Gun Control

[quote="happy jack"]

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

So do you have any problem with "tightening up" the gun registration laws?

Tightening up which aspects, specifically?
And to what end?

I guess you didn't bother to read what I posted?

Put simply, I'm saying that anyone who possesses a gun needs to register it, no matter where or how they buy it. All gun registrations should be stored on a national data base that is easily accessed by law enforcement. Is there a rational reason to oppose these kinds of regulations?

Is there a rational reason to believe that gun registration would have prevented the Newtown shootings?

Certainly not.

Look, I'm just trying to find out if we share any common ground. I'm simply trying to ascertain what you think, and why. That's why I'm asking questions. Again...

Quote :

...anyone who possesses a gun needs to register it, no matter where or how they buy it. All gun registrations should be stored on a national data base that is easily accessed by law enforcement. Is there a rational reason to oppose these kinds of regulations?

happy jack wrote:

Gun registration can do nothing to make anyone safer. It is not a tool to prevent violence; it is simply a tool to investigate violent crime after the fact.

Yeah. That's true. But its unlikely that guns that are sold out of the trunk of a car (for example) are going to be used for legal purposes. The person selling guns out of his trunk had to get those guns from somebody. If they were stolen or sold, and all guns were registered, then it would be much easier to find out where the illicit dealer got his guns.

happy jack wrote:

Merely knowing who is in possession of guns is in no way predictive of whether or not, or by whom, those guns will be used for illegal purposes.

No, but as I pointed out, if all guns were registered, then we would be able to track them much more efficiently. As it stands now, if a gun is used in a crime after the original, registered owner sold it to somebody in an unregistered "private sale," then the police show up at the original owner's door. That's not very useful, and the lack of registration in "private sales" makes it awfully easy to set up a "black market."

happy jack wrote:

Do you think that the newspaper that published the names of the gun owners accomplished anything positive by doing so?

No, I don't.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

No, but as I pointed out, if all guns were registered, then we would be able to track them much more efficiently. As it stands now, if a gun is used in a crime after the original, registered owner sold it to somebody in an unregistered "private sale," then the police show up at the original owner's door. That's not very useful, and the lack of registration in "private sales" makes it awfully easy to set up a "black market."

happy jack wrote:

The problem is is that the original owner, who diligently and law-abidingly registered his gun, and legally sold the gun, would likely have been the only one to obey any laws.

No, because the gun would need to be re-registered when it is sold. So that takes the original owner completely out of the picture, which seems more sane to me.

happy jack wrote:

Once the gun leaves his hands, but before being used in a crime, it may pass through any number of middlemen who might not be nearly as scrupulous as the original owner. Any trails would be murky and would lead back to the original owner, which wouldn’t do a whole lot of good if he was the only innocent party involved.

Again, any new purchaser would need to re-register the gun, at the time of the sale. It seems to me that all trails would be crystal clear, not murky, and none of the trails would lead back to the original, innocent party.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Again, any new purchaser would need to re-register the gun, at the time of the sale.

Not if the new purchaser chose to break the law. If the new purchaser planned to use the gun to commit murder, he would not likely be terrified of the picayune candy-ass consequences of breaking any laws concerning registration, would he?

Huh? As I said, he would need to register the gun at the time of the sale. If the new purchaser refused to do so, then he couldn't buy the gun.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Again, any new purchaser would need to re-register the gun, at the time of the sale.

Not if the new purchaser chose to break the law. If the new purchaser planned to use the gun to commit murder, he would not likely be terrified of the picayune candy-ass consequences of breaking any laws concerning registration, would he?

Huh? As I said, he would need to register the gun at the time of the sale. If the new purchaser refused to do so, then he couldn't buy the gun.

You're assuming that all parties involved are law-abiding citizens.
You place too much faith in the goodness of strangers.

What "strangers?" This whole discussion is based upon an original, law abiding owner, remember?

happy jack wrote:

The problem is is that the original owner, who diligently and law-abidingly registered his gun, and legally sold the gun, would likely have been the only one to obey any laws.

The gun is already registered before the sale takes place. When the law abiding gun owner sells it to somebody else, that new person must register the gun, before the sale can take place.

