Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2014 - 07:13pm PT
|
And on that model, there's no need of a federal gun registry
The is no Federal Gun registry, never has been, it is already prohibited by law, never has been realistically proposed in any legislation, and was specifically re-prohibited by the Mancin-Toomey bill, which contained everything we've just talked about, except it was a federal bill. You've been drinking too much of the Gun Nut juice if a federal gun registry is your fear.
I'm personally strongly in favor of a gun registry, for handguns at least. It is the obvious difference between US and Canadian laws, and I believe a large reason for the dramatically lower gun homicide rates in Canada compared to the US.
A gun registry is not an end in itself, it is only a means to enforce responsible gun ownership because buyers know they will be held accountable for the ultimate destination of their gun. That same end could be achieved by a wholesale-only registry combined with universal background checks. All dealers would be required to report make/model/serial numbers of all transfers to other dealers, and report when any gun was sold to the public. This would also include private sales using the dealer background check. When the cops need to trace a gun, they quickly know what dealer sold it to the public, and would require a warrant or subpoena to obtain the buyer's name from the dealer.
Most businesses handle much more complex inventory tracking systems that this, it's not rocket science, it could be achieve with a barcode scanner and would soon root out that small minority of criminal dealers. Unfortunately, once again, the NRA has vehemently opposed any proposed legislation that would require dealers to keep better records.
TE
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2014 - 07:31pm PT
|
I'd agree TE, but I would be very surprised if gun stores didn't cry out agaisnt that, making them be responsible for records and all. But it is a start, maybe even enough to stave off other legislation that could be more stifling. Seems like being able to trace a gun would be something only criminals would stonewall against, them and a few fanatics.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2014 - 07:36pm PT
|
if any criminal can buy any gun they want anytime right out of the newspaper classifieds ...
then why should there be a need for any gun laws?
why even have back ground checks since, again, anyone can get anything anytime?
secondly, since there is no need for any new gun control laws because they would not
stop any shooting, then why have any laws at all?
criminals don't pay attention to laws, does not stop them from doing anything
why have laws then?
all those background checks going on at Ron's gun shop aren't stopping anything, right?
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2014 - 08:06pm PT
|
Damn straight Norton, especially any law at the federal level is a no go.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2014 - 08:13pm PT
|
When the day comes, and your gun shop is no longer in business, those records become the property of the Federal Government.
It's "registration" by a different name.
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2014 - 08:24pm PT
|
All dealers would be required to report make/model/serial numbers of all transfers to other dealers, and report when any gun was sold to the public. This would also include private sales using the dealer background check. When the cops need to trace a gun, they quickly know what dealer sold it to the public, and would require a warrant or subpoena to obtain the buyer's name from the dealer.
Are gun stores now doing all this?
Then I'd say I didn't realize they were doing all that.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2014 - 08:27pm PT
|
good
then are we all in agreement that since laws are not followed by criminals...
that laws don't stop any crimes
so there is no need for any laws
in fact we might as well repeal all laws
all those background checks that Ron does are a complete waste of his time and do no good
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2014 - 08:30pm PT
|
Yes Norton, everything flies with no responsibilities.
Pencil it all together and pass it around for a good signing party.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2014 - 01:07am PT
|
The context is in the quote, go back and read them, they're all of 2 or 3 pages back. You won't be able to nuance them to anything else as they're at face value as is.
Look, you're either going to be charitable or you're not. When I say "context," I mean that I've been perpetually referring to federal law throughout everything I've said on this thread, except for cases in which I talk about specific state laws. If you can't get that fact, then you are simply determined to "find me in inconsistency," for what point I remain unclear. If you are that uncharitable, then you're not worth dealing with.
When I've misunderstood someone, I've apologized for it. You should get over yourself and consider doing the same. I know what I have thought and what I've intended. On a forum thread, misunderstandings are easy to come by. Why don't you get off the "inconsistency" kick (for whatever you think you're accomplishing by it) and just accept that misunderstandings happen?
The rest of you above are nothing more then anything new must fall within your guidelines. While you restate that your against magazine limits, many of your arguments against them don't hold much water and there is a tide much larger than you for them.
Well, here and in what follows, you start referring to a "tide" that doesn't agree with me about magazine limits. All I can say is that, as one example, Colorado had its foray into that territory, and the tide has completely turned against it. In the next election, the dems are going to have some serious problems, as upwards of 60% of Colorado now opposes what they did when they owned the legislature. Two got recalled already, a third resigned before that could happen, and the tide is strongly against the dems now.
Even our way-awesome governor, Hiccuplooper, is now running scared from his earlier signage of those laws, has flatly stated that they were a mistake, and is saying that he is looking forward to working with the legislature to get them repealed. If there's a "tide" in Colorado is IS one of extreme backlash against these recent gun-control laws.
Elsewhere? We'll see. You're mighty confident that the "tide" is going to go your way. Good luck with that. It's not at all obvious that it will.
