Is America finally ready to talk about guns?

[rehmwa 2]

London86

i know that the majority of people have been brought up with guns from a young age, but at the same time - I've been brought up without guns at all, it's two completely different worlds.

this is a great comment -

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[normiss 851]

How are the magazine limit and background check a "restriction".
Can they not be tweaked to improve the intent?



Also of note, thanks for a nice respectful and open discussion.
It's a nice surprise in here.

[London86 0]

Hooknswoop

Very interesting perspective. A very smart person once told me, perspective is important, and you only have one.

2 questions. I am curious if the media hype is affecting your perception of just how many people die from guns in the US. When you say; "the number of people dying from them in the states alone is crazy.". What is the number? Where id you get the number?

Second question, why do you think you feel safer in the US than the UK walking around at 2AM?

Derek V

Media hype is valid, when something goes off in the US to do with guns the UK report on it quite a lot. I've taken a keen interest in it and actually explored more than media reports, due to moving i wanted to know if i was going to be in a good area etc. here's a link from the BBC - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604 - it states 11,000 homicides from guns in 2011 - Not sure how accurate this is, but the BBC are usually fairly good with their reports. Gun homicides in the UK in 2013 were 23 casualties

My perspective with the walking around at 2am...

If i was in the UK after a few drinks one night walking home, which is around 1 mile here, and also when i was in the UK. There would be people hanging around looking for the oppurtunity to mug you in certain parts of town, and that'd be knife crime. Knife crime in the UK is pretty big, and it's illegal to carry a knife. I don't make it a habit to walk around early hours of the morning after a few drinks, but in the UK people looking to mug you / steal money will approach you because you can't arm yourself - the only defense you have is your fists and running.

On two occasions i've been attempted to be robbed, on both occasions i've managed to lamp them and run, luckily i'm a half decent runner and literally just ran.

Why do i feel safer walking around here? i couldn't tell you, maybe people assume there's a possibility i'm carrying a concealed weapon... or maybe I've just been lucky and picked a good spot to live in.

That said, there was a shooting in a club around a 10 minute drive from me last week in which 2 people died and 4 injured, this was on the opposite side of town.

*edit 11,000 in 2011, not 2015

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

How are the magazine limit and background check a "restriction".

Well, the magazine limit, literally restricts magazines to 15 rounds. The politician that pushed it through thought that magazines were a one-time use item and that soon all the 30-round magazines would be gone. We recalled her from office. This law is a joke. You can just go our of state and buy as many as you want. Or you can go into a gun store here and buy a 30-round magazine kit and assemble it yourself.

The universal background check adds a requirement where there wasn't one before. Now, for private gun sales, you have to pay to have a background check done before you can sell the firearm. Another hoop to jump through. It is unenforceable and only added a restriction to those that follow the laws. For the illegal private gun sales, nothing changed. It was already illegal for a felon to posses a firearm. So using private sales to get around the background check was already happening, illegally. They just made it more illegal.

Quote

Also of note, thanks for a nice respectful and open discussion.
It's a nice surprise in here.

I'd like to discuss the issue, not just argue. I am holding out hope that something positive will come of it.

Derek V

[RonD1120 62]

Felons cannot own guns, a strictly enforced law right? In my lifetime I've know several now law abiding former felons that are married and productive in society with an arsenal like everyone else. They don't own them, their wives do.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[normiss 851]

I'm all for reducing the opportunity to reduce a mass shooting of over 100 people. The ability to shoot that many people should be damn near impossible IMO.
I too had trouble with the AWB where the magazine sizes came into it, but I would still think reducing the number is a good thing.
I fully support a required background check for every weapon transfer. Period.
We need to back that up with serious consequences. Get caught with a weapon and can't prove you had a clean background check? Go directly to jail. Felon with a gun? Go directly to jail for longer, and take the seller with you if they can be proven to have sold it. Family transfers too. I know of people who have handed their guns to someone knowing full well they had a felony conviction.
I think simply calling these situations unenforceable is just dismissing the problem without trying to address it.

Agreed with your desire as well, arguing in this country over guns has gotten us nowhere.

[normiss 851]

The fact that you're ok with that tells us you don't understand responsible and legal gun ownership.

[DanG 1]

I agree the magazine size limit is stupid. You can reload a modern weapon so fast that it doesn't really matter.

Quote

The universal background check adds a requirement where there wasn't one before. Now, for private gun sales, you have to pay to have a background check done before you can sell the firearm. Another hoop to jump through. It is unenforceable and only added a restriction to those that follow the laws. For the illegal private gun sales, nothing changed. It was already illegal for a felon to posses a firearm. So using private sales to get around the background check was already happening, illegally. They just made it more illegal.

That's all laws can do. Make things legal or illegal. Saying that criminals won't obey the law anyway is a tautology. Following that logic, there should be no laws at all. Making background checks universal, however, will make people think twice about selling to someone they don't know. Right now I can privately sell a gun to anyone I want. If they are a criminal or a crazy person, I can sell them that gun totally legally. It is illegal for them to own it, but it is legal for me to sell it. If there were legal repercussions for the seller in an illegal transaction, it is logical to assume that some undesirable transactions will be stopped. You're said a few times that the law is Colorado is ineffective because there have been no arrests. The lack of arrests over a short period is not an indication of effectiveness. If the use of illegally obtained guns goes down in the long term, that would show the effectiveness of a background check law.

- Dan G

[DanG 1]

Quote

Felons cannot own guns, a strictly enforced law right? In my lifetime I've know several now law abiding former felons that are married and productive in society with an arsenal like everyone else. They don't own them, their wives do.

In that case, your friends and their wives are both felons.

- Dan G

[nolhtairt 0]

normiss

The fact that you're ok with that tells us you don't understand responsible and legal gun ownership.

I don't think he said anything about being okay with that. Just merely stated what he has seen and how they get around that restriction.

If a woman is married to a felon, that felon should not have access to any guns she may own.

[RopeaDope 0]

If a felon has physical and unrestricted access to a firearm, be it in a vehicle or a dwelling, that felon is considered to be in possession of that firearm, regardless of who the actual owner is. In the example of a felon's spouse owning firearms, the spouse is also breaking the law by knowingly providing access to the firearm.

[normiss 851]

"In my lifetime I've know several now law abiding former felons that are married and productive in society with an arsenal like everyone else."
Sure sounds like he thinks they are fine citizens, and whatever he means by "former felons" is certainly a supportive attitude.

There are some very interesting cases of guns in a felon's home with some interesting and silly details about who/when/where details.
Some of the laws that can make a person a felon are also silly.
I won't get started on our "justice" system.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I'm all for reducing the opportunity to reduce a mass shooting of over 100 people. The ability to shoot that many people should be damn near impossible IMO.
I too had trouble with the AWB where the magazine sizes came into it, but I would still think reducing the number is a good thing.

To be clear, reducing the 100 number or 30-round magazine number?

Quote

I fully support a required background check for every weapon transfer. Period.

I am not against it, in theory. The problem is to be effective, you have to have a national gun registry. This way, the government/BATF could track who has what guns and if a background check was performed for each transfer. This is something I am against. This makes universal background check laws pointless.

Quote

We need to back that up with serious consequences. Get caught with a weapon and can't prove you had a clean background check? Go directly to jail.

This sounds like guilty until proven innocent.

Quote

Felon with a gun? Go directly to jail for longer, and take the seller with you if they can be proven to have sold it. Family transfers too. I know of people who have handed their guns to someone knowing full well they had a felony conviction.
I think simply calling these situations unenforceable is just dismissing the problem without trying to address it.

I am not just calling it unenforceable, I am presenting proof that it is unenforceable. We have that law here in Colorado. Law enforcement cannot enforce this law.

When universal background check laws are pitched, they sound great.

-Someone that cannot legally purchase a firearm can circumvent the background check requirement by buying from a private seller. Passing a universal background check will close this loop hole.

Sounds great, right? Seems like a "common sense" gun law. The reality is different.

-Someone who cannot legally purchase a firearm in a state with a universal background check does the same thing they have always done, buy a firearm on the black market. But they didn't pass a background check! They don't care if they are breaking another law. But what about the seller? Now they are breaking the law. To catch them, you first have to catch the person that bought the firearm and get them to tell you who they bought it from. Let's say they name me. The police show up and arrest me. With what evidence? A criminal's word? They will never get a conviction without more evidence, which does not exist. There is no proof I sold the firearm.

If I had to register all my firearms, then the proof would exist. I could say it was stolen. OK, the mandatory reporting of stolen firearms. The problem is this registry provides the means for confiscation. Everyone knows a national gun registration is a non-starter. Look at Connecticut. The majority of gun owners are now criminals because they refuse to register their firearms.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

That's all laws can do. Make things legal or illegal. Saying that criminals won't obey the law anyway is a tautology. Following that logic, there should be no laws at all.

That is not what I am saying. I am saying it is already illegal. Making it illegal again does nothing. The universal background check law here in Colorado proves that.

Quote

The lack of arrests over a short period is not an indication of effectiveness.

Short period of time? It has been 3 years.....

Derek V

[rushmc 23]

We kinda have a universal background check here in IA that everyone I know uses if they are selling a gun privately.

So, I will sell you a gun if you can produce an active permit to carry or permit to purchase.

