normiss 803 #401 October 3, 2015 What was your intent on your insult to him? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #402 October 3, 2015 normissWhat was your intent on your insult to him? To whom? dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 803 #403 October 3, 2015 Your last post. Just curious as I didn't understand the desire to insult them. Although it seems to happen a lot in this forum. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 362 #404 October 3, 2015 RonD1120*********I don't understand how requiring a background check on all gun sales is unenforceable. I have a GLOCK for sale. $500 it's all yours. You give me money I give you gun. Nobody else involved. That's how it's unenforceable.How about, purchaser was ineligible to purchase a gun, they are caught with the gun and cut a plea for reduced time in return for turning you in. Better yet, they commit a violent crime using the Glock, and you are charged as an accomplice. Don I don't that would stand up in court or we would have seen precedent setting examples by now.Currently, that is probably true, unless it could be proven that the seller knew that the buyer was not allowed to have a firearm. I wish the police would make more of an effort to trace purchases and prosecute people who sell/give guns to friends, family, or others when they know those people are barred from having guns. The situation could also be different if all purchases required a background check. A long time ago Rushmc (of all people) described how things are done in Iowa. Apparently anyone wanting to purchase a gun through a private sale must go to the police station and obtain a certificate that states they passed the background check. The police do the check, for a nominal sum ($5-10), and the certificate is good for 6 months. It is illegal to sell to anyone without a certificate, but there is no burden on the seller to conduct the background check (which they have no way of doing anyway). This seems like a minimally invasive and burdensome system to provide a background check for all purchasers. Although mass shootings are spectacular, most murders are the result of day-to-day street crime. Almost always, the perpetrators already have a criminal record and are legally barred from having guns. The problem is that the country is awash in guns, and such people have no problem getting them. Reducing the easy access to guns by people who should not have them is one step in reducing the carnage perpetrated by such criminals. People who feel that they should be able to sell privately to anybody, even buyers legally barred from having guns, are a significant part of the problem, it seems to me. No doubt someone will be along to tell me why I am wrong. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
millertime24 8 #405 October 3, 2015 GeorgiaDon******I don't understand how requiring a background check on all gun sales is unenforceable. I have a GLOCK for sale. $500 it's all yours. You give me money I give you gun. Nobody else involved. That's how it's unenforceable.How about, purchaser was ineligible to purchase a gun, they are caught with the gun and cut a plea for reduced time in return for turning you in. Better yet, they commit a violent crime using the Glock, and you are charged as an accomplice. Don Just pointing out an example of how it can be unenforceable. If the gun is never used in a crime the likely hood of being caught is small. And no whoever that german person is. I have many guns, none are for sale.Muff #5048 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 221 #406 October 4, 2015 christelsabine ******I don't understand how requiring a background check on all gun sales is unenforceable. I have a GLOCK for sale. $500 it's all yours. You give me money I give you gun. Nobody else involved. That's how it's unenforceable. You have more than a Glock for sale, you have problems Why the PA? I have severa glocks for sale.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #407 October 4, 2015 QuoteI don't understand how requiring a background check on all gun sales is unenforceable. How would it be enforced? How can the police prove the gun was sold without a background check? Remember, it they would have to prove it was sold without a background check and that it was sold after the law went into effect. "It was stolen" "I sold it before the law went into effect" "I have never owned that gun". Gun stores (in CO, I don't know about the rest of the country) are only required to keep records for 5 years. Any gun you have owned for more than 5 years no longer has any record in the gun store where you bought it identifying the owner. This brings up another point. Laws being passed by politicians that don't understand them. A great example of this is the magazine limit. One politician, since recalled (first recall in CO's history), thought that magazines were only able to be used once. She thought that they 30-round magazines would be used up quickly and then no more 30-round magazines. Derek V Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #408 October 4, 2015 http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2013/04/03/as-lead-sponsor-in-house-on-gun-legislation-rep-diana-degette-appears-to-not-understand-how-they-work/93506/ Derek V Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jbscout2002 1 #409 October 4, 2015 A study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence.” Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is “no.” And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases. The findings of two criminologists – Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser – in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling: Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population). For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland’s murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study’s authors write in the report: If the mantra “more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death” were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661) Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct – that “gun don’t kill people, people do” – the study also shows that Russia’s murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns. The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun – a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite – but the overall murder rate, regardless of means. The criminologists explain: [P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 – emphases in original) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 803 #410 October 4, 2015 Im concerned with registry/background overlap as far as the gun itself, but when you catch someone who is inelligible to possess the illegslly held weapon, they go to jail for a number of years. Wanna knock a few of 5 years off? Tell us who you bought it from. Criminals already narc each other out for less. Agreed the last moronic assault weapons ban was retarded. Technical hopscotch with laws risks making anyone a felon with ease when they do crap laws like that IMO. I miss an old sawed off 12 ga that was my grand daddy's used for snakes in orange groves. Apparently, it was too long. Sure was easy to sell though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #411 October 4, 2015 QuoteWanna knock a few of 5 years off? Tell us who you bought it from. Criminals already narc each other out for less. Ok. The police have a name. From a criminal. Now what? They have to prove that the name given to them, by a criminal, sold the firearm without a background check. Good luck with that. The law is un-enforceable. Derek V Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,499 #412 October 4, 2015 Quote [P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 – emphases in original) Which nations? Any that you'd be happy to be compared to?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 333 #413 October 4, 2015 RMK******QuoteYet violent crime and gun crime continues to decrease And is still orders of magnitude higher than other 1st world countries. A bit hyperbolic, as that would mean at least 100x. An order of magnitude would be 10x (this is actually less than the US - Advanced World comparisons). 100x is two orders of magnitude. Yes, that "s" on the end of "order" in SkyDekker's post means at least two orders, as I said. Why did you post? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,499 #414 October 4, 2015 HooknswoopQuoteWanna knock a few of 5 years off? Tell us who you bought it from. Criminals already narc each other out for less. Ok. The police have a name. From a criminal. Now what? They have to prove that the name given to them, by a criminal, sold the firearm without a background check. Good luck with that. The law is un-enforceable. Seems to be enforceable enough when it comes to drugs.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #415 October 4, 2015 jakee***QuoteWanna knock a few of 5 years off? Tell us who you bought it from. Criminals already narc each other out for less. Ok. The police have a name. From a criminal. Now what? They have to prove that the name given to them, by a criminal, sold the firearm without a background check. Good luck with that. The law is un-enforceable. Seems to be enforceable enough when it comes to drugs. Yup, they passed laws against drugs and they are no longer a problem. Why can't we apply the same common sense approach to firearms that we did with alcohol during Prohibition? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
millertime24 8 #416 October 4, 2015 jakee***QuoteWanna knock a few of 5 years off? Tell us who you bought it from. Criminals already narc each other out for less. Ok. The police have a name. From a criminal. Now what? They have to prove that the name given to them, by a criminal, sold the firearm without a background check. Good luck with that. The law is un-enforceable. Seems to be enforceable enough when it comes to drugs. Yep, because everyone who ever deals with drugs is caught.Muff #5048 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #417 October 4, 2015 By the logic being used here, no law is enforcable. People speed on the highway all the time. They inly get in trouble if a cop sees them. Are speeding laws unenforcable? Most people will leave some sort of paper trail when they make a mojor purchase. E-mails to the seller, a handwritten receipt, etc. When the gun in question is used in a crime, the cops can and will find that paper trail. That, in combination with the testimony of the gun purchaser, would certainly be enough for a conviction. No one is suggesting a background check requirement will end illegal gun sales. It will, however, make many potential sellers think twice before making a questionable transaction. It would, I believe, make it harder for people to illegally purchase firearms. It would also not put much of a burden on law abiding people. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,499 #418 October 4, 2015 QuoteYup, they passed laws against drugs and they are no longer a problem. Good point. Lets get rid of all laws then, because clearly none of them work.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jbscout2002 1 #419 October 4, 2015 DanGBy the logic being used here, no law is enforcable. People speed on the highway all the time. They inly get in trouble if a cop sees them. Are speeding laws unenforcable? Most people will leave some sort of paper trail when they make a mojor purchase. E-mails to the seller, a handwritten receipt, etc. When the gun in question is used in a crime, the cops can and will find that paper trail. That, in combination with the testimony of the gun purchaser, would certainly be enough for a conviction. No one is suggesting a background check requirement will end illegal gun sales. It will, however, make many potential sellers think twice before making a questionable transaction. It would, I believe, make it harder for people to illegally purchase firearms. It would also not put much of a burden on law abiding people. Ghost Guns - National Geographic Documentary To get away with a crime, criminals look for completely untraceable guns. Enter the “ghost” gun: an exact replica with a fake serial number and no ballistic