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

GundamSentinel

The leading man, who else?
Aug 23, 2009
4,448
0
0
Hunting/sports weapons, nothing more. Then again, I don't much care if Americans want to shoot eachother with assault rifles, as long as they don't come here to do it. I'm happy to live in a country where nobody I know has a heavier weapon than an air rifle.
 

Madgamer13

New member
Sep 20, 2010
116
0
0
I fully support making it easier for organised crime to get weaponry. All countries in the world should abolish gun laws and let the chaos commence.

Blood for the blood god.
 

MrBaskerville

New member
Mar 15, 2011
871
0
0
If we assumed that people should be able to buy guns and that was the way it was going to be from here to eternity then i would say the biggest guns you should be allowed to buy should be some crappy slow firing pistol. The less effective the better.

And ofcourse guns for hunting and sports, but that goes without saying since you aren't allowed to use these guns outside the designated areas.
 

Psychobabble

. . . . . . . .
Aug 3, 2013
525
0
0
nepheleim said:
From an American historical standpoint Colonists had access to muskets, rifles, and (which nobody ever brings up) cannons. So people should be allowed whatever it is they want, provided they can afford it.
I think the British might have some rather good counter arguments as to why this wasn't such a great idea.
 

hexFrank202

New member
Mar 21, 2010
303
0
0
Now my opinion isn't TOO informed, but from what I can see, I think it would be best to have a very gradient policy on gun ownership. For example, you can't walk around with a rifle in your jacket, but you can conceal a pistol in your back pocket. This is because a pistol offers one the maximum amount of personal safety, while also being something on small enough of a scale to make it relatively secure for everyone else in the area. You also, of course, need a license to do this, which is a good idea.

Therefore, it should be legal for someone to keep rifles in their car, because your car is a slightly more private place. You shouldn't be allowed to wave it around the back of your trunk in the middle of a busy parking lot; it's only there as protection for the possible threats and dangers that could follow you on the road or wherever you may go. Again, like before, this grants you the most personal safety without also shoving the danger of the weaponry in the face of others. And you also should need a license for it.

You should be able to have fully-automatic machine guns... in your house. Because houses are subject to organized, planned burglaries by potentially multiple bad guys at once. But more importantly, the privacy of a house means there's a much wider range of privacy. It should be required that a fully automatic weapon be locked securely away when not in use; it should be required that you can't take it out to start playing with it unless you have enough land, and if you live in a tiny apartment with tons of other people, security should be the responsibility of the owner of the apartment. And again, you should have to get a separate license for these kinds of military-grade weapons.

What about tanks and turrets and rocket launchers? Well, you should be allowed to have all of those... if you basically own your own private city. Yeah, like, if you somehow have thousands of acres of land and multiple buildings and it's basically a little town unto itself with hundreds of people working and living there, then your property spans such a wide radius of privacy, that it could comfortably fit military-level security. After all, if people owned cities (which no one in America does; I'm just being hypothetical because this is a hypothetical thread), they not only COULD safely operate such weaponry, but would probably NEED it.
Getting the licensing for all this should be a massive deal; it should take countless inspections and regular oversight by government agents.

So there's my gradient approach to how I think maybe gun laws should be.
 

samgdawg

New member
Apr 1, 2011
86
0
0
EternallyBored said:
U.S. gunshow loopholes that allow the sale of weapons without significant background checks should also be closed (I realize this will basically kill the gun show industry as it currently exists, but modern technology should allow purchased weapons during the show to be shipped at a later date). Silencers are really the only accessory I would see being regulated and requiring extensive paperwork to purchase (which is mostly how it is here now, but previously mentioned gunshow loopholes make it really easy to get one with little effort).