I'm not placing too much faith in anyone except the original owner, and it would certainly be in that original owner's interest to not to sell the gun to somebody who doesn't have the proper paperwork in place. Again, no registration, no sale. Get it?

happy jack wrote:

You place too much faith in the goodness of strangers.

Yeah... Faith is too much. I'm so glad we've got all these guns they have access too.

Are you fucking kidding me with this shit?

happy jack wrote:

Gun registration can do nothing to make anyone safer. It is not a tool to prevent violence; it is simply a tool to investigate violent crime after the fact.
Merely knowing who is in possession of guns is in no way predictive of whether or not, or by whom, those guns will be used for illegal purposes.

Bullshit. Spectacular bullshit.

Identifying the sources of the secondary market is first step to shutting them down, and yes, keeping guns out of the hands of criminals will make us safer. That's such an obvious statement I feel dumber having to actually type it:

Quote :

Most guns confiscated from criminals are actually relatively new guns, and the illegal gun market requires continuous inputs of new weapons either stolen from homes or straw-purchased from legitimate owners or dealers.

. . .

Interesting facts from the most recent publication include (1) 77% of guns used in crime are handguns and 50% of all guns used in crime are semi-automatic pistols (2) the quality of records is so poor that fully a third of the time traces failed due to inaccurate records or absent records kept by the dealers, and 10% of the time from “problems” with the serial numbers (alteration or defacement likely) (3) fully a third of crime guns are under 3 years old, and half less than 6 years old – time to crime being an correlate of trafficking (4) 88% of the time the crime gun was not originally purchased by the criminal – that is 88% of guns in crime have entered a secondary market.

This is the problem as described by the ATF:

Quote :

Tracing from Purchaser to Possessor. Transfers of a firearm beyond the initial purchase by a retail customer usually cannot be followed to the criminal possessor using serial numbers and transfer documentation alone. Federal law does not require unlicensed sellers to perform Brady background checks or maintain transfer records for tracing, and firearm owners are not required to keep a record of the serial number of their firearms or to report lost or stolen firearms. Therefore, it is generally impossible for a National Tracing Center (NTC) crime gun trace alone to identify purchasers beyond the initial retail purchaser. If a crime gun is not recovered from its original purchaser, it has been transferred at least once in the secondary market, that is, by someone other than an FFL. These transfers may be lawful or unlawful. The crime gun may have been illegally transferred by a straw purchaser; resold by an unlicensed seller or as a used gun by an FFL; borrowed, traded, or given as a gift; stolen by its criminal possessor; or stolen and trafficked, among other possibilities.

As described in my original post, the major source of guns for criminals is the secondary markets – either straw purchased, gun show purchased, or privately-sold firearms which require no background check, and no records (not that the licensed dealers are doing that great a job of it).

. . .

I think a powerful case can be made that tighter control of the secondary markets, as well as safety controls like integrated gun locks, will make trafficking more difficult, more costly, more risky, and in the case of stolen guns, potentially impossible. If we want to impact gun crime, these are the steps to address the overwhelming majority of guns found in the hands of criminals. This also negates the common critique of such measures that there already 300 million guns in circulation. Most gun owners are not interested in selling their guns into the criminal market, and the preponderance of new guns in crime shows there is a need or demand for a continual supply of new weapons into the criminal market.

Again, the only people registration like this hurts are the criminals. During such a sale, the registration passes from the law-abiding owner to the new owner, making him now legally responsible for it. If he decides to sell it to some douche magouche without transferring the registration, that’s on him, especially if it ends up used in a crime. The original law-abiding owner isn't at risk for anything, legally protected from whatever liability there might be.

You said this was worth fixing. Did you mean that or no?

happy jack wrote:

You won’t know which guns, registered or not, are in the hands of a criminal until that person shows himself to actually be a criminal by using the gun to commit murder.

So... first, the obvious question? How is just letting said criminal/straw purchaser have the gun with no change in registration better?

Second, yes, we won't know which guns criminals have until they use them. And then you'll know how he got it. And then you can arrest that person and stop him from doing it again. This, in turn, makes the rest of us safer, and serves as a deterrent for any other straw purchasers.

It's very simple.

Honestly, if you can't trust gun owners with making a legal and safe sale, how the fuck are we supposed to trust them with an actual gun?!?

happy jack wrote:

“Magazine-fed semi-automatic weapons are the weapons of choice”, and, ”before sale the purchaser should get a bit more eyeball by authorities”, and “would require two other people to stand up for you and say you are responsible enough to possess such a machine”?
WTF?

All you have to do is read what Mark wrote:

Quote :

I suggested increased scrutiny for these purchases, law-enforcement taught training and competence testing for their use, and I also suggested the Canadian voucher system (as did Kristof immediately after Sandy Hook), which would require two other people to stand up for you and say you are responsible enough to possess such a machine. Part of the profile for a significant portion of these shooters has been they have set themselves apart from society. They are not “plugged-in” to their community, and are frankly weird. These proposals serve two purposes. They expose the purchaser to additional scrutiny to demonstrate they are competent and safe users of potentially very dangerous equipment, and they demonstrate the purchaser is not a loner weirdo who doesn't even have two people in the world that think they’re capable of owning such equipment without turning it on the neighborhood.

Hits on the psychological profile of a mass shooter, who tend to be loners with an unhealthy attachment to weapons. Columbine. Ivy Tech. The theater shooting.

happy jack wrote:

I don’t have any stats, but I would bet that “Magazine-fed semi -automatic weapons” constitute the great majority of all guns sold, so singling them out is next to useless.

No. That they're the majority of guns sold is exactly why it wouldn't be. And judging by Canada's rate of gun deaths, quite effective, too. You know, assuming you're a fraction as pro-life as you've claimed.

happy jack wrote:

So let’s ban AR-15 style rifles!!!!

And by that logic, full-auto rifles, grenades, nukes, a whole host of military hardware should be legal, too, since they've been used even less. Ok with that too? If not, why?

happy jack wrote:

Do we have any evidence that any of the shootings that were interrupted in the past 20 years would not have become mass shootings had they not been interrupted early on?
Kind of hard to say one way or the other.

No, not hard at all, actually, given the circumstances of such shootings.

happy jack wrote:

Do El Paso’s gun-friendly Texas laws make it so much more peaceful than Juarez? I doubt it. But it does put to bed the idea that gun laws are the primary or even a significant driver of the crime rates.

????
So then what exactly is the point of this article?

Again, did you actually read the fucking article?

Quote :

The second form the “no-problem” argument usually takes is minimization:

Quote :

Now it’s worth taking a look at violent crime generally. While an uncommon cause of death in percentage terms, murder is a significant source of mortality in the United States. Of murders in the United States in 2011, 8,583 (about two thirds) were committed with firearms. Of firearms murders, the overwhelming majority were committed with handguns (6,220 with certainty, and likely most of the 1,587 “type not specified”). The rate of homicides (by all methods) is about 4.8 per 100,000, which is high compared to Australia (1.0) the UK (1.2), or Canada (1.6). On the other hand, it’s low when compared to most nations outside the highly developed first world, such as Russia (10.2) and Mexico (22.7). The highest, Honduras, is a staggering 91.6.
…
Mark dismisses any comparison to Mexico, but the comparison is more instructive than it first appears. The population of the Texas border city of El Paso is some 75% Mexican (and more than 80% Hispanic), but its homicide rate is a relatively bucolic 0.8 per 100,000. Its adjoining Mexican neighbor of Juarez is one of the most violent places on the planet, peaking at a hideous 130 per 100,000 in 2009. Do El Paso’s gun-friendly Texas laws make it so much more peaceful than Juarez? I doubt it. But it does put to bed the idea that gun laws are the primary or even a significant driver of the crime rates.

As I’ve mentioned in comments multiple times, I totally reject comparisons of the US to Mexico, or even Russia, as highly absurd given synergy of corruption and ineffectual governments present in both of those examples. Not to mention, the drug war in Mexico is practically an internecine war and is responsible for as many as 50,000 deaths since 2006. I reject the comparison to Mexico as totally meaningless just as I would reject the comparison of our country to any other war zone like Afghanistan or Iraq.

The Institute of Medicine in comparing the US to similar industrialized countries in terms of life expectancy found that our homicide rate is far in excess of comparable OECD countries, and significantly affects our life expectancy. The IOM study found our homicide rate to be 6.9 times higher than the other OECD countries, our gun homicide rate 19.5 times higher, and of the 23 countries in the study, the US was responsible for 80% of all firearm deaths. It is also useful to narrow down the problem by age. One of the worst aspects of this type of mortality is that it disproportionately affects the young. If you convert it from a mere cause of death, to a calculation of years of life lost, gun homicide is a much more striking phenomenon. In the end, our mortality rate is 100%. A comparison of the relative mortality of different mechanisms of death is not meaningful in itself unless we also consider the age at which the mechanism strikes. Firearm homicide kills at a mean age in the 30s for males, and in when years of life lost is used for comparison firearm homicide is only exceeded unintentional injuries (car accidents, falls etc), cancer, and heart attacks. Sorry if that’s old data, that’s what happens when the gun lobby prevents the CDC from studying the problem. A more recent analysis puts firearms just behind automobile accidents for decreasing our life expectancy.

We have a problem.

If the title "Gun Control Part II: My response to Matt Springer" isn't a clue, then the previous post should explain:

Quote :

Matt has posted his first response in the gun control debate, expect my rejoinder by Thursday or Friday after we have time to process the President’s announcement this morning on gun control.

The very first one was titled "A gun control debate with Matt Springer", and I thought it was particularly useful since it was a) fact based, b) heavily cited, and c) a discussion on gun control that didn't involve bans.

I wrote:

You said this was worth fixing. Did you mean that or no?

Well? What does "fixing it" look like to you if its not this?

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

You won’t know which guns, registered or not, are in the hands of a criminal until that person shows himself to actually be a criminal by using the gun to commit murder.

So... first, the obvious question? How is just letting said criminal/straw purchaser have the gun with no change in registration better?

Second, yes, we won't know which guns criminals have until they use them. And then you'll know how he got it. And then you can arrest that person and stop him from doing it again. This, in turn, makes the rest of us safer, and serves as a deterrent for any other straw purchasers.

It's very simple.

Honestly, if you can't trust gun owners with making a legal and safe sale, how the fuck are we supposed to trust them with an actual gun?!?

Yeah. Well both of us have now explained the benefits of "universal registration" in detail to Jack. I really don't understand why he would continue to believe that tightening registration requirements serves no useful purpose.

Perhaps he'll finally "get it." If not, then I have to believe that there must be some other reason that he opposes the common sense steps that we've outlined. I can't imagine what that might be, but it really seems strange to me that he is OK with background checks, but not OK with the concept of making it easier to track the sale of guns.

This is the same noncontroversial shit we do for individual sales of vehicles despite not knowing if the vehicle being sold will end up "in the hands of a criminal until that person shows himself to actually be a criminal by using the [vehicle] to commit [a crime]."

It's a bullshit, disingenuous argument at its very core.

I see no rational, objective reason not to do the same as we rightfully do for vehicles for an object specifically designed to kill people.

Security guard leaves gun unattended in restroom at Lapeer charter school

Quote :

A security officer at a Lapeer charter school left a firearm unattended in a school bathroom on Monday, Jan. 14, a school official said.

The security officer "made a breach in security protocol" and left an unloaded weapon in a restroom "for a few moments," said Chatfield School Director Matt Young.

This is the choice we have: The staggeringly low probability of a school shootout occurring and being stopped by one of these guys vs. instances such as this, which will only increase in number as more idiots with guns are brought into schools.

Especially if we won't know they're in the hands of an idiot until that person shows himself to actually be an idiot by using the gun in such a hilariously inappropriate way, right happy?

Nope. No reason to worry. At all. Just keep piling them in 'cause nothing can go wrong.

Let's try this again.

Scorpion wrote:

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

You won’t know which guns, registered or not, are in the hands of a criminal until that person shows himself to actually be a criminal by using the gun to commit murder.

So... first, the obvious question? How is just letting said criminal/straw purchaser have the gun with no change in registration better?

Second, yes, we won't know which guns criminals have until they use them. And then you'll know how he got it. And then you can arrest that person and stop him from doing it again. This, in turn, makes the rest of us safer, and serves as a deterrent for any other straw purchasers.

It's very simple.