record — a gun that is potentially invisible to law enforcement. Craftsmen in the Philippines specialize in making some of the highest quality ghost guns in the world. We follow clones of .45 automatics from a Filipino backyard workshop into the American black market. But ultimately even ghost guns leave a trail. Then they become “burners,” guns so hot no one wants them, except in another country, where the gun’s criminal history is difficult to trace. We follow the burners to Guatemala — a dumping ground for black-market guns — and into the hands of a 14-year-old hit man. A chilling investigation into the world of international criminality, this episode has unprecedented access to the underground world of manufacturers, sellers and gangsters — whose business and brutality all depend on the violent, illegal arms trade. This is why gun control will do absolutely nothing to keep guns out of the hands of common criminals, especially street gangs. You can make it illegal, impossible, or extremely difficult for any regular old country boy to buy a revolver for shooting rattle snakes while he is out checking his cattle, but the people doing "gun" violence will still get guns and still do violence. When law abiding citizens have no legal options, some will turn to the black market which means the gangs and smugglers will cash in big time and the international crime problem will swell drastically. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #420 October 4, 2015 jakee***QuoteWanna knock a few of 5 years off? Tell us who you bought it from. Criminals already narc each other out for less. Ok. The police have a name. From a criminal. Now what? They have to prove that the name given to them, by a criminal, sold the firearm without a background check. Good luck with that. The law is un-enforceable. Seems to be enforceable enough when it comes to drugs. Police don't just go arrest someone and charge them with dealing drugs because some guy said they sold it to them. Why do you think they will arrest a guy solely based off of what someone else said with no other evidence. Prints, serial numbers, witnesses, etc. Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #421 October 4, 2015 Were any of the guns used in high profile mass shootings "ghost guns"? Do you think the average mentally unstable murderer is tied in to the international black gun market? I never said requiring background checks will eliminate illegal guns. It will, however, make it more difficult for the average crazy person to get a gun. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jbscout2002 1 #422 October 4, 2015 If you want to affect gun crime, focus on the illegal gun problem hat exists before trying to "make all guns illegal". Gangs aren't running out to Bass Pro Shops and passing background checks and buying AR15s with scopes and heavy varmit barrels for their drive-by shootings. They are buying brown paper bags full of Mac 10s fabricated in a Mexican machine shop out of someone's trunk in NCY, where guns are illegal to sell purchase or possess. Mac 10s are illegal anywhere in the U.S. actually without a Class 3 firearms license and a BATFE certificate and federal tax stamp for each registered gun. Secondly, while complaining that existing gun laws are toothless, or unenforceable, maybe we should work on fixing those existing laws before trying to add new ones. If by toothless you mean they don't prevent criminals from getting firearms, you are correct (see first paragraph). They are effective at stopping anyone who obeys the law from getting a firearm, if they are in fact prohibited by law from owning one. Isn't that how laws work. They prevent you from doing something that society feels you shouldn't be allowed to do, and if you decide to break that law and do it anyways, you get punished for it? Hence traffic tickets, DUIs, drug possession, theft of property, assault, child abuse, rape, kicking puppies, and so on? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreeece 2 #423 October 4, 2015 normiss when you catch someone who is inelligible to possess the illegslly held weapon, they go to jail for a number of years. Wanna knock a few of 5 years off? Tell us who you bought it from. Criminals already narc each other out for less. Again, they would have to prove that the dealer sold the gun to that particular snitch and then prove that it was an illegal sale. Typically when it comes to the narcs, they give up the name of their dealer. The feds then raid the house, confiscate the illegal drugs and charge the dealer with possession/distribution. In this case with the guns, the feds would raid the house, confiscate the firearms and charge the "dealer" with the possession of guns that he legally owns, thus resulting in a false arrest lawsuit.Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jbscout2002 1 #424 October 4, 2015 DanGWere any of the guns used in high profile mass shootings "ghost guns"? Do you think the average mentally unstable murderer is tied in to the international black gun market? I never said requiring background checks will eliminate illegal guns. It will, however, make it more difficult for the average crazy person to get a gun. How many people have been killed this year by the crazy guy who got ahold of daddy's gun and shot people because he didn't get enough hugs as a kid? 9 at the college, 9 at a church, and 1 reporter? Any others? You guys keep saying shit like 10,000 gun murders a year. What percentage is the antisocial whack job verse common street crime? Not to mention those 10,000 "murders", are actually homicides, which means justifiable homicides (self defense), and police shooting criminals in he line of duty. (Edit: and murder) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreeece 2 #425 October 4, 2015 jakeeQuoteYup, they passed laws against drugs and they are no longer a problem. Good point. Lets get rid of all laws then, because clearly none of them work. That's usually the argument coming from the anti-gun crowd that wants to legalize all drugs - which btw, kill more people than guns.Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites