Gun Control

[notorious]

We have all heard about what happened in Aurora, Co, and I think that Gun Control is going to be a huge topic in the following months.


What measures need to be taken? Do you have any ideas that will help prevent this kind of thing from happening again as it pertains to guns?

[Fish]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

You did.


I agree with you that buying/selling illegally does not mean that the gun will be used in a violent crime, but it is a crime even though the punishment is not much of a deterrent. If they would change the law to mandatory 10 years for both the buyer\seller it might slow some of it down.

I think you're confused. I said there's no gun show loophole because it doesn't offer any opportunity that isn't already illegal outside of a gun show. Which is true. It's right there in my quote...

A gun show does not allow for any activity at all that isn't legal in the general public. You can't buy anything at a gun show that you can't legally buy on the street outside your house.

You're talking about illegal activity. Which was caught, just as it should be. The people they caught for this would have been arrested doing the same thing outside the gun show too.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

Ouch. That seems awfully excessive, especially for a first time offender.

Maybe but it would deter some people from knowingly selling guns to people they know can't buy them

When it comes to using a gun some states have already enacted laws that if you use a gun in a crime you get a mandatory sentences. Look at Florida's.

• Mandates a minimum 10 year prison term for certain felonies, or attempted felonies in which the offender possesses a firearm or destructive device
• Mandates a minimum 20 year prison term when the firearm is discharged
• Mandates a minimum 25 years to LIFE if someone is injured or killed
• Mandates a minimum 3 year prison term for possession of a firearm by a felon

[Fish]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Maybe but it would deter some people from knowingly selling guns to people they know can't buy them

When it comes to using a gun some states have already enacted laws that if you use a gun in a crime you get a mandatory sentences. Look at Florida's.

• Mandates a minimum 10 year prison term for certain felonies, or attempted felonies in which the offender possesses a firearm or destructive device
• Mandates a minimum 20 year prison term when the firearm is discharged
• Mandates a minimum 25 years to LIFE if someone is injured or killed
• Mandates a minimum 3 year prison term for possession of a firearm by a felon

How exactly do you know that? The majority of studies show that it wouldn't have any affect, because criminals don't obey the law.

Look at Florida's crime rates. Looks to be a consistent growth along with population, despite their harsh gun laws....

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

I think you're confused. I said there's no gun show loophole because it doesn't offer any opportunity that isn't already illegal outside of a gun show. Which is true. It's right there in my quote...



You're talking about illegal activity. Which was caught, just as it should be. The people they caught for this would have been arrested doing the same thing outside the gun show too.

Fair enough I understand your point. The way I read it was that you thought guns shows were squeaky clean and no illegal activity takes place which is obviously not the case. That is why I commented on it.

But I will disagree with your point about no loophole. IIRC only 5 states make it mandatory for all gun sales whether individual or FFL to do background checks. It needs to be mandatory in all 50 states and knowingly selling guns illegally should be met with stiff sentences for both buyer and seller.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

How exactly do you know that? The majority of studies show that it wouldn't have any affect, because criminals don't obey the law.

Look at Florida's crime rates. Looks to be a consistent growth along with population, despite their harsh gun laws....

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm

You are telling me a tough mandatory sentence wouldn't deter any individual seller? I find that hard to believe.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Fair enough I understand your point. The way I read it was that you thought guns shows were squeaky clean and no illegal activity takes place which is obviously not the case. That is why I commented on it.

But I will disagree with your point about no loophole. IIRC only 5 states make it mandatory for all gun sales whether individual or FFL to do background checks. It needs to be mandatory in all 50 states and knowingly selling guns illegally should be met with stiff sentences for both buyer and seller.

FFL means Federal Firearms License. It's a federal nationwide requirement for background checks from all FFL dealers wherever the sale is made. Sales between individuals is handled on a state by state basis. And individual sale is nearly impossible to regulate. I question whether increased regulation would have any affect anyway, since those committing crimes would ignore it regardless of penalty.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

You are telling me a tough mandatory sentence wouldn't deter any individual seller? I find that hard to believe.

Well.... take a look at the Florida crime stats. Can you tell me just by looking at the stats what year Florida imposed their harsh laws for gun carrying offenders? If the harsher laws were actually a deterrent, it should be visible in the statistics.

If that's not evident enough, there's plenty of other data on the relation between gun control laws and crime rates. Coming from many different countries.

Here's a few:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/we...pagewanted=all

http://www.hoover.org/publications/d...article/123236

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

FFL means Federal Firearms License. It's a federal nationwide requirement for background checks from all FFL dealers wherever the sale is made. Sales between individuals is handled on a state by state basis. And individual sale is nearly impossible to regulate. I question whether increased regulation would have any affect anyway, since those committing crimes would ignore it regardless of penalty.

