Anti-gun control people, where would you draw the line?

EternallyBored

Terminally Apathetic
Jun 17, 2013
1,434
0
0
farson135 said:
EternallyBored said:
Uhh no that's why its a loophole because they are legally allowed to sell those weapons without a license, that's the whole controversy that private sellers can basically pretend to be a gun shop for a weekend and its perfectly legal in many states as long as they do it at a gun show.
If they are acting as dealers then you should report them to your local ATF Office.

I have been to hundreds of gun shows all over the US and I have never seen what you describe. The gun show I go to the most often is the Houston Gun Show (which is the 3rd largest gun show in the country) with the Austin and El Paso Gun Shows taking up 2nd and 3rd (not sure which order). If a non-FFL dealer were to act as a dealer then that would be a violation of the ATF?s rules regarding gun selling as a business. I have seen plenty of people sell their grandpa?s old shotgun or a few of their safe queens but I have never seen a dealer level private seller.

As for your second paragraph, seriously? You do know that thousands of people do exactly that at gunshows and it's considered perfectly legal, all you have to do is call yourself a collector or enthusiast and your instantly in the legal clear, it's not an enforcement issue, if cops tried to crackdown on it 90% of the cases would get thrown out by the judge, because again, as long as it's at a gunshow its not considered illegal, thus the "loophole" designation.
The gun show is irrelevant. I can sell off my collection at any point outside of a gun show (not all at once obviously because then I would be breaching the ATF?s rules).

Seriously I have seen the district attorney for our city down at some of the same gunshows buying from private sellers who have 100+ weapons on sale and display, its not an issue of enforcement it is currently legal to do so.
Selling 100 firearms at one time would be illegal. Hell, even if it were 100 Mosin Nagants the person would then be categorized as a dealer under the ATF?s rules. If your AG did not prosecute them then (s)he is in the wrong.

Why is this even in question? like I said the gunshows themselves know they are doing it that's why many are cracking down and forcing unlicensed vendors to do background checks, they are hoping if they self-regulate then the government won't have to do it for them.
What in the fuck are you talking about? Unlicensed people do not have access to the Background Check system. We want access to it but we currently do not have it.

fromthepoisonwell said:
Amir Kondori said:
There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that people bring up on both sides of this debate, lots of statistics being used and misused, but if you look at violent crime it ends up being the worst in places with the strictest gun control laws.
Can you back this up with sources? That's an interesting claim, and would honestly change my outlook if you could solidly confirm it.
A simplistic way to look at it is too look at nations by gun ownership rates. If you look at the top 20 nations by gun ownership rate 11 of them are Western European.


Source- http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/home

You can also look at the locations of guns. The areas of the US with the highest gun ownership rates are rural areas (Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, and on). Rural areas tend to have low murder rates. However, urban areas tend to have high murder rates. Urban areas also tend to have the most gun control laws. Where are the strictest laws in the US? Chicago, New York City, LA, Washington D.C., and on. Here are some numbers-

The order is by murder rate. You have state, gun ownership rate, then murder rate (2010). I took 19 states (and the District) with the highest and lowest gun ownership rates. What do we find? Of the highest gun ownership states 6 have the 10 lowest homicide rates.
Idaho 55.3 1.5
Hawaii 8.7 1.8
North Dakota 50.7 2.0
Wyoming 59.7 2.0
Massachusetts 12.6 2.7
Rhode Island 12.8 3.0
Connecticut 16.7 3.0
Montana 57.7 3.2
Alaska 57.8 3.2
South Dakota 56.6 3.6
New Jersey 12.3 3.7
New York 18.0 4.0
West Virginia 55.4 4.9
California 21.3 5.4
Arkansas 55.3 6.3
Mississippi 55.3 6.9
Alabama 51.7 7.1
Maryland 21.3 7.7
Illinois 20.2 8.4
The District 3.8 24.2
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html
http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/State/StatebyState.cfm