Training would be another issue I would like to see increased, not necessarily mandatory but at least heavily encouraged especially in getting licensed for a concealed carry permit that allows you to hide a handgun on your person legally. I just got my CCW license a year or two ago and it required only a single eight hour class and a target test so easy the World War II vet in the class with us managed to pass it despite being mostly blind and half deaf.

but if the American people decide they want stronger gun laws then I'm ok with that, I tend not to take the second amendment as some sort of iron clad rule that can never be challenged or changed.
All right since you have so much of a problem with the "gun-show loophole", what exactly is this "loophole"? Because the laws are the same as anywhere else. Licensed dealers must run background checks. Private sellers (Those not engaged in the business of selling firearms) do not. Any sale, by anyone, in any place is still subject to the same federal laws requiring that guns cannot be sold to known criminals.
I actually agree with the idea of encouraging practice with firearms. Like you said it doesn't need to be intrusive and be mandatory, but encouraged would probably be a good idea.
The Second Amendment however, is an iron clad rule that cannot be changed. In the Bill of Rights the Second Amendment state that this right "shall not be infringed" to infringe means "to limit or undermine". I respect your opinions but you are using scare words meant to make people think of criminals rushing to the gun shows and getting ready to go out and murder and are uninformed about the way the Second Amendment works.
 

cikame

New member
Jun 11, 2008
585
0
0
So assuming no bad or vulnerable people would get guns, which guns do i think should be available?

All guns, it's not the tool it's the person using it.
 

EternallyBored

Terminally Apathetic
Jun 17, 2013
1,434
0
0
samgdawg said:
EternallyBored said:
U.S. gunshow loopholes that allow the sale of weapons without significant background checks should also be closed (I realize this will basically kill the gun show industry as it currently exists, but modern technology should allow purchased weapons during the show to be shipped at a later date). Silencers are really the only accessory I would see being regulated and requiring extensive paperwork to purchase (which is mostly how it is here now, but previously mentioned gunshow loopholes make it really easy to get one with little effort).

Training would be another issue I would like to see increased, not necessarily mandatory but at least heavily encouraged especially in getting licensed for a concealed carry permit that allows you to hide a handgun on your person legally. I just got my CCW license a year or two ago and it required only a single eight hour class and a target test so easy the World War II vet in the class with us managed to pass it despite being mostly blind and half deaf.

but if the American people decide they want stronger gun laws then I'm ok with that, I tend not to take the second amendment as some sort of iron clad rule that can never be challenged or changed.
All right since you have so much of a problem with the "gun-show loophole", what exactly is this "loophole"? Because the laws are the same as anywhere else. Licensed dealers must run background checks. Private sellers (Those not engaged in the business of selling firearms) do not. Any sale, by anyone, in any place is still subject to the same federal laws requiring that guns cannot be sold to known criminals.
I actually agree with the idea of encouraging practice with firearms. Like you said it doesn't need to be intrusive and be mandatory, but encouraged would probably be a good idea.
The Second Amendment however, is an iron clad rule that cannot be changed. In the Bill of Rights the Second Amendment state that this right "shall not be infringed" to infringe means "to limit or undermine". I respect your opinions but you are using scare words meant to make people think of criminals rushing to the gun shows and getting ready to go out and murder and are uninformed about the way the Second Amendment works.
The gunshow "loophole" is predicated on just that exception, private sellers setting up booths at gunshows alongside licensed sellers and basically advertising the fact they don't do background checks. I have been to probably close to 100 gunshows in my lifetime and I've seen mass amounts of "private" sellers set up the same as the FFL stores and basically acting as unlicensed gun shops. In some states there are enough gunshows that there is literally one every weekend throughout the state, and many of the larger ones will take place in multiple states. Some of the larger private sellers essentially treat the shows as a business following them around and moving hundreds of firearms in a single year, this isn't some statistic, I've talked to plenty of people at these shows who do this, for some of them it's pretty much their entire income and livelihood, they aren't bad people, hell some of them are great people I've bought and will buy guns from in the future, but even they admit that they are actively exploiting a loophole (remember a loophole is just that, it may skirt the law a little, but it's not illegal) in the law, some even want the law changed themselves. They would rather have to get licensed and perform background checks than risk public opinion turning against them and limiting gunshows entirely. A number of private dealers are starting to take advantage of third party background check services to run them anyway, and a few gunshows are stepping in to totally ban any sellers who don't do background checks, the industry itself recognizes that what it was doing was on shaky ground and are trying to self-regulate before the government steps in making it official.

Also no, the laws aren't the same in every state, some ban private sellers from gunshows entirely, others restrict handgun sales only to FFL holders, and others allow private sellers to sell their merchandise both new and used. The state of New Jersey is so strict I could only find one gunshow in the whole state and that was for antique firearms, and nothing even remotely modern could be purchased there.

As for your comment on the second amendment, again no, the government cannot infringe upon it, but notice how in my original post I said it was up to the American people. The constitution has mechanisms for adding and changing amendments, this includes the second amendment. If, someday in the future the vast majority of people in America decide guns should be illegal, it is entirely within their power to rescind the second amendment in its entirety, or to change it to make gun ownership either harder or even easier, the process is long, arduous, and in this day and age a full repeal is pretty much impossible as even most gun control supporters still want the second amendment to exist in some form. That was my point though, gun control is up to the American people if enough support falls behind either drastic increases (banning certain weapon types and ammo, increased wait periods or further background checks, increased taxes on sales) or even drastic decreases (loosening regulations on class III licenses, eliminating background checks) then it will happen.

If the federal government tried to unilaterally ban gun ownership then yeah I would be out there protesting with probably 70% of the rest of the country, but if the American people decide they want stricter gun control, I'm not going to pretend they don't have a right to it.
 

God'sFist

New member
May 8, 2012
523
0
0
How about the ultimate gun simulator! You can have every weapon known to man! Nukes, knives, guns, you name it you can use it. And it's absolutely free!

All joking aside, I think the best thing is basically the pistol to shotgun range of weapons. But honestly I do have to admit something I think what alot of people who advocate the gun control laws should learn more about guns as a hole just to have the understanding. I mean it wouldn't kill ya right?... right?
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
EternallyBored said:
samgdawg said:
EternallyBored said:
U.S. gunshow loopholes that allow the sale of weapons without significant background checks should also be closed (I realize this will basically kill the gun show industry as it currently exists, but modern technology should allow purchased weapons during the show to be shipped at a later date). Silencers are really the only accessory I would see being regulated and requiring extensive paperwork to purchase (which is mostly how it is here now, but previously mentioned gunshow loopholes make it really easy to get one with little effort).

Training would be another issue I would like to see increased, not necessarily mandatory but at least heavily encouraged especially in getting licensed for a concealed carry permit that allows you to hide a handgun on your person legally. I just got my CCW license a year or two ago and it required only a single eight hour class and a target test so easy the World War II vet in the class with us managed to pass it despite being mostly blind and half deaf.

but if the American people decide they want stronger gun laws then I'm ok with that, I tend not to take the second amendment as some sort of iron clad rule that can never be challenged or changed.
All right since you have so much of a problem with the "gun-show loophole", what exactly is this "loophole"? Because the laws are the same as anywhere else. Licensed dealers must run background checks. Private sellers (Those not engaged in the business of selling firearms) do not. Any sale, by anyone, in any place is still subject to the same federal laws requiring that guns cannot be sold to known criminals.
I actually agree with the idea of encouraging practice with firearms. Like you said it doesn't need to be intrusive and be mandatory, but encouraged would probably be a good idea.
The Second Amendment however, is an iron clad rule that cannot be changed. In the Bill of Rights the Second Amendment state that this right "shall not be infringed" to infringe means "to limit or undermine". I respect your opinions but you are using scare words meant to make people think of criminals rushing to the gun shows and getting ready to go out and murder and are uninformed about the way the Second Amendment works.
The gunshow "loophole" is predicated on just that exception, private sellers setting up booths at gunshows alongside licensed sellers and basically advertising the fact they don't do background checks. I have been to probably close to 100 gunshows in my lifetime and I've seen mass amounts of "private" sellers set up the same as the FFL stores and basically acting as unlicensed gun shops. In some states there are enough gunshows that there is literally one every weekend throughout the state, and many of the larger ones will take place in multiple states. Some of the larger private sellers essentially treat the shows as a business following them around and moving hundreds of firearms in a single year, this isn't some statistic, I've talked to plenty of people at these shows who do this, for some of them it's pretty much their entire income and livelihood,
that has nothing to do with the gun show loophole, those people are not private sellers, they are dealers operating without a license. This is already illegal, so what you should really be advocating is better enforcement, not more laws.
they aren't bad people, hell some of them are great people I've bought and will buy guns from in the future, but even they admit that they are actively exploiting a loophole (remember a loophole is just that, it may skirt the law a little, but it's not illegal)
if they are buying weapons with the intent of selling them, which is pretty much the only way to move that many weapons. That means they are operating an unlicensed firearm selling business, which is illegal.
in the law, some even want the law changed themselves. They would rather have to get licensed and perform background checks than risk public opinion turning against them and limiting gunshows entirely. A number of private dealers are starting to take advantage of third party background check services to run them anyway, and a few gunshows are stepping in to totally ban any sellers who don't do background checks, the industry itself recognizes that what it was doing was on shaky ground and are trying to self-regulate before the government steps in making it official.