I know what FFL is and I was mainly talking about individual sales. I see now that 7 states require background checks for individual sales at gun shows.

You are probably right though it would be impossible now to regulate individual sales and it should have been dealt with much earlier and have people just buy guns from FFL licensed dealers.

[Dayze]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

FFL means Federal Firearms License. It's a federal nationwide requirement for background checks from all FFL dealers wherever the sale is made. Sales between individuals is handled on a state by state basis. And individual sale is nearly impossible to regulate. I question whether increased regulation would have any affect anyway, since those committing crimes would ignore it regardless of penalty.

I"m not a 100% sure, but I think in KS, if it's between two people in the state there is no ATF paperwork; only if across state lines.

...something like that.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Dayze

I"m not a 100% sure, but I think in KS, if it's between two people in the state there is no ATF paperwork; only if across state lines.

...something like that.

That's correct. And applicable to MO as well.

But that said... there are still laws on individuals selling to other individuals who can't legally own...

It is unlawful to knowingly sell, lease, loan, give away or deliver a firearm or ammunition to any person who is not lawfully entitled to possess one. It is unlawful to recklessly sell, lease, loan, give away or deliver a firearm or ammunition to a person who is intoxicated.

It is unlawful to knowingly sell, lease, loan, give away or deliver any firearm to a person who is not eighteen years old without the consent of the custodial parent or guardian.

That's applicable without FFL. Although very hard to enforce.

http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbys...gunlaws_mo.htm

[verbaljitsu]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

I have been trying to make this point as well. But no one, or very few people are even interested in actually engaging in conversation. I have been trying to on this subject but it just doesn't work. If you say anything, anything at all, even something so reasonable as to require background checks for all sales at gun shows, you will be met with personal attacks and be considered an "anti-gun nut" who wants nothing more than to get rid of all guns. For so many people it is too black and white.

I haven't read much of this thread, so if something happened earlier that puts this in more context, then please forgive my ignorance. I'm going to make some assumptions (a couple of dangerous ones), and when use "you" I really mean "advocate of forcing individuals to perform background check).

But let me try to give you some insight on why what you think is a perfectly reasonable position is treated with disdain by people on my side of the gun control argument.

1. The very first impression I get when I hear about this policy position is that you have never been to a gun show and don't know how they operate. I don't know what your hobby is, but I'm pretty sure I've never told you how it should work. Particularly from a position of complete ignorance.

A. FFL's (professional gun dealers) are required to perform the NICS check at gun shows, just like normally. Private sellers are not. Frankly, because private sellers do not have access to the NICS database (the gun dealers are calling an agency and have to provide a PIN number). It is worth noting that FFL dealers make the overwhelming vast majority of sales at gun shows.

B. Private sellers are not required to do a "background check" (which isn't what an NICS check really is anyway) any time, it isn't just something that happens at gun shows, which has been described ad nauseum.

2. You almost certainly haven't thought through the consequences of requiring those checks between private sellers. Probably because you have never been through the process, or sold a gun.

A. They would crush the value of many used guns. Most guns in private collections are probably worth somewhere between $250 and $1000. The ultimate effect of requiring the NICS check effectively means that all used guns have to be sold through an FFL either as a dealer (they buy the used guns and then sell them to someone else) or as a broker (they take possession, fill out the paper work, do the NICS and then transfer). FFL's do not provide that service for free. Most charge in the neighborhood of $25 to $50, many charge much more, particularly to be a broker between private parties (it is difficult to explain why, but if interested I will later). So, you have effectively reduced the value of used firearms by at least that much. Additionally, many people actually desire used guns more, because they are paranoid and don't want to fill out the 4473 forms. Used guns have traditionally held their value very well, and often only sell for $50 or so less than the same gun, new in the box. Well, if you start adding transfer fees, suddenly the bottom starts dropping out of that market. Keep in mind that FFL's have an effective monopoly. I'm also confident that you do not want to liberalize requirements to become an FFL.

B. The idea is particularly dumb at a gun show because of the nature of the market place.
When you sell something to someone at a gun show, it is a chance encounter. You have a rifle slung on your back with a homemade flag sticking out of the barrel with the price on it. Somebody that you don't know, is looking for that rifle. You happen to cross paths. If you manage to work out an acceptable price and are now forced to take the gun to an FFL dealer to do a NICS check, there are lots of potential problems, not the least of which is agreeing on which FFL to take it to. But assuming that gets worked out the NICS itself creates problems. Almost everyone I know that legally owns guns has at sometime been DENIED by NICS, not because they should be denied, but because they share a name with a criminal, or (conspiratorially) they bought too many guns this months, or because there is an unpaid traffic ticket, or just because NICS is unreliable as hell. Now you have a problem. You lost your sale, even though the buyer is legally eligible. But its even worse if it comes back as the more common "HOLD." The federal government has 3 days to complete the check. Meanwhile, the FFL that you have no relationship with is stuck holding on to the firearm. The seller can't get it back yet. The buyer can't leave with it.