Also-
Murder and non-negligent homicide Austin- 4.8
Murder and non-negligent homicide El Paso- 0.8
Murder and non-negligent homicide Washington D.C.- 21.9
Violent crime Austin- 475.9
Violent crime El Paso- 458.3
Violent crime Washington D.C.- 1,241.1
Population Austin-796,310
Population El Paso- 624,322
Population Washington D.C.- 601,723
Gun ownership rate of the state of Texas- 35.9
Gun ownership rate of Washington D.C.-3.8

I tried to go simplistic so that you can match what you most likely already know. Rural areas tend to have more guns than urban areas due to the fact that people in rural areas need guns for their jobs. Rural areas tend to have lower murder rates than urban areas.
They aren't selling them all at the same time, your right that most of the laws can be done with private collections anyway, the gunshow provides a venue and audience as well as allowing private sellers to pool collections in ways that other types of private sale can't. It still amounts to people legally selling a lot of new and used guns without and FFL, and I've talked to ATF people at the shows themselves, it's seen as shady but still legal, I don't know if Texas has different laws but Nevada, Idaho, New mexico, and Arizona have private sellers that often follow the gun shows around selling new and used guns, not nearly in the quantities of the FFL vendors, but enough that they are making a decent profit.

As for background checks, either Texas is weird or your just not trying very hard, there are multiple third party companies in my area that have the authorization to run background checks, you set up an account with them and they will run independent background checks for you, you don't get the authorization yourself.
 

jackknife402

New member
Aug 25, 2008
319
0
0
I always find it funny how one side thinks the other side should have no rights at all. Take a moment in my shoes, say Pro-gun rights people wanted the same thing that gun-control people want. Instead of taking away guns, they want to force them into the hands of every man, woman, and child? What would you say to that? I believe in gun control fully; however I also believe that each person in the world, not just the United States, but the entire world has the right to self preservation. People always claim that with no more guns, the bad guys wouldn't have access to them to rob, murder, and terrorize. We all know this is not true.

Complete removal of firearms from the hands of just and law-abiding citizens just merely puts them at a disadvantage of the criminal whom wants their life, their partner, or just their possessions. People speak of the "mass shootings" that go on in the United States all the time, but have you ever stopped to wonder how these shooters obtain the weapon to begin with? The majority of the latest shooters that reach the news are either too young to possess the firearm legally, or have out-right stolen it from someone else.

In the perfect world, I would see everyone being able to handle a firearm of their level of training. Simple hunting class should allow use of a shotgun, and a light 30-cal pistol(scary size right? That's just .32, .38, .357 and below.) to defend themselves. Want a weapon for more sportsmanship practices? Then you sign up for a full blown training course. Let the person know the in's and outs of their weapon, train them on situational awareness and other such things so they know when to place their finger on the trigger. Anyone whom handles a firearm today that has at least done basic training knows: "You never point the end of barrel at something unless you wanted to shoot it," as well as "Shoot to kill." Meaning target-practice, or defense of one's life.

I still believe having a professional army for any country is a bad way to go, and would love to see every country go back to just town-based militias called upon in time of defense. Being in a militia would provide the best training, and thus access to weapons that are meant solely for the battlefield. The suppressive fire of automatic and machine guns. From their we get into explosives and such. Each member would be required to maintain their own equipment, so they must have the right to possess it and care for it as they would for any other tool.

Also to correct idiots in the millions, AR-15 does not stand for "Assault Rifle #15." It stands for Armalite-15. There's no assault about it because it is semi-auto, just like many other sports rifles out there. Assault rifles are by design meant to suppress foes and that requires automatic capability.
 

Arkham

Esoteric Cultist
Jan 22, 2009
120
0
0
Queen Michael said:
Obviously excepting people with a history of violent behavior, mentally ill people, etcetera. Keeping guns from them is just common sense, especially the etcetera.
Not everyone with a mental illness is psychotic. It baffles me how ignorant people can be about mental illnesses in general.

I personally would limit civilian gun ownership to semi-automatic firearms, not too different from what it currently is. Hunting deer is popular where I grew up, so it wasn't uncommon for people to knock on the door asking for permission to hunt on our property. We would occasionally receive some jerky as thanks.
 

