Biden Admin/117th Congress Gun Control

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-22-2021, 05:45 PM)Au165 Wrote: You keep saying it correlates to socioeconomic issues, but it much more closely correlates to access to guns. There are roughly 300k guns stolen each year, imagine if there wasn't a constant influx of stolen guns into these communities? Stolen guns are often ditched at the crime scene because there is no tie to them and it's riskier to keep it than leave them. That means there is still a really high demand for more inventory, which means you can over time stifle the use of stolen guns in crimes by requiring people to be accountable for their own firearms. That or people will keep them over ditching them which will lead to a higher solved crime rate.

I don't know where you got this "fact" but it's completely contrary to my experience.  It is not common at all for a firearm to be left at the scene.  They tend to get sold around within groups, it's not uncommon at all to pick someone up for a possession case, then find out that firearm has about four or five bodies on it, none of whom were killed by the person in possession.

Quote:Simply requiring people to report a gun that is stolen in a timely manner seems like common sense, but apparently, that is asking too much.

I think you'll find that mandating it by making it a felony not to do so is the bigger sticking point.  

Quote:Quickly reporting a gun stolen can lead to the police being able to attempt to find it before it is lost into the black market. In one study they found that states with mandatory reporting laws resulted in a 30% decrease in stolen guns being recovered at the scene of a crime in another state. Essentially those guns became less desirable because it was more likely they were being actively looked for. 

Sorry, but your final conclusion is faulty.  Criminals don't care if the police are "looking" for their firearm.  Recovering stolen items is very unlikely without strong evidence linking a suspect to the crime.  Criminals know this and aren't concerned at all if their theft is reported.  Hell, in CA the flocking gangs literally wave to the surveillance cameras as they burglarize houses.

[Au165]

(02-22-2021, 05:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think you'll find that mandating it by making it a felony not to do so is the bigger sticking point.  

Rather than go back and forth on the other points, I want to focus here. You say it is the bigger sticking point because I call it out as a felony, so if I said misdemeanor, does that change your stance? 

[fredtoast]

(02-22-2021, 05:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You know what would benefit them more AND cause decreased rates of gun violence? Meaningful reforms to improve their socioeconomic situations. Gun violence correlates to these socioeconomic issues. But because affecting real change is difficult and, let's be honest here, those in power don't want to help those marginalized communities when it really comes down to it, they like to focus on guns which will not solve anything. Gun will still be obtained because that box is wide open and even if you could magically confiscate all of them, there would still be violence in other forms.

I fail to see any logic in this argument.

First of all the fact that there is a correlation between socioeconomic issues and gun violence does not necessarily mean there is a casual link. In fact many members of these communities have argued that they need to address the safety of the streets before they can address additional reforms.  They point to how fear of violence effects education.  And how property crimes and violence drive down home values and business opportunities.  And how meaningless deaths of breadwinners effect the economics of many families.

The claim that keeping guns out of the hands of criminals would "make no difference" just is not true.

The claim that disadvantaged communities get any benefit from unlimited access to guns has no basis in reality.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-22-2021, 05:56 PM)Au165 Wrote: Rather than go back and forth on the other points, I want to focus here. You say it is the bigger sticking point because I call it out as a felony, so if I said misdemeanor, does that change your stance? 

That would be much more palatable, but I do have issues with other parts of your proposal.  But yes, making it a felony is way beyond the pale.

[Au165]

(02-22-2021, 06:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That would be much more palatable, but I do have issues with other parts of your proposal.  But yes, making it a felony is way beyond the pale.

Hey, that’s a start! See that is how you can make changes, everyone hurts a bit.

[fredtoast]

(02-22-2021, 05:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  it's not uncommon at all to pick someone up for a possession case, then find out that firearm has about four or five bodies on it, none of whom were killed by the person in possession.

Do you do ballistics testing on every gun you confiscate?  If not then how do you tie it to other murders?

[fredtoast]

(02-22-2021, 05:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Criminals don't care if the police are "looking" for their firearm. 

Yes they do.  How could you say they wouldn't?  

Why do criminals change plates on stolen cars if they are not worried about getting caught driving them?