Honestly, if you can't trust gun owners with making a legal and safe sale, how the fuck are we supposed to trust them with an actual gun?!?

Yeah. Well both of us have now explained the benefits of "universal registration" in detail to Jack. I really don't understand why he would continue to believe that tightening registration requirements serves no useful purpose.

Perhaps he'll finally "get it." If not, then I have to believe that there must be some other reason that he opposes the common sense steps that we've outlined. I can't imagine what that might be, but it really seems strange to me that he is OK with background checks, but not OK with the concept of making it easier to track the sale of guns.

Why, exactly do you oppose the common sense steps that we've outlined regarding registration?

The nonsensical arguments conservatives are forced to take to defend this kind of bullshit is staggering. And embarrassing. Honestly...

happy jack wrote:

A gun is not specifically designed to kill people.

First, weapons simply aren't weapons anymore...

happy jack wrote:

I am merely of the opinion that they will not make anyone safer.

... and then, incarcerating criminals doesn't make us safer.

happy jack wrote:

One argument against the "rational, objective reason not to do the same as we rightfully do for vehicles" could be made on the basis that there is nothing in the Constitution referring to "the right to bear cars."

And the "it's in the Constitution" defense rings as empty as a 5 year old's "because" since it does so very little to answer the relevant question of why.

But it looks like I'm finally getting my rocket launcher, since it's in the Constitution, according to conservative hero (and the guy we should all be forced at gunpoint to listen to) David Barton:

Quote :

The Second Amendment is not to arm you less than it is to arm the government. Because what specifically happened was if the Americans had not been able to go home and grab their guns off the mantel over the fireplace, they could not have taken on the British coming after them.

The British was their government and the Americans had to have equal firepower with whoever was coming after them and that's why they went to Fort Ticonderoga and got all the British cannons and came back and used those. That was just individual citizens doing that.

So the purpose of the Second Amendment was you have got to be able to defend yourself, your rights, period against anybody and that sometimes means it may be your government coming after you. So if the government has got AR-15s, guess what? The people can have AR-15s ... Whatever the government's got, you've got to be able to defend yourself against. So there was no limitation on what you could or couldn't do with the Second Amendment; it was a self-defense amendment and if everybody is coming at you AR-15s, you don't defend yourself with BB guns, you get AR-15s.

Can't wait.

Barton: Armed School Children Prevent School Shootings
Last night, David Barton appeared on Glenn Beck's television program to discuss the "real issues" regarding gun control and the Second Amendment. After an opening segment in which Beck claimed that Obamacare will force people to give up their guns and lead to Nazi-like euthanasia programs, the two got down to business with Barton explaining that the NRA was founded in order to protect freed slaves from lynchings and that there never used to be school shootings in the 1800s because all of the kids carried guns to school:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/barton-armed-school-children-prevent-school-shootings

happy jack wrote:

http://now.msn.com/obama-daughters-attend-school-with-11-armed-guards

Sasha and Malia Obama have 11 armed guards at their school

Why the NRA Said Obama's Daughters Have Armed School Guards (They Don't)

Quote :

You've probably seen the new ads from the National Rifle Association calling President Obama an "elitist hypocrite" for sending his daughters to Sidwell Friends, the Quaker school in Washington, D.C., where (the ads claim) 11 armed guards are stationed to protect students, including Obama's daughters. The ads were quickly attacked by gun-control advocates online and by elected officials from both parties. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney called them "repugnant and cowardly"; New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a Republican, said they were "reprehensible."

They're also completely false.

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

http://now.msn.com/obama-daughters-attend-school-with-11-armed-guards

Sasha and Malia Obama have 11 armed guards at their school

Why the NRA Said Obama's Daughters Have Armed School Guards (They Don't)

Quote :

You've probably seen the new ads from the National Rifle Association calling President Obama an "elitist hypocrite" for sending his daughters to Sidwell Friends, the Quaker school in Washington, D.C., where (the ads claim) 11 armed guards are stationed to protect students, including Obama's daughters. The ads were quickly attacked by gun-control advocates online and by elected officials from both parties. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney called them "repugnant and cowardly"; New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a Republican, said they were "reprehensible."

They're also completely false.

Another bullshit talking point that the parrot got directly from Breitbart.