Regarding my arguments against magazine-size limits, all I can say is that they are shared by 56/62 sheriffs in Colorado, by many dems now, and by Hiccuplooper, who now clearly states that he failed to gain all the facts and that none of the new laws would have done ANYTHING to save even one life in the Colorado shootings that have made all the news. So, even THAT goofball now admits EXACTLY what I've been saying. The "tide" appears to agree with me, even if you don't.
Not that that matters when your door is closed. Thats just one front you refuse to budge, your totally ensconced on many other workable amd sensible laws. Please read any of your other hundreds of posts as proof.
Again, you are totally uncharitable regarding my position. My door is not "closed" on a range of subjects, IF anybody can trot out some "sensible" argumentation. YOU haven't, and your "side" hasn't. TE has done FAR better than most of you, and he's moved me already in some ways.
Again, I'm not against guns,
Well, it's not clear to me in what sense you are "for" them. Nobody like YOU has answered a simple question I've asked repeatedly and from the start: WHAT magazine-size limit is "just right?" You don't like more than 15 rounds. But if the difference from, say, 17 to 15 would (apparently) save lives, then surely cutting even that in half, to, say, 7 would save even more lives. What about 5? HOW could ANYBODY ever need to fire more than 5 rounds in self-defense??? Ridiculous! No way!
Ahh... right, ideally, we're back to single-shot muskets, which is what the founders knew about. And people on this thread have actually SAID that outright. Are you among them in your own thinking?
Bottom line is that you SAY you're not against guns, but then you are all about this "save even one life" mind-set, and that really means such limitations on them that you effectively ARE against guns.
Or perhaps YOU can explain YOUR deeply nuanced position!
but you've got to be dense if you don't acknowledge there is a change a coming.
That's it. I'm dense. Now I understand why I just don't "get it."
Oh, wait. If I "get" why I don't "get it," then I must not be SO dense. Ahh... now I'm just deeply confused. Oh, and probably still dense.
Or, perhaps this "change" in the "tide" is NOT as obvious as you (in your wishful thinking) imagine that it is. It SURE isn't "a coming" in Colorado. What's "a coming" in Colorado is a backlash against the dems and an "a overturning" of this failed little experiment.
If we don't get a grip on mass slayings of children there will be laws that even I wouldn't want.
Oh, wow. It's like this entire thread (expect for expressions of YOUR perspective) literally has not existed.
I'll say once more: Even Hiccupgoofer now acknowledges that NONE of the gun laws recently passed would have done ONE THING to address the "mass slayings of children" or anybody else. He ADMITS that he made a huge mistake, pissed off all the sheriffs for no good reason, and that he and the legislature were "not in possession of the facts."
Neither you nor anybody else on this thread has even started to make the case that any of the proposed gun-control laws will accomplish anything statistically significant to "get a grip" on the problem.
What sorts of law would "even you" not want, and that you think might be coming down the pike? I'm just really curious what, in your version of reality, will be the end-game here. Colorado has been the scene of MUCH of the media coverage you are surely referring to. Yet Colorado is about to move in the opposite direction you suggest.
Must be that all Coloradans are also "dense."
Get flexible or you can stand your ground while at first the rest of the country moves around you, only to find your soon entombed by your own convictions.
I am flexible when compelling arguments can be presented. Of course, let me "budge" even a little, and YOU'VE got me all "bait and switch" up in the house. So, with the likes of YOU, I'm in a no-win position. If I don't "budge," then I'm "entrenched." And if a sensible argument or suggestion IS made, and I see the merit and modify my stance in the slightest, then I'm a bad, bad boy in the other direction.
Guess what. I don't give a rat's left testicle how you assess me or my positions. I argue what I believe as best I can. People that can be moved are. People that find that my positions MORE "entrench" them in theirs are. This is the nature of argumentation. We bounce off of each other, and the intellectual chips fall as they will.
I'm in no way convinced that "the rest of the country" is moving as you say. If it is, then so be it. People like me will have to decide what stands can be made and in what ways. Or, the country will move against YOU, and YOU'LL have to decide what stands can be made and in what way.
Politics is FORCE, and people that are forced too far will react. Interesting times ahead!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2014 - 01:13am PT
|
I'm personally strongly in favor of a gun registry, for handguns at least. It is the obvious difference between US and Canadian laws, and I believe a large reason for the dramatically lower gun homicide rates in Canada compared to the US.
And there we disagree again. There are so many reasons why Canada has a lower homicide rate than us, and they have nothing to do with a gun registry.
We could start with their vastly different demographic.
Then there's....
Difference in immigration
Difference in the nature of their Southern border
Difference in their gang issues
Difference in the mindset of their people from the inception of our two nations
Difference in their relation to England, from whence our nations both sprung
Difference in their population density, particularly relative to land-mass
And it goes on and on.
What gun-control folks don't see is that you don't address the complex sociological issues that underlie crime (including homicides) by patching over this or that symptom. It's a superficial approach that temporarily placates some people (like the dems in Colorada), but it is later seen to actually not be based on the facts (as Colorado's governor now admits).
|
|
Bargainhunter
climber
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2014 - 05:33am PT
|
Ok, a couple of dramatic news stories in California yesterday.
A gang related shoot out in a 7-11 in Van Nuys and a bank robbery in Stockton with hostages taken and used as human shields. Both gruesome outcomes, and tragic for innocent victims at the bank.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-police-looking-for-oneeyed-double-murder-suspect-20140717-story.html
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-bank-robbery-three-dead-gunbattle-20140717-story.html
So, conceal carry permitters, are these crimes justification for your carry? Would you have intervened?
I'd say that for the 7-11 murders, it looks like it was gang on gang mad-dogging followed by the inevitable blast fest.
The gangsters in Stockton however were even more ruthless and resulted in 3 innocent bystanders being shot, 2 killed, then the perps volleyed AK-47 gunfire with cops for an hour before 2 were killed and the 3rd, a 19 year old Jaime Ramos, was apprehended. I suspect Jaime won't last long on death row as he'll probably be murdered in prison.
Could Madbolter have, or any of us, saved the day?
Damn we live in a violent country. I was in Brazil last year where crime related violence is at a whole other level. Sadly, we don't seem to be far behind.
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2014 - 05:52am PT
|
We'll get there, Bargain. The NRA will see to it.
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2014 - 09:34am PT
|
Oh please spare me your lecture madbolter1.
The facts are you continually open your arms with your feet completely stuck in concrete, unable to move with anything your open arms receive.
Also spare me your cherry picked Colorado whom you mostly agree with. The fact that many of the PUBLIC ELECTED OFFICIALS called sherrifs IN PUBLIC STATE there against any new gun laws bear no wieght. If all law enforcement officers had a vote without finding which voted which way you'd have a different outcome.
One of the reasons the majority would like to see a limit on magazines is right in your answer above. The last thing we need is the unintentional consequences from more bullets flying in public confrontations by self proclaimed gun aficionados. Training doesn't overide your senses when caught up in the split second dicisions needed. Even the one on the offense is often subdued while fumbling around switching magazines. Please don't list your reasons for large capacity magazines, it would be mundane to go back over that road of the cons of it in response.
I don't see any law that doesn't have the oversight of the fed having any teeth, states will argue back and forth till no end. Maybe thats what you want, not me. Gun registration and sales need to be able to retrace the owner of the gun at the time of the crime the gun was used in when needed for LEO'S. I know the paranoid will have a thousand excuses against this avenue.
Lets shorten up this process, you say exactly what you want a law to say instead of us trying to guess within your tenents. You want us to be flexible within your guidelines, try stepping out of your comfort zone, not just up to the edge of it.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2014 - 09:53am PT
|
I certainly don't have your wealth of experience, Ron. But I will say that after holding dozens and dozens of guns before making a purchase, nothing feels as good in the hand as an H&K. And both my wife and I can shoot it well. In the end, that's what really matters: bullets on target and nowhere else.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2014 - 09:58am PT
|
Are gun stores now doing all this?
Then I'd say I didn't realize they were doing all that.
Gun Dealers must keep the records, (with trivial penalties for "lost" records), but they do not report them to a central location. When a gun is being traced by the police, they must start at the original manufacturer, and step by step trace each transfer down through each successive wholesale dealers. For older guns, this will most likely be a dead end. For newer guns, if a buyer can be traced, he can simply say "I lost it" or "It was stolen from my unlocked car", or "I sold it to some dude in a bar". Since these are currently acceptable answers in most states, the trail runs cold. Due to the manpower involved and the low likelihood of a prosecution for any serious offense, police rarely bother to trace crime guns.
Universal background checks (with mandatory reporting of lost or stolen guns) with a database linking dealers to gun sales would cut off a large source of illegal guns and make "responsible gun owners" legally responsible for their guns.
TE
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2014 - 10:08am PT
|
They've done just that - with cold medicine - in an attempt to wipe out methamphetamine.
It didn't work.
Meth production just moved out of the country, and now there's more meth here than ever.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2014 - 10:30am PT
|
Chaz, you're wasting your time, as I've now realized I have been.
The "it doesn't work" argument just rolls off them. They don't understand the notion of burden of proof, they don't see how the burden is HEAVY on them, and they don't intuitively resonate with how rights actually work.
You can't make a communitarian thinker into a libertarian thinker. No argumentation gets it done. In the end, I see that they are incommensurable paradigms.
They want everything handed to the feds, and that sucking sound is the sound of the swirling federal vortex draining away your freedoms, rights, and money at an ever-increasing pace.
All I can do is HOPE that john-boy is wrong about "the tide." We'll see as the backlashes start hitting.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2014 - 10:36am PT
|
now there's more meth here than ever.
According to Colorado LEOs, it's the single biggest crime problem they face.
And, of course, its ripple effects include whack-jobs and all sorts of related crime and violence.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2014 - 10:37am PT
|
Solve the gang problem and the drug problem, and you solve the "gun problem."
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2014 - 10:40am PT
|
Yeah, give it to the Feds.
We have a border that two-year-olds are crossing on their own, and Obama has established that the Executive branch not only has no obligation to enforce Federal laws, but can re-write the laws or use the laws to go after its political opposition.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!