The Gnome King

New member
Mar 27, 2011
685
0
0
Queen Michael said:
I support gun control, and don't think that the public should have access to firearms at all. But those of you who disagree with me: What's the heaviest weapons you think the public should be able to purchase and own? (Obviously excepting people with a history of violent behavior, mentally ill people, etcetera. Keeping guns from them is just common sense, especially the etcetera. An etcetera almost killed my dad once.)
I'm in a very strange position like Bill Maher on this one in that I, like you, would prefer a society with strict gun control laws and no guns.

However, I live in the US... and in a society with guns, I don't want to be the guy without a gun. Hence why my wife and I did sport shooting with the NRA association, were members of a local gun club, took pains to take concealed carry classes - etc.

Weird, isn't it?
 

Amir Kondori

New member
Apr 11, 2013
932
0
0
fromthepoisonwell said:
Amir Kondori said:
There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that people bring up on both sides of this debate, lots of statistics being used and misused, but if you look at violent crime it ends up being the worst in places with the strictest gun control laws.
Can you back this up with sources? That's an interesting claim, and would honestly change my outlook if you could solidly confirm it.
There are actually a lot of sources I can link but this is probably the best one:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

The findings demonstrate that more gun laws may in fact increase death rates, the study says that "the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths" is wrong.

When the study focuses on intentional deaths by looking at the U.S. vs Continental Europe, the findings are revealing. The U.S., which is so often labeled as the most violent nation in the world by gun control proponents, comes in 7th--behind Russia, Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Belarus, and the Ukraine--in murders. America also only ranks 22nd in suicides.
The murder rate in Russia, where handguns are banned, is 30.6; the rate in the U.S. is 7.8.
The authors of the study conclude that the burden of proof rests on those who claim more guns equal more death and violent crime; such proponents should "at the very least [be able] to show a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that impose stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide)." But after intense study the authors conclude "those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared around the world."
 

cerebus23

New member
May 16, 2010
1,275
0
0
farson135 said:
EternallyBored said:
Uhh no that's why its a loophole because they are legally allowed to sell those weapons without a license, that's the whole controversy that private sellers can basically pretend to be a gun shop for a weekend and its perfectly legal in many states as long as they do it at a gun show.
If they are acting as dealers then you should report them to your local ATF Office.

I have been to hundreds of gun shows all over the US and I have never seen what you describe. The gun show I go to the most often is the Houston Gun Show (which is the 3rd largest gun show in the country) with the Austin and El Paso Gun Shows taking up 2nd and 3rd (not sure which order). If a non-FFL dealer were to act as a dealer then that would be a violation of the ATF?s rules regarding gun selling as a business. I have seen plenty of people sell their grandpa?s old shotgun or a few of their safe queens but I have never seen a dealer level private seller.

As for your second paragraph, seriously? You do know that thousands of people do exactly that at gunshows and it's considered perfectly legal, all you have to do is call yourself a collector or enthusiast and your instantly in the legal clear, it's not an enforcement issue, if cops tried to crackdown on it 90% of the cases would get thrown out by the judge, because again, as long as it's at a gunshow its not considered illegal, thus the "loophole" designation.
The gun show is irrelevant. I can sell off my collection at any point outside of a gun show (not all at once obviously because then I would be breaching the ATF?s rules).

Seriously I have seen the district attorney for our city down at some of the same gunshows buying from private sellers who have 100+ weapons on sale and display, its not an issue of enforcement it is currently legal to do so.
Selling 100 firearms at one time would be illegal. Hell, even if it were 100 Mosin Nagants the person would then be categorized as a dealer under the ATF?s rules. If your AG did not prosecute them then (s)he is in the wrong.

Why is this even in question? like I said the gunshows themselves know they are doing it that's why many are cracking down and forcing unlicensed vendors to do background checks, they are hoping if they self-regulate then the government won't have to do it for them.
What in the fuck are you talking about? Unlicensed people do not have access to the Background Check system. We want access to it but we currently do not have it.

fromthepoisonwell said:
Amir Kondori said:
There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that people bring up on both sides of this debate, lots of statistics being used and misused, but if you look at violent crime it ends up being the worst in places with the strictest gun control laws.
Can you back this up with sources? That's an interesting claim, and would honestly change my outlook if you could solidly confirm it.
A simplistic way to look at it is too look at nations by gun ownership rates. If you look at the top 20 nations by gun ownership rate 11 of them are Western European.


Source- http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/home

You can also look at the locations of guns. The areas of the US with the highest gun ownership rates are rural areas (Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, and on). Rural areas tend to have low murder rates. However, urban areas tend to have high murder rates. Urban areas also tend to have the most gun control laws. Where are the strictest laws in the US? Chicago, New York City, LA, Washington D.C., and on. Here are some numbers-

The order is by murder rate. You have state, gun ownership rate, then murder rate (2010). I took 19 states (and the District) with the highest and lowest gun ownership rates. What do we find? Of the highest gun ownership states 6 have the 10 lowest homicide rates.
Idaho 55.3 1.5
Hawaii 8.7 1.8
North Dakota 50.7 2.0
Wyoming 59.7 2.0
Massachusetts 12.6 2.7
Rhode Island 12.8 3.0
Connecticut 16.7 3.0
Montana 57.7 3.2
Alaska 57.8 3.2
South Dakota 56.6 3.6
New Jersey 12.3 3.7
New York 18.0 4.0
West Virginia 55.4 4.9
California 21.3 5.4
Arkansas 55.3 6.3
Mississippi 55.3 6.9
Alabama 51.7 7.1
Maryland 21.3 7.7
Illinois 20.2 8.4
The District 3.8 24.2
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html
http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/State/StatebyState.cfm

Also-
Murder and non-negligent homicide Austin- 4.8
Murder and non-negligent homicide El Paso- 0.8
Murder and non-negligent homicide Washington D.C.- 21.9
Violent crime Austin- 475.9
Violent crime El Paso- 458.3
Violent crime Washington D.C.- 1,241.1
Population Austin-796,310
Population El Paso- 624,322
Population Washington D.C.- 601,723
Gun ownership rate of the state of Texas- 35.9
Gun ownership rate of Washington D.C.-3.8

I tried to go simplistic so that you can match what you most likely already know. Rural areas tend to have more guns than urban areas due to the fact that people in rural areas need guns for their jobs. Rural areas tend to have lower murder rates than urban areas.
Nice post, america is a nation with massive open borders, each state has massive open borders, it is near impossible to control the flow of things in this country without full martial law. And if people are willing to pay enough someone is really to supply that demand.

Then you disarm the population the only people have guns are criminals and the government. The rest are just lambs for the slaughter.

We should have manditory gun safety to anyone looking to buy a gun, the current laws on the books are solid, automatic weapons are heavily controlled and licensed. sniper rifles that are not military spec, barret .50 cals and such that can take out a car, etc which is pretty much now.

We need to enforce the current laws and stop falling for the we need more laws b.s. that policians use to grab power or just srtrip your freedoms left and right in the name of some made up crisis one after another.
 

legend of duty

New member
Apr 30, 2011
218
0
0
I don't know why people want these AR style guns; they jam like crazy and they are expensive. I prefer guns without pistol grips myself, but to each his own. Still I hate it when people modify the weapons to look like some rambo shit, it gives sensible gun owners a bad rap.
 

Psychobabble

. . . . . . . .
Aug 3, 2013
525
0
0
Rather interesting that since the time of this article being posted an unarmed man was shot dead by police in North Carolina, and 2 of New York's finest opened fire on a man who also turned out to be unarmed, but missed him and winged 2 innocent bystanders. I think you Americans should be worrying the most about disarming those who supposedly protect and serve before you try to disarm your fellow citizens.
 

Frission

Until I get thrown out.
May 16, 2011
865
0
0
farson135 said:
There are common attributes to nations with strict gun control.

First of all they tend to be poor. Guns are expensive and even though you can buy an AK47 in some parts of Africa for $100 the people in those areas live on less than $1 per day. This is not really a why for the laws but more of a common attribute due to other factors including-

Nations with strict gun control laws were usually colonized or communist nations. Either one causes a significant destruction of economic output for the majority. It also leads to-

Nations with strict gun control laws tend to be either less democratic or they at least maintain the gun control laws of their colonizers. Less democratic nations are unlikely to allow significant gun ownership and colonizers almost universally denied their subjects the rights of gun ownership.
There's a problem with correlation in your post.

What country are you talking about? A majority of developed nations are doing well, or at least not worst than the U.S. Developing nations are in trouble because of low GDP, insufficient infrastructure and political instability.

Unsafe countries are like this due to events like famine, war, intense poverty and/or poor judicial system. In fact, I would say that countries with high ownership of weapons combined with desperate circumstances are the most violent areas of the world.

I can understand wanting a gun, but people don't think that the rest of the world will crumble if each person doesn't have their own death sticks.
 

emeraldrafael

New member
Jul 17, 2010
8,589
0
0
I dont see the need for anyhting above hunting and small pistols. I'm pretty for gun control, but living in southwestern PA i understand how huge hunting is here and in the Ohio valley area and i dont see the harm in rifles and such used for that. but when you get up to what's akin to that being used in the military or things that are unnecessary to hunt the standard quo (that being deer, fowl, and I guess the occasional bear) it just feels like too much.
 

Frission

Until I get thrown out.
May 16, 2011
865
0
0
farson135 said:
Frission said:
What country are you talking about? A majority of developed nations are doing well, or at least not worst than the U.S. Developing nations are in trouble because of low GDP, insufficient infrastructure and political instability.

Unsafe countries are like this due to events like famine, war, intense poverty and/or poor judicial system. In fact, I would say that countries with high ownership of weapons combined with desperate circumstances are the most violent areas of the world.

I can understand wanting a gun, but people don't think that the rest of the world will crumble if each person doesn't have their own death sticks.
First of all, a majority of ?developed? nations have lots of guns while most ?undeveloped? nations have very few guns. Take a look-


Second of all, did you read what I wrote? I will repeat- ?In other words, gun are irrelevant overall but the areas that have strict gun laws tend to be the kinds of areas you do not want to visit.?

Lastly, ?each person?? ?Crumble?? ?Death stick?? Try slowing down and reading what I wrote rather than what you wanted me to write.
Like Japan? Some of those nations with very "few" guns have more guns in circulation as well, only they're unregistered. There's a very large margin of error in that graph. Bangladesh in on the bottom of that list and I've spent almost two years there. Safe is the last thing I would call it.

As for the second thing, it's a false correlation. The above graph says that there are not as much guns among 100 people and doesn't say anything about the strict gun laws. Unless there's a case for Somalia's strict gun laws creating chaos.

I'm also sorry if I'm using words that are over-aggressive, but you're arguing a very weird statement and a false correlation. I don't have to make stuff up. The reason why I added other possible factors is to say that there might be other reasons than the one you're saying.

I could replace gun laws in your post with yatchs. Areas where people don't have yachts, because they lack the money and infrastructure to build these luxury goods and are going to be statistically less safe than areas where there is a lot of yachts.
 

Amir Kondori

New member
Apr 11, 2013
932
0
0
Jim_Callahan said:
Amir Kondori said:
But after intense study the authors conclude "those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared around the world."
In fairness, the initial claim was "murder rates are higher when strict gun control (e.g. bans) are implemented". That's not what the study you're linking says.

What the study says is "no correlation". In other words, gun bans don't help, that's not really the same thing as being actively harmful. When you correct for economic factors (and, depending on the study, various other potential factors) what you end up with is just noise... whether a given set of regulations on firearms is in place or not has no impact (so far as current observations) on humans wanting to or succeeding at killing or injuring each other one way or the other.

Which is consistent with the bulk of available studies, and also makes a certain logical sense, given that it's possible to murder someone with fists alone and most people have access to things like, y'know, cars and knives, which are just as handy for murderin' as a rifle, probably moreso in some situations.
There is other stuff I have seen but I would have a harder time digging it up online so that is what I linked. You can look at cities like Detroit, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country and also one of the worst rates of violent crime. I think the point is that gun control advocates base their policy on a belief that has no evidence to back it up. I don't think that is a good reason to curtail a constitutionally protected freedom. But that is just me.

Here is another article with some interesting information:
http://people.howstuffworks.com/strict-gun-laws-less-crime1.htm