Same rules apply to guns.  Criminals don't want to get caught with a firearm that they know has been reported stolen.

[Belsnickel]

Alright, for those talking about accountability for lost/stolen firearms. Can you explain how that accountability would occur? I ask this because here in Virginia, no one but me knows how many firearms I own, what types, serial numbers, anything. If one of my firearms were stolen, used in a crime, left behind at a crime scene, there is no way to trace that firearm to me. At all. And all of my firearms are possessed by me legally.

So, the question becomes how do you get this accountability you seek?

[Belsnickel]

(02-22-2021, 05:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I fail to see any logic in this argument.

First of all the fact that there is a correlation between socioeconomic issues and gun violence does not necessarily mean there is a casual link. In fact many members of these communities have argued that they need to address the safety of the streets before they can address additional reforms.  They point to how fear of violence effects education.  And how property crimes and violence drive down home values and business opportunities.  And how meaningless deaths of breadwinners effect the economics of many families.

The claim that keeping guns out of the hands of criminals would "make no difference" just is not true.

The claim that disadvantaged communities get any benefit from unlimited access to guns has no basis in reality.

So how do you get the horses back in the barn at this point? What do we do when they turn to knives? How about other makeshift weapons? I saw a dude beat another dude in the street with a crutch. I may have said gun violence correlates with socioeconomic issues, but violence overall does. Even if you could take away the guns it would still be violent because the underlying systemic issues are still in place.

[fredtoast]

(02-22-2021, 07:02 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Alright, for those talking about accountability for lost/stolen firearms. Can you explain how that accountability would occur? I ask this because here in Virginia, no one but me knows how many firearms I own, what types, serial numbers, anything. If one of my firearms were stolen, used in a crime, left behind at a crime scene, there is no way to trace that firearm to me. At all. And all of my firearms are possessed by me legally.

So, the question becomes how do you get this accountability you seek?

There can be no responsibility without gun registration laws.

[fredtoast]

(02-22-2021, 07:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So how do you get the horses back in the barn at this point? What do we do when they turn to knives? How about other makeshift weapons? I saw a dude beat another dude in the street with a crutch. I may have said gun violence correlates with socioeconomic issues, but violence overall does. Even if you could take away the guns it would still be violent because the underlying systemic issues are still in place.

The amount of violence will drop with the removal of guns.

Any chickenshit with a gun will start trouble when he wouldn't with just a knife.  So guns are a big part of the problem when it comes to initiating violent behavior.

People are more likely to run away from a person trying to rob them with a knife.  The harder it is to rob people the fewer people will try robbery.

No more "drive by shootings" used to intimidate.  When violence is as easy as driving down the street you have a lot more violence.

Finally, fewer innocent people killed by stray bullets.  

[fredtoast]

(02-22-2021, 05:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Who has said they would not comply with a constitutional law?

(02-22-2021, 05:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No one.  It's just his way of introducing irrelevancies and labeling others.  In other words, par for the course.

(02-22-2021, 05:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If there is a gun confiscation law passed and upheld by the courts will you comply with it?

[Belsnickel]

(02-22-2021, 07:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There can be no responsibility without gun registration laws.

Yeah...nope. Not going to happen.

I should clarify. Not going to happen because leftists would be against it, those right of center would be against it, and with the number of firearms already in civilian hands there is no way to effectively capture them all.

[Belsnickel]

(02-22-2021, 07:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote:

A gun confiscation law wouldn't be constitutional.

[Au165]

(02-22-2021, 07:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah...nope. Not going to happen.

I should clarify. Not going to happen because leftists would be against it, those right of center would be against it, and with the number of firearms already in civilian hands there is no way to effectively capture them all.

You have to register to vote right? Why is that we accept that in order to recognize one right you must register but another it is unfathomable to have to register to exercise it?

No way to effectively capture it? What happens if you vote and you aren’t registered to do so? I know this is where the “making criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens” argument comes in, but registering to vote isn’t in the constitution, it was added via laws later and I’m sure plenty of people saw it as unfathomable at the time.