C. The NICS system could be used as a backdoor to effectively keep people from legally purchasing firearms. It isn't as far fetched as you might think, considering there are thousands of people in this country that can't fly now because their parents named them Ahmed. Or John Smith. It certainly isn't inconceivable that NICS could start charging a lot of money to "administer" the operation. And since it is administered by an Executive Agency, it could do an awful lot of damage to gun owners quickly, and without much in the way of due process or political process in Congress.

3. It is a solution in search of a problem that always gets dragged up, even when it seemingly bears no relation to whatever tragedy sparked the discussion.

Holmes didn't buy guns at a gun show. He in fact passed the exact same NICS check on multiple occasions that advocates think is going to fix the "problem."

Because of the lack of a causal link, and the fact that we have been hearing about this "solution" anytime a gun is used in a crime anywhere, we feel like the argument is a red herring that is used in bad faith. Its irritating. It is a law that would make my property worth less and make things harder on me, to seemingly stop a problem that doesn't exist, solely to give you peace of mind.

I don't think its that difficult to understand why that engenders resentment from even reasonable people. Then add in that there are also a lot of right wing nuts that like guns a lot that think this is part of a broader attack on their way of life. Then put it on the internet where everyone is a dick to each other.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by verbaljitsu

I haven't read much of this thread, so if something happened earlier that puts this in more context, then please forgive my ignorance. I'm going to make some assumptions (a couple of dangerous ones), and when use "you" I really mean "advocate of forcing individuals to perform background check).

But let me try to give you some insight on why what you think is a perfectly reasonable position is treated with disdain by people on my side of the gun control argument.

1. The very first impression I get when I hear about this policy position is that you have never been to a gun show and don't know how they operate. I don't know what your hobby is, but I'm pretty sure I've never told you how it should work. Particularly from a position of complete ignorance.

A. FFL's (professional gun dealers) are required to perform the NICS check at gun shows, just like normally. Private sellers are not. Frankly, because private sellers do not have access to the NICS database (the gun dealers are calling an agency and have to provide a PIN number). It is worth noting that FFL dealers make the overwhelming vast majority of sales at gun shows.

B. Private sellers are not required to do a "background check" (which isn't what an NICS check really is anyway) any time, it isn't just something that happens at gun shows, which has been described ad nauseum.

2. You almost certainly haven't thought through the consequences of requiring those checks between private sellers. Probably because you have never been through the process, or sold a gun.

A. They would crush the value of many used guns. Most guns in private collections are probably worth somewhere between $250 and $1000. The ultimate effect of requiring the NICS check effectively means that all used guns have to be sold through an FFL either as a dealer (they buy the used guns and then sell them to someone else) or as a broker (they take possession, fill out the paper work, do the NICS and then transfer). FFL's do not provide that service for free. Most charge in the neighborhood of $25 to $50, many charge much more, particularly to be a broker between private parties (it is difficult to explain why, but if interested I will later). So, you have effectively reduced the value of used firearms by at least that much. Additionally, many people actually desire used guns more, because they are paranoid and don't want to fill out the 4473 forms. Used guns have traditionally held their value very well, and often only sell for $50 or so less than the same gun, new in the box. Well, if you start adding transfer fees, suddenly the bottom starts dropping out of that market. Keep in mind that FFL's have an effective monopoly. I'm also confident that you do not want to liberalize requirements to become an FFL.

B. The idea is particularly dumb at a gun show because of the nature of the market place.
When you sell something to someone at a gun show, it is a chance encounter. You have a rifle slung on your back with a homemade flag sticking out of the barrel with the price on it. Somebody that you don't know, is looking for that rifle. You happen to cross paths. If you manage to work out an acceptable price and are now forced to take the gun to an FFL dealer to do a NICS check, there are lots of potential problems, not the least of which is agreeing on which FFL to take it to. But assuming that gets worked out the NICS itself creates problems. Almost everyone I know that legally owns guns has at sometime been DENIED by NICS, not because they should be denied, but because they share a name with a criminal, or (conspiratorially) they bought too many guns this months, or because there is an unpaid traffic ticket, or just because NICS is unreliable as hell. Now you have a problem. You lost your sale, even though the buyer is legally eligible. But its even worse if it comes back as the more common "HOLD." The federal government has 3 days to complete the check. Meanwhile, the FFL that you have no relationship with is stuck holding on to the firearm. The seller can't get it back yet. The buyer can't leave with it.

C. The NICS system could be used as a backdoor to effectively keep people from legally purchasing firearms. It isn't as far fetched as you might think, considering there are thousands of people in this country that can't fly now because their parents named them Ahmed. Or John Smith. It certainly isn't inconceivable that NICS could start charging a lot of money to "administer" the operation. And since it is administered by an Executive Agency, it could do an awful lot of damage to gun owners quickly, and without much in the way of due process or political process in Congress.

3. It is a solution in search of a problem that always gets dragged up, even when it seemingly bears no relation to whatever tragedy sparked the discussion.

Holmes didn't buy guns at a gun show. He in fact passed the exact same NICS check on multiple occasions that advocates think is going to fix the "problem."

Because of the lack of a causal link, and the fact that we have been hearing about this "solution" anytime a gun is used in a crime anywhere, we feel like the argument is a red herring that is used in bad faith. Its irritating. It is a law that would make my property worth less and make things harder on me, to seemingly stop a problem that doesn't exist, solely to give you peace of mind.

I don't think its that difficult to understand why that engenders resentment from even reasonable people. Then add in that there are also a lot of right wing nuts that like guns a lot that think this is part of a broader attack on their way of life. Then put it on the internet where everyone is a dick to each other.

That is quite the mouthful, but I am a big boy so I made sure to read through it and understand it. Especially given the time you must have put into it. I hadn't ever thought about the value of the items but that is a good point I can certainly understand. You will have to forgive me if I can't respond to each point you made but I am on my phone so it is kind of a big pain. If I missed something let me know. The argument that you (in general) don't tell other hobbyist what regulations they have doesn't hold much water for me personally because guns is a unique case in the potential damage that they have to other people. The more I see the more it seems that although the potential is there for bad results from gun show sales, it is small. I really appreciate you taking the time to give a well thought response while addressing the actual content of the posts and not what is perceived in the person behind the computer.

I don't want to get stuck on the gun show sales thing too much for a few reasons. One is that, for me at least, I would have completely stopped debating the gun show thing had you posted this days ago. As I have said numerous times, I have just been trying to learn and hear the other side. Also, the more I see here and think about it the more I see other areas that could be talked about more productively.

I have posted a couple other ideas, which no I do not stand by or claim them to be necessary or even good answers. They are just points of discussion. I have talked about perhaps requiring training/safety courses since no one here seems opposed to those. Then perhaps having first time gun owners have a process where they earn the right to purchase more guns by buying one, then waiting a few weeks before they can another one and so on. Then once they earn that right and show they are responsible they can purchase all they want. I talked about it recently on this thread as well.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

That is quite the mouthful, but I am a big boy so I made sure to read through it and understand it. Especially given the time you must have put into it. I hadn't ever thought about the value of the items but that is a good point I can certainly understand. You will have to forgive me if I can't respond to each point you made but I am on my phone so it is kind of a big pain. If I missed something let me know. The argument that you (in general) don't tell other hobbyist what regulations they have doesn't hold much water for me personally because guns is a unique case in the potential damage that they have to other people. The more I see the more it seems that although the potential is there for bad results from gun show sales, it is small. I really appreciate you taking the time to give a well thought response while addressing the actual content of the posts and not what is perceived in the person behind the computer.

I don't want to get stuck on the gun show sales thing too much for a few reasons. One is that, for me at least, I would have completely stopped debating the gun show thing had you posted this days ago. As I have said numerous times, I have just been trying to learn and hear the other side. Also, the more I see here and think about it the more I see other areas that could be talked about more productively.

I have posted a couple other ideas, which no I do not stand by or claim them to be necessary or even good answers. They are just points of discussion. I have talked about perhaps requiring training/safety courses since no one here seems opposed to those. Then perhaps having first time gun owners have a process where they earn the right to purchase more guns by buying one, then waiting a few weeks before they can another one and so on. Then once they earn that right and show they are responsible they can purchase all they want. I talked about it recently on this thread as well.

I was born with the right to buy as many guns as I desire~

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

I was born with the right to buy as many guns as I desire~

You were also born with the right to drive a car. Still have to follow procedure to earn that right. I haven't once said don't buy as many as you want if you are a proven responsible owner. What qualifies that? I don't know, you tell me.

[R8ers]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

No my point was that Fish's post was silly. You obviously can buy guns illegally at gun shows and there is willing individual sellers to do that.

I can't sell you one of my guns unless you have a gun permit or a ccw license legally....