Trump admin bans Bump Stocks

[fredtoast]

(03-28-2019, 10:55 AM)Beaker Wrote: Not unless you can eliminate the myriad of illegal ways to obtain firearms.

That is the whole point. Registration laws make it much easier to eliminate illegal possession and sale of weapons. Right now if police stop a person with a gun they have no idea if he can legally posses it. If guns are found in a car with convicted felons the police can not do anything if another passenger claims ownership. If the do catch a felon with a gun they have no way to know who sold it to him.

[Belsnickel]

(03-28-2019, 11:11 AM)fredtoast Wrote: That is the whole point. Registration laws make it much easier to eliminate illegal possession and sale of weapons. Right now if police stop a person with a gun they have no idea if he can legally posses it. If guns are found in a car with convicted felons the police can not do anything if another passenger claims ownership. If the do catch a felon with a gun they have no way to know who sold it to him.

Which could be solved with my policy proposal that does not involve registration.

[fredtoast]

(03-28-2019, 11:18 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Which could be solved with my policy proposal that does not involve registration.

I think there would be a problem with forcing a person to surrender a weapon to get the serial number and detaining a person long enough to run the chain of custody if the subject was not under arrest.

[Belsnickel]

(03-28-2019, 11:42 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I think there would be a problem with forcing a person to surrender a weapon to get the serial number and detaining a person long enough to run the chain of custody if the subject was not under arrest.

If a person has a firearm and a permit to purchase, then there would be no probable cause to bother with any of that. If the firearm was used in a felony and found without a person, then you could track the ownership. If the person had a firearm but no permit on them, it could be confiscated until proof of the permit is provided. If the person committed a crime with the firearm, then you can also work the chain. There is no need to check on these things until the firearm is used in a crime or if you come across a firearm flushed down a storm drain or something.

The presumption would be that a law abiding person with a permit to purchase and a firearm had obtained it legally.

[*bfine32*]

(03-28-2019, 10:42 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The argument that we cant have registration laws because they will lead to confiscation laws is laughable. If we have the votes to pass confiscation laws then we have the votes to pass registration laws.  So there is no connection between the two.

It is like saying we cant have dui laws because they will lead to prohibition.

Should a proof of identification be a requirement to purchase a gun at the time of purchase?

[fredtoast]

(03-28-2019, 12:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Should a proof of identification be a requirement to purchase a gun at the time of purchase?

Yes. Just like when you register to vote.

[fredtoast]

(03-27-2019, 07:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ahh, using an unbiased source like The Trace on gun issues.  Why don't I just quote the NRA as a counterpoint.

As long as you are citing the results of published peer reviewed studies like i just did then i have no problem with that.

I'll wait.

[Beaker]

(03-28-2019, 11:09 AM)Benton Wrote: And that's the point of licensing: it's not about restricting your right to own a gun as long as you're a stable person, it's about keeping them out of the hands of crazy ass people. 

Criminals and crazy people will always find ways to get their hands on guns.  I forget which school shooting it was, but one of the shooters stole registered guns from his parents gun safe to commit the crime. So here you had registered guns owned by responsible, non-crazy citizens who even kept the guns in a safe. Like I said, I think tougher sentences would be more of a deterrent...to those who may be considering a crime. But in some cases, like my example, it's going to be carried out anyway.

[*bfine32*]

(03-28-2019, 01:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes. Just like when you register to vote.

So I don't need one to make the actual purchase? As long as I have registered in the past I can tell them "it's me"?

We disagree on this. I think ID should be required at the time of the transaction. Hell I even think a photo ID should be required

[BengalHawk62]

(03-28-2019, 02:22 PM)Beaker Wrote: Criminals and crazy people will always find ways to get their hands on guns.  I forget which school shooting it was, but one of the shooters stole registered guns from his parents gun safe to commit the crime. So here you had registered guns owned by responsible, non-crazy citizens who even kept the guns in a safe. Like I said, I think tougher sentences would be more of a deterrent...to those who may be considering a crime. But in some cases, like my example, it's going to be carried out anyway.

Wasn't that Sandy Hook?  He took the guns from his mother's safe and went to the school with them. 

[fredtoast]

(03-28-2019, 02:22 PM)Beaker Wrote: Criminals and crazy people will always find ways to get their hands on guns.

No they wont.  If we have the proper laws in place some of them will go to jail instead.

That is the ay it works with drugs, stolen property, and all sorts of other stuff.  Why wouldn't it work that way with guns also?

The whole "Laws don't work 100% of the time so lets not have any laws" argument seems stupid to me.  Just because they are not 100% effective that does not mean we should not at least try.

[fredtoast]

(03-28-2019, 12:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Should a proof of identification be a requirement to purchase a gun at the time of purchase?

(03-28-2019, 01:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes.

(03-28-2019, 02:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So I don't need one to make the actual purchase? 

I said "yes".

[Benton]

(03-28-2019, 02:22 PM)Beaker Wrote: Criminals and crazy people will always find ways to get their hands on guns.  I forget which school shooting it was, but one of the shooters stole registered guns from his parents gun safe to commit the crime. So here you had registered guns owned by responsible, non-crazy citizens who even kept the guns in a safe. Like I said, I think tougher sentences would be more of a deterrent...to those who may be considering a crime. But in some cases, like my example, it's going to be carried out anyway.

Tougher sentences have failed to curb drug abuse, violent crimes, robberies and sexual assaults. Maybe try what's workedother places as prevention instead of trying to separate after.

[Benton]

(03-28-2019, 02:46 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: Wasn't that Sandy Hook?  He took the guns from his mother's safe and went to the school with them. 

The one at my son's school waslegally purchased, but not locked up. That's something that could've been addressed with a basic safety course.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-28-2019, 11:09 AM)Benton Wrote: Well, here's this issue with that.

Several countries with low gun violence rely on some basic education and licensing. Like Japan. More than 100 million people, about 10 gun related deaths per year. Why? Because idiots aren't allowed to have guns. 

Not that people are prevented from owning, just idiots.

You want a gun, you go to an all day class and prove you can handle a firearm. And you go through a mental health screening. And every three years you repeat the process.

And that's the point of licensing: it's not about restricting your right to own a gun as long as you're a stable person, it's about keeping them out of the hands of crazy ass people. 

They do have some pretty restrictive laws as far as types of guns, but the heart of reducing gun violence is making sure dumb people have a harder time getting access.

I think most people agree with the 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' mantra, but we make it took easy for people looking to kill people to have access. 

Background checks and licenses work. It's one of the simplest, most cost effective ways to handle the situation. 

There's a couple of issues with this statement.  One, no other country has the right to own a firearm embedded in their Constitution as a right.  Two, we're way past the point where a comparison to any country can be made regarding firearms ownership.  There are anywhere from 350-450 million firearms in private hands in this country.  Licensing won't change that as you have to admit you own one before you're even made to get a license.  Alternatively, you apply for said license and don't get it but you already own several firearms.  What happens then?  Confiscation, and not confiscation because you broke the law, confiscation because you couldn't acquire a license. Additionally, who gets to determine the licensing requirement?  Is it a Federal decisions or state by state?  I think you know why that's a huge sticking point.  Even if it is Federal, who gets to write it?  Fred's friends at The Trace or Michael Bloomberg?


Here's an undeniable set of facts.  Violent crime has been declining almost without fail since the early 90's.  In that same time period the number of firearms of all types in private hands has exploded.  The vast majority of firearms related offenses are committed by individuals already involved with the criminal justice system.  Beaker's suggestion therefore makes the most sense, if you want to reduce gun related crime increase the punishment for being involved in it.  It is also a fact that the majority of any type of crime is committed by a small fraction of the criminal population, hence the three strikes law.  Hard core recidivists being removed from the streets, permanently, almost certainly has contributed to our declining crime rate.

I'll close with this.  You're never going to get any kind of consensus for a plan like this because, while you have good intentions, many, if not most, people on the anti-gun side will merely see this as the next step to removing guns from the hands of private citizens.  People like Fred scoff at this, but real world events have shown this to be the case.  California already has confiscation laws on the books.  Look how many politicians have applauded New Zealand's knee jerk banning of a huge category of firearms, lamenting the fact they can't enact such blatantly unconstitutional laws here with such alacrity.  As Bel and I have discussed, look for the SCOTUS to enact the concept of "strict scrutiny" on gun laws as a result of the NYC law before them and this all becomes a moot point anyways.

For good and ill the second amendment exists until it is removed by a further amendment in the already established process.  Until that happens gun owners shouldn't give gun control advocates much, if anything, because, 1. they don't have to and 2. they'll never stop there anyways.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-28-2019, 01:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: As long as you are citing the results of published peer reviewed studies like i just did then i have no problem with that.

I'll wait.

Is that what your link had in it?  I wouldn't know as I don't cite incredibly biased sources.  I'll give it a look and reply with an edit.


EDIT: Gave it a look and found it predictably incomplete. A rather pertinent question should be was the shooter a legal owner and carrier of said weapon? More gun crime by criminals doesn't really change my view on this topic.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-28-2019, 12:31 AM)hollodero Wrote: I don't know... my driving licence doesn't tell the government if I own a car, or how many or which ones. I wonder why this model cannot be applied to guns. I would find it reasonable for a society to say, well ok you can get your potentially deadly tools (be it cars or guns), but just have some kind of proof you know how to handle them and aren't completely crazy.

(I feel like I said this already once before... can't remember if there already was that exact debate)

We have.  Please see my above reply to Benton for a rather more detailed post of why this is a flawed approach IMO.

[fredtoast]

(03-28-2019, 04:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:
I'll close with this.  You're never going to get any kind of consensus for a plan like this because, while you have good intentions, many, if not most, people on the anti-gun side will merely see this as the next step to removing guns from the hands of private citizens.  People like Fred scoff at this, but real world events have shown this to be the case., because, 1. they don't have to and 2. they'll never stop there anyways.

Registration and licensing have ZERO relationship to confiscation.  This is always your big closing point and it is completely meaningless.



IF PEOPLE WANT TO PASS CONFISCATION LAWS THEY WILL PASS CONFISCATION LAWS WHETHER WE HAVE REGISTRATION AND LICENSING LAWS OR NOT.  THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO.  ZERO.  ZIP.  NADA.




Anyone who uses potential confiscation laws as an argument against licensing and registration laws has NO argument against licensing and registration laws.  Opposing licensing and registration laws will not do ANYTHING to stop confiscation laws.  Registration and licensing laws are not required before confiscation laws can be passed.

[Dill]

(03-28-2019, 09:57 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Not if you eat it.

Len, U are going to hate me.

August XX, 1965, a day with will live in infamy amongst certain populations of small animals in Eastern Montana.

For that was the day my father presented me with my very own Mossberg single shot .22, bane of an entire generation of woodchucks, rattlesnakes, crows, magpie, rabbits and an occasional carp.  Had I a more contemporary sensibility, I'd have named it "the Reaper."  Sadly, only the rabbits made it home to dinner.

I feel better for having confessed.  The gun is still in my closet. I have not fired it since 1989--though I did loan it to a friend last year who had some groundhog trouble.  

[fredtoast]

(03-28-2019, 04:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  Beaker's suggestion therefore makes the most sense, if you want to reduce gun related crime increase the punishment for being involved in it.  It is also a fact that the majority of any type of crime is committed by a small fraction of the criminal population, hence the three strikes law.  Hard core recidivists being removed from the streets, permanently, almost certainly has contributed to our declining crime rate.anyways.

Stiffer penalties are a great idea, but they are meaningless and have no effect when we don't have the laws in place to enforce to catch the perpetrators.

You can have huge penalties for selling a gun to a convicted felon, but if you have no regulations in place to see who is selling guns to convicted felons the huge penalties are useless.  I own a gun and I can go sell it to any criminal and that transaction could never be traced back to me.  It is ridiculous how little regulation we have on providing dangerous weapons to convicted felons.  If every gun I owned was registered to me then I would not be able to sell them to criminals without any fear of ever being punished.