Also no, the laws aren't the same in every state, some ban private sellers from gunshows entirely, others restrict handgun sales only to FFL holders, and others allow private sellers to sell their merchandise both new and used. The state of New Jersey is so strict I could only find one gunshow in the whole state and that was for antique firearms, and nothing even remotely modern could be purchased there.

As for your comment on the second amendment, again no, the government cannot infringe upon it, but notice how in my original post I said it was up to the American people. The constitution has mechanisms for adding and changing amendments, this includes the second amendment. If, someday in the future the vast majority of people in America decide guns should be illegal, it is entirely within their power to rescind the second amendment in its entirety, or to change it to make gun ownership either harder or even easier, the process is long, arduous, and in this day and age a full repeal is pretty much impossible as even most gun control supporters still want the second amendment to exist in some form. That was my point though, gun control is up to the American people if enough support falls behind either drastic increases (banning certain weapon types and ammo, increased wait periods or further background checks, increased taxes on sales) or even drastic decreases (loosening regulations on class III licenses, eliminating background checks) then it will happen.

If the federal government tried to unilaterally ban gun ownership then yeah I would be out there protesting with probably 70% of the rest of the country, but if the American people decide they want stricter gun control, I'm not going to pretend they don't have a right to it.
also, the gun show loophole accounts for a laughably small amount of weapons used in crime. http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/11/where-criminals-get-their-guns/
There's no loopholes that we need to close, we just need to get aggressive, uniform enforcement.
 

EternallyBored

Terminally Apathetic
Jun 17, 2013
1,434
0
0
spartan231490 said:
EternallyBored said:
samgdawg said:
EternallyBored said:
U.S. gunshow loopholes that allow the sale of weapons without significant background checks should also be closed (I realize this will basically kill the gun show industry as it currently exists, but modern technology should allow purchased weapons during the show to be shipped at a later date). Silencers are really the only accessory I would see being regulated and requiring extensive paperwork to purchase (which is mostly how it is here now, but previously mentioned gunshow loopholes make it really easy to get one with little effort).

Training would be another issue I would like to see increased, not necessarily mandatory but at least heavily encouraged especially in getting licensed for a concealed carry permit that allows you to hide a handgun on your person legally. I just got my CCW license a year or two ago and it required only a single eight hour class and a target test so easy the World War II vet in the class with us managed to pass it despite being mostly blind and half deaf.

but if the American people decide they want stronger gun laws then I'm ok with that, I tend not to take the second amendment as some sort of iron clad rule that can never be challenged or changed.
All right since you have so much of a problem with the "gun-show loophole", what exactly is this "loophole"? Because the laws are the same as anywhere else. Licensed dealers must run background checks. Private sellers (Those not engaged in the business of selling firearms) do not. Any sale, by anyone, in any place is still subject to the same federal laws requiring that guns cannot be sold to known criminals.
I actually agree with the idea of encouraging practice with firearms. Like you said it doesn't need to be intrusive and be mandatory, but encouraged would probably be a good idea.
The Second Amendment however, is an iron clad rule that cannot be changed. In the Bill of Rights the Second Amendment state that this right "shall not be infringed" to infringe means "to limit or undermine". I respect your opinions but you are using scare words meant to make people think of criminals rushing to the gun shows and getting ready to go out and murder and are uninformed about the way the Second Amendment works.
The gunshow "loophole" is predicated on just that exception, private sellers setting up booths at gunshows alongside licensed sellers and basically advertising the fact they don't do background checks. I have been to probably close to 100 gunshows in my lifetime and I've seen mass amounts of "private" sellers set up the same as the FFL stores and basically acting as unlicensed gun shops. In some states there are enough gunshows that there is literally one every weekend throughout the state, and many of the larger ones will take place in multiple states. Some of the larger private sellers essentially treat the shows as a business following them around and moving hundreds of firearms in a single year, this isn't some statistic, I've talked to plenty of people at these shows who do this, for some of them it's pretty much their entire income and livelihood,
that has nothing to do with the gun show loophole, those people are not private sellers, they are dealers operating without a license. This is already illegal, so what you should really be advocating is better enforcement, not more laws.
they aren't bad people, hell some of them are great people I've bought and will buy guns from in the future, but even they admit that they are actively exploiting a loophole (remember a loophole is just that, it may skirt the law a little, but it's not illegal)
if they are buying weapons with the intent of selling them, which is pretty much the only way to move that many weapons. That means they are operating an unlicensed firearm selling business, which is illegal.
in the law, some even want the law changed themselves. They would rather have to get licensed and perform background checks than risk public opinion turning against them and limiting gunshows entirely. A number of private dealers are starting to take advantage of third party background check services to run them anyway, and a few gunshows are stepping in to totally ban any sellers who don't do background checks, the industry itself recognizes that what it was doing was on shaky ground and are trying to self-regulate before the government steps in making it official.

Also no, the laws aren't the same in every state, some ban private sellers from gunshows entirely, others restrict handgun sales only to FFL holders, and others allow private sellers to sell their merchandise both new and used. The state of New Jersey is so strict I could only find one gunshow in the whole state and that was for antique firearms, and nothing even remotely modern could be purchased there.

As for your comment on the second amendment, again no, the government cannot infringe upon it, but notice how in my original post I said it was up to the American people. The constitution has mechanisms for adding and changing amendments, this includes the second amendment. If, someday in the future the vast majority of people in America decide guns should be illegal, it is entirely within their power to rescind the second amendment in its entirety, or to change it to make gun ownership either harder or even easier, the process is long, arduous, and in this day and age a full repeal is pretty much impossible as even most gun control supporters still want the second amendment to exist in some form. That was my point though, gun control is up to the American people if enough support falls behind either drastic increases (banning certain weapon types and ammo, increased wait periods or further background checks, increased taxes on sales) or even drastic decreases (loosening regulations on class III licenses, eliminating background checks) then it will happen.

If the federal government tried to unilaterally ban gun ownership then yeah I would be out there protesting with probably 70% of the rest of the country, but if the American people decide they want stricter gun control, I'm not going to pretend they don't have a right to it.
also, the gun show loophole accounts for a laughably small amount of weapons used in crime. http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/11/where-criminals-get-their-guns/
There's no loopholes that we need to close, we just need to get aggressive, uniform enforcement.
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.

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. 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.

As for your last statistic, that's only people who commit crimes using said guns. A number of felons still get locked away for parole violations, almost always either through getting guns from family and friends or through gun shows. Almost none of them have any intention of using those guns to commit crimes, but that doesn't stop them from getting sent right back to prison and sucking up state funds for parole violations. Even if the crime statistic was low or even none, its something that even the people who do it admit it's not the most ethical thing in the world.

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.
 

frizzlebyte

New member
Oct 20, 2008
641
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'd say certain kinds of explosives (except fireworks and blackpowder/gunpowder), and certain kinds of military ordinance.

If you want to buy a fighter jet or a tank, go ahead. Just don't expect to load a Hellfire or a 105mm shell into that puppy.
 

fromthepoisonwell

New member
Jun 11, 2013
9
0
0
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.
 

Imperioratorex Caprae

Henchgoat Emperor
May 15, 2010
5,499
0
0
All firearms are assault weapons... if you want to take it literally. Its not the firearm, the person holding it is the problem. And there are more people out there who are responsible firearm owners than the ones who are stupid or crazy.
So beyond that, the only weapons I'd say I wouldn't want publicly available are high explosive, but those aren't GUNS.
Full-auto capability should be unavailable (as I understand already implemented). The issue isn't that there are weapons available and no laws to enforce control, its that the laws that enforce control aren't PROPERLY enforced, nor are people taking responsibility for their actions.
And a larger number of crimes committed with firearms are unregistered weapons or stolen weapons. Proper education will eliminate most of the stupid shootings, proper law enforcement and background checks should keep firearms out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.
But I still feel that its our right, whether you choose to excercise it or not, to own firearms. Some day we may all wish we had them if the worst comes knocking on our front door. I don't necessarily believe we will be invaded but I don't discredit the possibility. 12 years ago I wouldn't have thought people would have rammed planes into the WTC either and I'm not using it as an excuse, I just make a point that this world is far far FAR from civilized and it is our right to have a last line of defense for ourselves in case of.
 