[Belsnickel]

(02-22-2021, 08:02 PM)Au165 Wrote: You have to register to vote right? Why is that we accept that in order to recognize one right you must register but another it is unfathomable to have to register to exercise it?

No way to effectively capture it? What happens if you vote and you aren’t registered to do so? I know this is where the “making criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens” argument comes in, but registering to vote isn’t in the constitution, it was added via laws later and I’m sure plenty of people saw it as unfathomable at the time.

So, here is the difference between the right to vote and the right to own firearms. The civil liberty that is the right to vote is not explicitly stated in the US Constitution. There are amendments that lay out reasons that the right to vote cannot be denied, but it is left up to the states to determine who has the right to vote beyond that. The right to bear arms, however, is explicitly states in the Second Amendment. This creates a difference between these two civil liberties that makes them hard to compare.

For the record, I'm against registering to vote. I'm of the opinion that voter rolls should be generated from tax filings and everyone, citizen or not, felon or not, incarcerated or not, should be eligible to vote.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-22-2021, 08:02 PM)Au165 Wrote: You have to register to vote right? Why is that we accept that in order to recognize one right you must register but another it is unfathomable to have to register to exercise it?

No way to effectively capture it? What happens if you vote and you aren’t registered to do so? I know this is where the “making criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens” argument comes in, but registering to vote isn’t in the constitution, it was added via laws later and I’m sure plenty of people saw it as unfathomable  at the time.

There's a few problems with a registry.  One, it is currently against the law.  Two, you'll see mass non-compliance.  People will, correctly IMO, see a registry as a tool for later confiscation efforts.  They won't register their firearms.  The problem is the Dems have lied about their intent on guns so often that no one believes a thing they say on the subject now.  O'Rourke really let the mask slip when he flat out said that the government will be coming for your "AR 15s and AK 47s".  No one trusts them on this topic and no one likely ever will.  One need only see what happens the Dems take a majority at any level of government, more gun control.  They've shot themselves in the foot on any further concessions because they'll only be followed by a demand for more.

[Au165]

(02-22-2021, 08:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There's a few problems with a registry.  One, it is currently against the law.  Two, you'll see mass non-compliance.  People will, correctly IMO, see a registry as a tool for later confiscation efforts.  They won't register their firearms.  The problem is the Dems have lied about their intent on guns so often that no one believes a thing they say on the subject now.  O'Rourke really let the mask slip when he flat out said that the government will be coming for your "AR 15s and AK 47s".  No one trusts them on this topic and no one likely ever will.  One need only see what happens the Dems take a majority at any level of government, more gun control.  They've shot themselves in the foot on any further concessions because they'll only be followed by a demand for more.

While a couple states make it illegal, it is not illegal in most the country and in fact fire arm registrations exist already at a federal level, for example machine guns must be registered with ATF.

While it isn’t allowed to use NICS for creating a registration, you don’t really need it to do so.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-22-2021, 08:45 PM)Au165 Wrote: While a couple states make it illegal, it is not illegal in most the country and in fact various fire arm registrations exist already at a federal level, for example machine guns must be registered with ATF.

Yes, you're referring to the NFA regulations.  Those aside, a firearms registry is illegal at the Federal level.  I don't know what you're referring to by registries at the state level, but that would be completely illegal.

https://www.concealedcarry.com/law/are-guns-registered/#:~:text=The%20Firearm%20Owners'%20Protection%20Act,firearms%20directly%20to%20their%20owner.


No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

[Au165]

(02-22-2021, 08:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, you're referring to the NFA regulations.  Those aside, a firearms registry is illegal at the Federal level.  I don't know what you're referring to by registries at the state level, but that would be completely illegal.

https://www.concealedcarry.com/law/are-guns-registered/#:~:text=The%20Firearm%20Owners'%20Protection%20Act,firearms%20directly%20to%20their%20owner.


No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

Ahh, well yea the old “ everything after this” caveat is interesting. A law setting up such registration can simply do the same thing and gut that. That said, there are three states it’s required to register a gun I believe. They probably use a different word choice to avoid issues.

That’s the beauty of our government, when something doesn’t make sense anymore we rewrite it...then the next group comes in an re-writes it again.