borderline casualties surviving instead of dying.
*Residue buildup may even render a firearm inoperable after going through a single high-cap magazine.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,797
572
126
Morans...

Unfortunately there is no reliable test to weed out morans* from buying guns.

________________
 
Last edited:

paperfist

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2000
6,539
287
126
www.the-teh.com
Every time this shit happens a gun debate always occurs. It's pretty pointless and moot tbh. This is a cultural and societal problem, not an "assault weapon" one.

Not to be morbid but give a half way decent shooter hunting great like a bolt action 308 or a 12 gauge shot gun, and he is still mowing down 10 to 15 people in the club.

Even if you ban all non hunting guns, they can still and will, cause serious damage.

I'll take serious damage over 50 innocent dead people.

I never got shot before so I don't know if I'm talking out of my *** or not, but I *think* I stand a better chance against a weapon that doesn't have a large clip and fire automatically.

Seriously, what purpose does a weapon like that serve other than to hunt humans? Cause animals are easy prey with a 'normal' gun.

You might be right about the point being moot cause automatic weapons are already out there and everywhere. But should they really continue to be made for anyone but the military?
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,797
572
126
I never got shot before so I don't know if I'm talking out of my *** or not, but I *think* I stand a better chance against a weapon that doesn't have a large clip and fire automatically.

First of all it's a magazine or mag not a clip. Also he didn't have an automatic weapon it was semi-auto. Since you don't know these things your arguments are summarily dismissed.

As ridiculous as the above statement may seem it is how a lot of 2A rights activists aka gun nuts will regard what you said. You don't know enough about weapons so your opinion isn't worth anything in their eyes. Sad but true.


__________
 
Last edited:

NutBucket

Lifer
Aug 30, 2000
27,151
635
126
When you have elected officials state the use of a bullet button converts a firearm to fire automatically then yes, we have every right to question (and disregard) someone's opinion. When a lawmaker does not understand what they are writing laws about, is that not a problem?
 

paperfist

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2000
6,539
287
126
www.the-teh.com
First of all it's a magazine or mag not a clip. Also he didn't have an automatic weapon it was semi-auto. Since you don't know these things your arguments are summarily dismissed.

As ridiculous as the above statement may seem it is how a lot of 2A rights activists aka gun nuts will regard what you said. You don't know enough about weapons so your opinion isn't worth anything in their eyes. Sad but true.


__________

Oh sorry gun lovers I got my vernacular wrong.
 

NutBucket

Lifer
Aug 30, 2000
27,151
635
126
It's not vernacular and it's not slang. It's proper terminology.

The difference between a semi-automatic and automatic weapon is not negligible. One is legal and one is not (generally speaking), at a minimum.

I'll give you a pass on clip vs. magazine because it doesn't really matter.
 

Pandasaurus

Member
Aug 19, 2012
196
2
76
Wrong. Please don't pretend you know what you're talking about.

I go to plenty of gun shows and I can tell you, without a doubt, there is NO background check for gun purchases made there.
Only pistols from FFL dealers.
There aren't even background checks required for rifles or shotguns in Ohio from brick and mortar stores.


Please don't pretend to know what you're talking about.

Federal background checks are required by federal law for any firearm purchase (aside from some black powder rifles) from a licensed dealer as part of their business. Just to be perfectly clear, I'll say it again. A federal (NICS) background check is required by federal law on all firearms purchases from a licensed dealer in all states.

The closest thing to a "gun show loophole" (which is a retarded term, but we'll go with it) is the fact that by the very nature of the background check system (to perform a background check, you must be a licensed dealer, among other things), private citizens without an FFL cannot perform a background check before making a private sale, short of making the transfer through a third-party licensed dealer. Private, face to face sales are specifically allowed by law, within the bounds of the law (IE: not being a dealer).

Now, if you want to talk about the enforcement of the already existing laws regarding guns and their sale, by all means feel free. We can talk about poor enforcement by all parties (including the BATFE and FBI, but especially dealers) until the end of time.

Sources for further reading:
https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download
https://www.atf.gov/file/58676/download
 

Humpy

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2011
4,464
596
126
1. terrorists, people with terrorist affiliations, or who have been investigated for terrorist links
2. people who are mentally not right
3. record of violent or hate crime
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Based on the rich history of massacres in the US you better add Mormons, angry farmers, mine supervisors, and Ice Cube (on a bad day) to the list.
 

paperfist

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2000
6,539
287
126
www.the-teh.com
It's not vernacular and it's not slang. It's proper terminology.

The difference between a semi-automatic and automatic weapon is not negligible. One is legal and one is not (generally speaking), at a minimum.

I'll give you a pass on clip vs. magazine because it doesn't really matter.

My point was I'll take someone shooting at me with 6 bullets where they have to pull the trigger each time vrs them holding the trigger and the gun dispersing bullets in some form of automatic process.
 

Artdeco

Platinum Member
Mar 14, 2015
2,682
1
0
That's my WHOLE point; IT IS A LOOPHOLE!