Grach

New member
Aug 31, 2012
339
0
0
I think the US stance on gun control is fine now (everything must be long barreled, nothing more than semi autos without special registration, etc).

Of course I don't live in the US. In my country you're not allowed to have anything bigger than a shotgun or a pistol calibre carbine (and those are not very widespread). Probably because we're not so attached to the idea of guns and such.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
EternallyBored said:
spartan231490 said:
EternallyBored said:
samgdawg said:
EternallyBored said:
U.S. gunshow loopholes that allow the sale of weapons without significant background checks should also be closed (I realize this will basically kill the gun show industry as it currently exists, but modern technology should allow purchased weapons during the show to be shipped at a later date). Silencers are really the only accessory I would see being regulated and requiring extensive paperwork to purchase (which is mostly how it is here now, but previously mentioned gunshow loopholes make it really easy to get one with little effort).

Training would be another issue I would like to see increased, not necessarily mandatory but at least heavily encouraged especially in getting licensed for a concealed carry permit that allows you to hide a handgun on your person legally. I just got my CCW license a year or two ago and it required only a single eight hour class and a target test so easy the World War II vet in the class with us managed to pass it despite being mostly blind and half deaf.

but if the American people decide they want stronger gun laws then I'm ok with that, I tend not to take the second amendment as some sort of iron clad rule that can never be challenged or changed.
All right since you have so much of a problem with the "gun-show loophole", what exactly is this "loophole"? Because the laws are the same as anywhere else. Licensed dealers must run background checks. Private sellers (Those not engaged in the business of selling firearms) do not. Any sale, by anyone, in any place is still subject to the same federal laws requiring that guns cannot be sold to known criminals.
I actually agree with the idea of encouraging practice with firearms. Like you said it doesn't need to be intrusive and be mandatory, but encouraged would probably be a good idea.
The Second Amendment however, is an iron clad rule that cannot be changed. In the Bill of Rights the Second Amendment state that this right "shall not be infringed" to infringe means "to limit or undermine". I respect your opinions but you are using scare words meant to make people think of criminals rushing to the gun shows and getting ready to go out and murder and are uninformed about the way the Second Amendment works.
The gunshow "loophole" is predicated on just that exception, private sellers setting up booths at gunshows alongside licensed sellers and basically advertising the fact they don't do background checks. I have been to probably close to 100 gunshows in my lifetime and I've seen mass amounts of "private" sellers set up the same as the FFL stores and basically acting as unlicensed gun shops. In some states there are enough gunshows that there is literally one every weekend throughout the state, and many of the larger ones will take place in multiple states. Some of the larger private sellers essentially treat the shows as a business following them around and moving hundreds of firearms in a single year, this isn't some statistic, I've talked to plenty of people at these shows who do this, for some of them it's pretty much their entire income and livelihood,
that has nothing to do with the gun show loophole, those people are not private sellers, they are dealers operating without a license. This is already illegal, so what you should really be advocating is better enforcement, not more laws.
they aren't bad people, hell some of them are great people I've bought and will buy guns from in the future, but even they admit that they are actively exploiting a loophole (remember a loophole is just that, it may skirt the law a little, but it's not illegal)
if they are buying weapons with the intent of selling them, which is pretty much the only way to move that many weapons. That means they are operating an unlicensed firearm selling business, which is illegal.
in the law, some even want the law changed themselves. They would rather have to get licensed and perform background checks than risk public opinion turning against them and limiting gunshows entirely. A number of private dealers are starting to take advantage of third party background check services to run them anyway, and a few gunshows are stepping in to totally ban any sellers who don't do background checks, the industry itself recognizes that what it was doing was on shaky ground and are trying to self-regulate before the government steps in making it official.

Also no, the laws aren't the same in every state, some ban private sellers from gunshows entirely, others restrict handgun sales only to FFL holders, and others allow private sellers to sell their merchandise both new and used. The state of New Jersey is so strict I could only find one gunshow in the whole state and that was for antique firearms, and nothing even remotely modern could be purchased there.

As for your comment on the second amendment, again no, the government cannot infringe upon it, but notice how in my original post I said it was up to the American people. The constitution has mechanisms for adding and changing amendments, this includes the second amendment. If, someday in the future the vast majority of people in America decide guns should be illegal, it is entirely within their power to rescind the second amendment in its entirety, or to change it to make gun ownership either harder or even easier, the process is long, arduous, and in this day and age a full repeal is pretty much impossible as even most gun control supporters still want the second amendment to exist in some form. That was my point though, gun control is up to the American people if enough support falls behind either drastic increases (banning certain weapon types and ammo, increased wait periods or further background checks, increased taxes on sales) or even drastic decreases (loosening regulations on class III licenses, eliminating background checks) then it will happen.

If the federal government tried to unilaterally ban gun ownership then yeah I would be out there protesting with probably 70% of the rest of the country, but if the American people decide they want stricter gun control, I'm not going to pretend they don't have a right to it.
also, the gun show loophole accounts for a laughably small amount of weapons used in crime. http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/11/where-criminals-get-their-guns/
There's no loopholes that we need to close, we just need to get aggressive, uniform enforcement.
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.

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,
you obviously do not know the laws involved. It doesn't matter whether it's at a gun show or not. Private sellers can sell without checks anywhere. Once again, no judge would through out the above cases, because it's obvious that those involved are doing it as an unlicensed business. If you really don't believe me, go to your local police station or tax office, they will 100% back me up that if you buy firearms with the intent of selling them at gun shows, you are running a business. That requires an ffl, and background checks.
thus the "loophole" designation. 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.
It is, assuming those weapons were acquired for personal use. For example, the widow of an ffl can sell his remaining stock without checks, the minute you buy weapons with the intent of selling the, that makes it a business. You are holding an inventory with the intent of selling them for profit, that is by definition a business.
As for your last statistic, that's only people who commit crimes using said guns. A number of felons still get locked away for parole violations, almost always either through getting guns from family and friends or through gun shows. Almost none of them have any intention of using those guns to commit crimes, but that doesn't stop them from getting sent right back to prison and sucking up state funds for parole violations. Even if the crime statistic was low or even none, its something that even the people who do it admit it's not the most ethical thing in the world.

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.
That's because many gun owners are apologists. I am not. I do not believe that just because liberals emotionally believe that something is an issue, that is should be addressed as one. I believe in trying to save lives, and that means putting the money and effort somewhere it will actually be useful, not wasting it on irrelevant tangents in order to make the liberals feel better.

In short: It's not a loophole. If one purchase firearms with the intent of selling them, that makes it a business, which needs to have an ffl and follow all the same rules as someone else. Private selling means you have a weapon that you acquired for personal use or from a gift or an inheritance that you are selling because you no longer want. The people you are discussing are obviously not buying over 100 firearms each year that they legitimately lose interest in. They are operating a business, without the proper licensing and are not only in violation of federal firearms laws but also probably several tax laws as well.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
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.
I can, let me change computers really quick and I will edit this to include sources.

this was a huge international study in Europe. One pretty impressive point: the 9 countries with the highest rates of gun ownership had a murder rate three times lower than the 9 countries with the lowest rates of gun ownership. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

I would post links for the US, but someone already quoted with a lot of it and I haven't found that links again yet(my old computer crashed so I lost all my sources). The fact is that most of the places with really really strict gun control are also the most dangerous places to live. Washington DC, California, Detroit, Chicago, NYC(though NYC isn't nearly as bad as the others). I've also heard that if you take out Illinios, Washington DC, California, and I think NYC, that the US murder rate suddenly drops to a much more reasonable level. I haven't had the time to dig up the data and see if that's true, but it's certainly true that those places have much much higher crime rates than the rest of the US despite strict gun control.

You can confirm this on the FBI or Dept Justice websites(I think those are the sources the other guy posted).
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
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.
From what I've read it's not a matter of volume but manner of acquisition. For example, the person who inherits the inventory of an ffl doesn't need to get an ffl just to sell them, only if they are purchasing weapons with the intent of selling them.
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.
This I know to be in-accurate. Any ffl can run a background check for a private sale. Some charge for it, some don't, but you have access, you just need to ask an ffl.
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.
Not trying to be a dick, just trying to make sure data is accurate.