For MY safety, I take a picture of one or the other with the buyers drivers license.

I get support from many anti gunners here until I tell them that there is NO paper work that goes to any government agency. It goes in MY file and stays there (BTW, I have only sold two) then most of them back off of their support. Their ultimate goal, IMO, is a gun database to be used at a later date.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

in the UK people looking to mug you / steal money will approach you because you can't arm yourself - the only defense you have is your fists and running.

Quote

Why do i feel safer walking around here? i couldn't tell you, maybe people assume there's a possibility i'm carrying a concealed weapon... or maybe I've just been lucky and picked a good spot to live in.

I know I am cherry picking and editing heavily, but this is key. If you first realize that with the 2nd amendment, we have guns in this country. You have hit on some very important points.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

We kinda have a universal background check here in IA that everyone I know uses if they are selling a gun privately.

So, I will sell you a gun if you can produce an active permit to carry or permit to purchase.

For MY safety, I take a picture of one or the other with the buyers drivers license.

I get support from many anti gunners here until I tell them that there is NO paper work that goes to any government agency. It goes in MY file and stays there (BTW, I have only sold two) then most of them back off of their support. Their ultimate goal, IMO, is a gun database to be used at a later date.

I agree that a gun registry is the ultimate goal. When I point out that the universal background check law is unenforceable without the national registry, I keep waiting to hear, "Well then, lets make registration mandatory". They did it in Connecticut. It didn't work. People simply broke the law and refused to register their firearms. Kallend alluded to it with the "3. Record keeping." suggestion. He, of course, will not clarify what he meant by that. He doesn't participate in actual discussions.

Derek V

[normiss 851]

The ability for any average Joe to drop 100 people in such short order.

I disagree that in order to do a proper background check you have to register the weapon. I fully understand how databases operate, one data field is not dependent upon another. Vet the buyer, not the weapon.

So if you are unable to present a DL on demand, is that guilty until proven innocent? I've had to produce a CWP permit to cops, why is this any different?

I'd venture with a modicum of effort, most laws can be circumvented. Yet the laws still work. We don't give up because there are criminals that won't obey laws.

I keep missing the jump to registration. You're the one repeatedly bringing it up, is there something there?
I've never registered a weapon, while fully understanding the paperwork with a new purchase of a weapon.
I'm also unaware of anyone calling for a total confiscation.
These 2 points seem to be where it always ends up. A gun owner's paranoia over those two unsupported positions always leaves me confused.
I don't see anyone asking for those, I think we can all agree the 2nd isn't going away.

[DanG 1]

Quote

That is not what I am saying. I am saying it is already illegal. Making it illegal again does nothing. The universal background check law here in Colorado proves that.

Without a background check requirement it is only illegal for the purchaser. We've already established that person is a criminal or insane, so they probably don't care that it is illegal. It is perfectly legal for the seller. If it were not legal, those people who strive to be law abiding wouldn't sell a gun to someone who shouldn't have one.

Quote

Short period of time? It has been 3 years.....

Yes, that's a short period of time when talking about measuring the effect of changing laws.

- Dan G

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I disagree that in order to do a proper background check you have to register the weapon.

Please explain why the law is not working here in Colorado then?

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Without a background check requirement it is only illegal for the purchaser. We've already established that person is a criminal or insane, so they probably don't care that it is illegal. It is perfectly legal for the seller. If it were not legal, those people who strive to be law abiding wouldn't sell a gun to someone who shouldn't have one.

The law is not a deterrent if people know they are not going to get caught.

Quote

es, that's a short period of time when talking about measuring the effect of changing laws.

When you graph it out, it a flat line. At zero. After 3 years, it has had zero effect. I am willing to guess that it is not going to change in the next 3 years.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

So if you are unable to present a DL on demand, is that guilty until proven innocent?

If I have to prove I am innocent or I am guilty, then yes, that is guilty until proven innocent.

If I am pulled over and cannot produce a DL, they can just check the database and see I have a current, valid DL. I don't have to prove anything.

Derek V

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

You can reload a modern weapon so fast that it doesn't really matter.

Even if capacity is 1?

[DanG 1]

Quote

The law is not a deterrent if people know they are not going to get caught.

Obviously the enforcement side needs work in Colorado. I'm not well versed in your local policing to comment.

Quote

When you graph it out, it a flat line. At zero. After 3 years, it has had zero effect. I am willing to guess that it is not going to change in the next 3 years.

Do you have a source to show that use of illegal guns in gun violence has not changed in the last three years or are you still talking about arrests?

- Dan G

[DanG 1]

Quote

Even if capacity is 1?

If the capacity is 1 then you are talking about making all magazine fed guns illegal. That's not on the table.

- Dan G