But it's not a gun show loophole, it's legal in several states. Ohio does not require a background check for private sales. If you own a gun, you can sell it to someone without a background check if both of the parties reside in a state that doesn't require one.

ATF has done sting operations, and determined that one in thirty sales would not pass a background check, that's an issue for your state lawmakers.

There's a new executive order that allows ATF to decide on a case by case basis if the laws are being abused.
 

z1ggy

Lifer
May 17, 2008
10,010
66
91
I'll take serious damage over 50 innocent dead people.

I never got shot before so I don't know if I'm talking out of my *** or not, but I *think* I stand a better chance against a weapon that doesn't have a large clip and fire automatically.

Seriously, what purpose does a weapon like that serve other than to hunt humans? Cause animals are easy prey with a 'normal' gun.

You might be right about the point being moot cause automatic weapons are already out there and everywhere. But should they really continue to be made for anyone but the military?
Yeah.... You pretty much seem to be severely under educated about firearms. Anyone who refers to a detachable magazine as a "clip" has probably never even touched a gun, and gets almost all their gun "education" from CNN or Huffington post.

They make bolt action 308, 300 mag and 30-06 rifles that have magazines, that are incredibly more powerful than a 223/556, that are used to hunt big game (and snipe terrorists at incredibly long distances). Just because you can't mow down 50 people with one doesn't mean some nut can't go do the exact same thing but only take down 15 or 20 innocents.

I'm fact it could be just as bad in crowded clubs etc because a round that powerful (depending on projectile) would probably over penetrate and continue into the next 2 or 3 people, unlike a 223 with a bthp.
 

paperfist

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2000
6,539
287
126
www.the-teh.com
Yeah.... You pretty much seem to be severely under educated about firearms. Anyone who refers to a detachable magazine as a "clip" has probably never even touched a gun, and gets almost all their gun "education" from CNN or Huffington post.

They make bolt action 308, 300 mag and 30-06 rifles that have magazines, that are incredibly more powerful than a 223/556, that are used to hunt big game (and snipe terrorists at incredibly long distances). Just because you can't mow down 50 people with one doesn't mean some nut can't go do the exact same thing but only take down 15 or 20 innocents.

I'm fact it could be just as bad in crowded clubs etc because a round that powerful (depending on projectile) would probably over penetrate and continue into the next 2 or 3 people, unlike a 223 with a bthp.

lol you guys are really hung up on your terms.

50 people dead...I know guns don't kill people...

I own 3 and have been to a gun range and hunting with my uncle. You scared now?

---

Do you guys that own guns and are against gun bans really afraid that the government is going to come and take your guns away, declare martial law/turn the US military against us?
 

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
101
106
The solution is quite simple. Semi automatic firearms of a non-hunting purpose have no place in a civilized society. The rest of the civilized world already knows this, yet here we sit in our island of stupidity with a gun crime rate VASTLY higher than other developed nations pretending the solution is prayer in schools or some other bullshit. We are just too afraid to admit this painful truth because we think it will be too hard to change course. Thousands of people have to unnecessarily die every year so a bunch of nuts can hold onto some fantasy of overthrowing a tyrannical government,
 

Kwatt

Golden Member
Jan 3, 2000
1,602
12
81
My point was I'll take someone shooting at me with 6 bullets where they have to pull the trigger each time vrs them holding the trigger and the gun dispersing bullets in some form of automatic process.


Those are already tightly controlled. It takes at least several months to get approval for a firearm that fires more than one round with a single pull of the trigger.


.
 

Kwatt

Golden Member
Jan 3, 2000
1,602
12
81
Semi automatic firearms of a non-hunting purpose have no place in a civilized society.

Lets get a starting point.

Would you list say 3 Semi automatic non-hunting firearms you would prohibit?

And 3 Semi automatic hunting firearms you would approve?


.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,797
572
126
My point was I'll take someone shooting at me with 6 bullets where they have to pull the trigger each time vrs them holding the trigger and the gun dispersing bullets in some form of automatic process.

I'm not disagreeing with you about why should weapons modeled on those used by the military be available to the public, but you have a misconception about automatic fire (hold down the trigger and the firearm keeps shooting) vs. semi-automatic firing (where you press the trigger for each shot).

Automatic fire might be more prone to missing depending on the distance between you and the shooter it could be harder for him to hit you with a fully automatic weapon...
Firing full auto quickly becomes rather inaccurate compared to someone using a semiautomatic weapon.

If you're close to the shooter then it likely won't matter but if there is some distance and the shooter has to aim then you might be better off if he has an automatic weapon unless he trained extensively with it. Sort of hard to do since generally cannot own such a weapon unless you are specially licensed (Something afaik generally much harder to get than a concealed weapons permit.) making it a pain but not impossible to practice with as they'd have to do it with no one around for a few miles I think.

TLDR: someone shooting at you with a semi-auto weapon or an automatic weapon just sucks regardless, but automatic weapons are very controlled and illegal for the vast majority of people with few exceptions.




_____________________
 
Last edited: