User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 9726
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: NRA warns Trump against universal background checks

Fri Aug 23, 2019 12:32 am

N1611B wrote:
The problem I have with most gun control proposals is that they aren't likely to solve the problem. Take background checks and mass shootings, for example. El Paso...Dayton...Las Vegas...Orlando...etc. They all passed background checks. Very few mass shooters wouldn't pass a background check. The background check bill that many are clamoring for now would have not prevented any of the shootings I listed. With regard to urban and drug-related gun crime, which makes up the majority of gun homicides in the United States, most of those weapons are obtained and carried illegally, so background checks wouldn't stop that crime, either.

"Assault weapons" are another target (no pun intended), but banning them would do nothing. More people are killed with blunt objects each year in the United States than are killed by rifles of any kind. Magazine limits? Good in theory, but a halfway skilled shooter can reload in seconds. All they would need would be a second weapon to keep anyone wanting to intervene at bay until their primary weapon could be reloaded. Not to mention that some of the deadliest mass shootings in the United States didn't even involve rifles of any kind. The Va Tech shooter killed 32 people with handguns. The Navy Yard shooter used a shotgun and a pistol that he took from a guard that he killed. Banning co-called "assault rifles" would only make it marginally more difficult for those who wish to do so to create carnage.

So what's the solution? Is passing some new bills that make us feel better about things but that do little, if anything, to solve the problem at hand? I don't think so. People advocating for measures like the background check bill and the assault weapons ban may be thrilled if those measures come to pass, but would inevitably be disappointed when the mass violence continues. So what then?


Terrible supposition and patently illogical. Terrorism is arguably impossible to thwart in every case, yet massive resources are devoted to stopping as many incidents as possible. The same with aviation safety, electrical installations, and many other safety concerns. If we follow your logic, we should ban swimming pools instead of combatting terror, since drownings kill far more Americans annually than Islamists or domestic supremacists do. It’s just silly. Any improvement in safety is just that - improvement - and arguably, banning assault weapons would have some impact.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
N1611B
Posts: 170
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 11:23 am

Re: NRA warns Trump against universal background checks

Fri Aug 23, 2019 12:35 am

Tugger wrote:
N1611B wrote:
The problem I have with most gun control proposals is that they aren't likely to solve the problem.
[...]

One of the reason why cities have a higher gun death rate is not because they are liberal bastions or often have Democrat leadership (sorry all who like to claim this), The reason is because "anyone can buy a gun" and they have never grown up with the proper guidance and respect for the use of a firearm.

Tugg


I was with you until this part. Most of the gun crime in major cities is not due to law-abiding citizens who legally own and carry weapons...the gun crime is largely gang-related an is carried out by people who are not legally allowed to own or carry guns in the first place. Your average gang member with a rap sheet a mile long is not going to the gun store and passing a background check. He's either buying a stolen gun or buying a gun through the black market...both are already illegal.
 
N1611B
Posts: 170
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 11:23 am

Re: NRA warns Trump against universal background checks

Fri Aug 23, 2019 12:39 am

Aaron747 wrote:
N1611B wrote:
The problem I have with most gun control proposals is that they aren't likely to solve the problem. Take background checks and mass shootings, for example. El Paso...Dayton...Las Vegas...Orlando...etc. They all passed background checks. Very few mass shooters wouldn't pass a background check. The background check bill that many are clamoring for now would have not prevented any of the shootings I listed. With regard to urban and drug-related gun crime, which makes up the majority of gun homicides in the United States, most of those weapons are obtained and carried illegally, so background checks wouldn't stop that crime, either.

"Assault weapons" are another target (no pun intended), but banning them would do nothing. More people are killed with blunt objects each year in the United States than are killed by rifles of any kind. Magazine limits? Good in theory, but a halfway skilled shooter can reload in seconds. All they would need would be a second weapon to keep anyone wanting to intervene at bay until their primary weapon could be reloaded. Not to mention that some of the deadliest mass shootings in the United States didn't even involve rifles of any kind. The Va Tech shooter killed 32 people with handguns. The Navy Yard shooter used a shotgun and a pistol that he took from a guard that he killed. Banning co-called "assault rifles" would only make it marginally more difficult for those who wish to do so to create carnage.

So what's the solution? Is passing some new bills that make us feel better about things but that do little, if anything, to solve the problem at hand? I don't think so. People advocating for measures like the background check bill and the assault weapons ban may be thrilled if those measures come to pass, but would inevitably be disappointed when the mass violence continues. So what then?


Terrible supposition and patently illogical. Terrorism is arguably impossible to thwart in every case, yet massive resources are devoted to stopping as many incidents as possible. The same with aviation safety, electrical installations, and many other safety concerns. If we follow your logic, we should ban swimming pools instead of combatting terror, since drownings kill far more Americans annually than Islamists or domestic supremacists do. It’s just silly. Any improvement in safety is just that - improvement - and arguably, banning assault weapons would have some impact.


Most efforts at stopping terrorism don't infringe upon Constitutionally-protected rights, and those that do are very controversial. Banning assault weapons would have *some* impact, you are right, but that impact would be negligible. It would mostly be a feel-good measure, and at great expense (constitutional rights).
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 9726
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: NRA warns Trump against universal background checks

Fri Aug 23, 2019 12:57 am

N1611B wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
N1611B wrote:
The problem I have with most gun control proposals is that they aren't likely to solve the problem. Take background checks and mass shootings, for example. El Paso...Dayton...Las Vegas...Orlando...etc. They all passed background checks. Very few mass shooters wouldn't pass a background check. The background check bill that many are clamoring for now would have not prevented any of the shootings I listed. With regard to urban and drug-related gun crime, which makes up the majority of gun homicides in the United States, most of those weapons are obtained and carried illegally, so background checks wouldn't stop that crime, either.

"Assault weapons" are another target (no pun intended), but banning them would do nothing. More people are killed with blunt objects each year in the United States than are killed by rifles of any kind. Magazine limits? Good in theory, but a halfway skilled shooter can reload in seconds. All they would need would be a second weapon to keep anyone wanting to intervene at bay until their primary weapon could be reloaded. Not to mention that some of the deadliest mass shootings in the United States didn't even involve rifles of any kind. The Va Tech shooter killed 32 people with handguns. The Navy Yard shooter used a shotgun and a pistol that he took from a guard that he killed. Banning co-called "assault rifles" would only make it marginally more difficult for those who wish to do so to create carnage.

So what's the solution? Is passing some new bills that make us feel better about things but that do little, if anything, to solve the problem at hand? I don't think so. People advocating for measures like the background check bill and the assault weapons ban may be thrilled if those measures come to pass, but would inevitably be disappointed when the mass violence continues. So what then?


Terrible supposition and patently illogical. Terrorism is arguably impossible to thwart in every case, yet massive resources are devoted to stopping as many incidents as possible. The same with aviation safety, electrical installations, and many other safety concerns. If we follow your logic, we should ban swimming pools instead of combatting terror, since drownings kill far more Americans annually than Islamists or domestic supremacists do. It’s just silly. Any improvement in safety is just that - improvement - and arguably, banning assault weapons would have some impact.


Most efforts at stopping terrorism don't infringe upon Constitutionally-protected rights, and those that do are very controversial. Banning assault weapons would have *some* impact, you are right, but that impact would be negligible. It would mostly be a feel-good measure, and at great expense (constitutional rights).


It would be up to the courts to decide if existing evidence supports the notion that a ban has any effect.

And anyway, those rights are limited, as SCOTUS opined in Heller. Let’s quote Justice Scalia:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose......Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
N1611B
Posts: 170
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 11:23 am

Re: NRA warns Trump against universal background checks

Fri Aug 23, 2019 1:01 am

Aaron747 wrote:
N1611B wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

Terrible supposition and patently illogical. Terrorism is arguably impossible to thwart in every case, yet massive resources are devoted to stopping as many incidents as possible. The same with aviation safety, electrical installations, and many other safety concerns. If we follow your logic, we should ban swimming pools instead of combatting terror, since drownings kill far more Americans annually than Islamists or domestic supremacists do. It’s just silly. Any improvement in safety is just that - improvement - and arguably, banning assault weapons would have some impact.


Most efforts at stopping terrorism don't infringe upon Constitutionally-protected rights, and those that do are very controversial. Banning assault weapons would have *some* impact, you are right, but that impact would be negligible. It would mostly be a feel-good measure, and at great expense (constitutional rights).


It would be up to the courts to decide if existing evidence supports the notion that a ban has any effect.

And anyway, those rights are limited, as SCOTUS opined in Heller. Let’s quote Justice Scalia:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose......Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.


Right, but a ban on, say, the most popular rifle in the United States, would be a bit tougher of a constitutional challenge than a prohibition of felons on owning firearms. Justice Kavanaugh has already hinted that he would not support a renewed assault weapons ban, and the conservatives will be the majority of the SCOTUS for the foreseeable future.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 9726
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: NRA warns Trump against universal background checks

Fri Aug 23, 2019 1:33 am

N1611B wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
N1611B wrote:

Most efforts at stopping terrorism don't infringe upon Constitutionally-protected rights, and those that do are very controversial. Banning assault weapons would have *some* impact, you are right, but that impact would be negligible. It would mostly be a feel-good measure, and at great expense (constitutional rights).


It would be up to the courts to decide if existing evidence supports the notion that a ban has any effect.

And anyway, those rights are limited, as SCOTUS opined in Heller. Let’s quote Justice Scalia:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose......Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.


Right, but a ban on, say, the most popular rifle in the United States, would be a bit tougher of a constitutional challenge than a prohibition of felons on owning firearms. Justice Kavanaugh has already hinted that he would not support a renewed assault weapons ban, and the conservatives will be the majority of the SCOTUS for the foreseeable future.


Obviously, it would be up to attorneys on the ban side to make a convincing argument as to why that particular rifle requires restriction.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
stratclub
Posts: 1342
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:38 pm

Re: NRA warns Trump against universal background checks

Fri Aug 23, 2019 1:54 am

casinterest wrote:
extender wrote:
Don't worry, after Ginsburg croaks, that will get taken care of.


So you are threatening her?
I don't think he is. It's just a matter of time before her brain completely fossilizes and the orderlies won't let her go out into public alone anymore.
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 2721
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: NRA warns Trump against universal background checks

Fri Aug 23, 2019 12:47 pm

Tugger wrote:
2122M wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
As far as I know the only time a background check isn't performed during a sale of a firearm is between two private parties. Realistically its impossible to enforce such a thing between two parties anyways.


Require insurance and registration. Then, much like a private car sale, it is in the best interests of the selling party to go through the proper channels so they are not held liable for anything that happens as a result of that weapon in the future. A background check could be a part of a title transfer or a requirement to take your name off the registration for that particular gun.

This is a simple and I think one of the most effective ways to start.
Tugg


Still doesn't solve anything. People dodge car registration and insurance requirements all the time. You think people buying and selling guns won't either?
 
2122M
Posts: 1225
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: NRA warns Trump against universal background checks

Fri Aug 23, 2019 1:12 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
Tugger wrote:
2122M wrote:

Require insurance and registration. Then, much like a private car sale, it is in the best interests of the selling party to go through the proper channels so they are not held liable for anything that happens as a result of that weapon in the future. A background check could be a part of a title transfer or a requirement to take your name off the registration for that particular gun.

This is a simple and I think one of the most effective ways to start.
Tugg


Still doesn't solve anything. People dodge car registration and insurance requirements all the time. You think people buying and selling guns won't either?


We can't let perfect be the enemy of good.

I'm sick of the argument, "well it won't stop everything, so lets not do it at all". If you don't want to make a law because you are afraid some people will break it anyway, then why have any laws at all.

Anyway, if you register a gun and therefore any crime or accident that happens as a result of that gun will lead the authorities directly to you, don't you think you'd be extra vigilant when selling that gun to make sure once that gun belongs to someone else you will not be the responsible party should anything happen?
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 2721
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: NRA warns Trump against universal background checks

Fri Aug 23, 2019 1:59 pm

2122M wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
Tugger wrote:

This is a simple and I think one of the most effective ways to start.
Tugg


Still doesn't solve anything. People dodge car registration and insurance requirements all the time. You think people buying and selling guns won't either?


We can't let perfect be the enemy of good.

I'm sick of the argument, "well it won't stop everything, so lets not do it at all". If you don't want to make a law because you are afraid some people will break it anyway, then why have any laws at all.

Anyway, if you register a gun and therefore any crime or accident that happens as a result of that gun will lead the authorities directly to you, don't you think you'd be extra vigilant when selling that gun to make sure once that gun belongs to someone else you will not be the responsible party should anything happen?


Every gun purchase through an FFL is already registered.

The only ones that aren't are through private sales. I doubt the guy buying a gun in a back alley cares about registering his gun right now.

Maybe you have a point about someone who has a gun registered to themselves would be more concerned about who is buying the gun from them in a private sale, but that's already the case right now...
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9409
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: NRA warns Trump against universal background checks

Fri Aug 23, 2019 1:59 pm

N1611B wrote:
Tugger wrote:
N1611B wrote:
The problem I have with most gun control proposals is that they aren't likely to solve the problem.
[...]

One of the reason why cities have a higher gun death rate is not because they are liberal bastions or often have Democrat leadership (sorry all who like to claim this), The reason is because "anyone can buy a gun" and they have never grown up with the proper guidance and respect for the use of a firearm.

Tugg


I was with you until this part. Most of the gun crime in major cities is not due to law-abiding citizens who legally own and carry weapons...the gun crime is largely gang-related an is carried out by people who are not legally allowed to own or carry guns in the first place. Your average gang member with a rap sheet a mile long is not going to the gun store and passing a background check. He's either buying a stolen gun or buying a gun through the black market...both are already illegal.

Correct, and the point I was making still stands. Illegal activity, the people behind that, did not grow up with a respect for firearms, their care and use, literally in a family setting.

Instead they grew up with "gun=power, I want a gun". In more rural communities this is less of an issue (but still can be). And of course cities have people and families that do have a hunting and pride of gun ownership heritage and the risks with them is lower. The point though is, in cities there is often less of the family element, the group care influence. It is difficult to explain but I have seen it firsthand.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
2122M
Posts: 1225
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: NRA warns Trump against universal background checks

Fri Aug 23, 2019 2:07 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
2122M wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:

Still doesn't solve anything. People dodge car registration and insurance requirements all the time. You think people buying and selling guns won't either?


We can't let perfect be the enemy of good.

I'm sick of the argument, "well it won't stop everything, so lets not do it at all". If you don't want to make a law because you are afraid some people will break it anyway, then why have any laws at all.

Anyway, if you register a gun and therefore any crime or accident that happens as a result of that gun will lead the authorities directly to you, don't you think you'd be extra vigilant when selling that gun to make sure once that gun belongs to someone else you will not be the responsible party should anything happen?


Every gun purchase through an FFL is already registered.

The only ones that aren't are through private sales. I doubt the guy buying a gun in a back alley cares about registering his gun right now.

Maybe you have a point about someone who has a gun registered to themselves would be more concerned about who is buying the gun from them in a private sale, but that's already the case right now...


'Already the case now'? Am I correct in understanding that there is no national gun registry in the US at the moment? And if I am correct about that, how is this 'Already the case now'.

My point is, if you legally attached a gun to a person in the same way we do with cars, it will be in the best interest of the seller to make sure that title changes hands when it is sold via private sale. Then you make the background check a requirement to transfer the title of a weapon. Private sellers will have a choice: either do a background check to sell a weapon or continue to be liable for a weapon they no longer own.

If I recall, you are a gun owner yourself. Would you sell a gun to anyone but continue to allow yourself to be held liable for that weapon?
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9409
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: NRA warns Trump against universal background checks

Fri Aug 23, 2019 2:26 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
Tugger wrote:
2122M wrote:

Require insurance and registration. Then, much like a private car sale, it is in the best interests of the selling party to go through the proper channels so they are not held liable for anything that happens as a result of that weapon in the future. A background check could be a part of a title transfer or a requirement to take your name off the registration for that particular gun.

This is a simple and I think one of the most effective ways to start.
Tugg


Still doesn't solve anything. People dodge car registration and insurance requirements all the time. You think people buying and selling guns won't either?

As others have pointed out and I have said, no I don't this will "solve" things. Just as a piece of wood doesn't alone build a house. But over time, law enforcement will go after those gun sales and remove those from circulation and prosecute the people involved and new sales will be more legitimate. Again not saying it will instantly solve things, it is a step by step process. It is not one thing.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 2721
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: NRA warns Trump against universal background checks

Fri Aug 23, 2019 2:28 pm

2122M wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
2122M wrote:

We can't let perfect be the enemy of good.

I'm sick of the argument, "well it won't stop everything, so lets not do it at all". If you don't want to make a law because you are afraid some people will break it anyway, then why have any laws at all.

Anyway, if you register a gun and therefore any crime or accident that happens as a result of that gun will lead the authorities directly to you, don't you think you'd be extra vigilant when selling that gun to make sure once that gun belongs to someone else you will not be the responsible party should anything happen?


Every gun purchase through an FFL is already registered.

The only ones that aren't are through private sales. I doubt the guy buying a gun in a back alley cares about registering his gun right now.

Maybe you have a point about someone who has a gun registered to themselves would be more concerned about who is buying the gun from them in a private sale, but that's already the case right now...


'Already the case now'? Am I correct in understanding that there is no national gun registry in the US at the moment? And if I am correct about that, how is this 'Already the case now'.

My point is, if you legally attached a gun to a person in the same way we do with cars, it will be in the best interest of the seller to make sure that title changes hands when it is sold via private sale. Then you make the background check a requirement to transfer the title of a weapon. Private sellers will have a choice: either do a background check to sell a weapon or continue to be liable for a weapon they no longer own.

If I recall, you are a gun owner yourself. Would you sell a gun to anyone but continue to allow yourself to be held liable for that weapon?


Not registered in the same sense as a car, you are correct in that sense. But everything is serialized and easily traced. The guns I own can all be traced back to their origin of purchase. If I were to sell my guns in a private sale, and that gun were used in a crime, it would be traced back to me. It is for that reason that I 1) would not sell my guns in a private sale, and 2) even if I were considering such a private sale, I would 100% ensure they are someone trustworthy and of sane mind and attitude. I would not be able to live with myself if I came to find out that it was used to harm others or themselves.

The truth of the matter is, private gun sales make up a very small portion of gun sales. Vast majority of gun sales happen via a federally licensed gun broker who is mandated by law to perform a background check. Those guns sold are easily traced via their serial numbers to that person with minimal effort. It isn't what I would characterize as a "national gun registry" but it effectively is. I understand why people on my side of politics are against a national gun registry (they think it could be used as a tool for a gun confiscation) but the reality is, if the government wants to take our guns, they already have the tools to do so if they wanted to.
 
2122M
Posts: 1225
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: NRA warns Trump against universal background checks

Fri Aug 23, 2019 2:49 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
2122M wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:

Every gun purchase through an FFL is already registered.

The only ones that aren't are through private sales. I doubt the guy buying a gun in a back alley cares about registering his gun right now.

Maybe you have a point about someone who has a gun registered to themselves would be more concerned about who is buying the gun from them in a private sale, but that's already the case right now...


'Already the case now'? Am I correct in understanding that there is no national gun registry in the US at the moment? And if I am correct about that, how is this 'Already the case now'.

My point is, if you legally attached a gun to a person in the same way we do with cars, it will be in the best interest of the seller to make sure that title changes hands when it is sold via private sale. Then you make the background check a requirement to transfer the title of a weapon. Private sellers will have a choice: either do a background check to sell a weapon or continue to be liable for a weapon they no longer own.

If I recall, you are a gun owner yourself. Would you sell a gun to anyone but continue to allow yourself to be held liable for that weapon?


Not registered in the same sense as a car, you are correct in that sense. But everything is serialized and easily traced. The guns I own can all be traced back to their origin of purchase. If I were to sell my guns in a private sale, and that gun were used in a crime, it would be traced back to me. It is for that reason that I 1) would not sell my guns in a private sale, and 2) even if I were considering such a private sale, I would 100% ensure they are someone trustworthy and of sane mind and attitude. I would not be able to live with myself if I came to find out that it was used to harm others or themselves.

The truth of the matter is, private gun sales make up a very small portion of gun sales. Vast majority of gun sales happen via a federally licensed gun broker who is mandated by law to perform a background check. Those guns sold are easily traced via their serial numbers to that person with minimal effort. It isn't what I would characterize as a "national gun registry" but it effectively is. I understand why people on my side of politics are against a national gun registry (they think it could be used as a tool for a gun confiscation) but the reality is, if the government wants to take our guns, they already have the tools to do so if they wanted to.


To be honest, I'm not looking at a registry for registry's sake. I'm responding to the title of the thread which is about background checks. I would propose using a formal registry as a way to enforce background checks in private sales.

It would also create a legal liability bond (probably not a legal term, but you know what I mean) between the gun and its owner which would likely lead to individuals protecting their guns better and being a lot more careful about how guns are stored.
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 2721
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: NRA warns Trump against universal background checks

Fri Aug 23, 2019 3:58 pm

I am a huge supporter of practicing safe gun ownership and storage of said guns.

Won't hear me say otherwise haha.

I still don't see how that stops mass shootings.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9409
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: NRA warns Trump against universal background checks

Fri Aug 23, 2019 4:16 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
I am a huge supporter of practicing safe gun ownership and storage of said guns.

Won't hear me say otherwise haha.

I still don't see how that stops mass shootings.

Can you name one thing, one thing alone, that stops mass attacks anywhere?

It's not one thing, it is coordinated efforts by multiple entities along with cooperation from the general public etc. that minimize the likelihood of any attack. And even still no one can guarantee one won't happen. Same thing with any lone-wolf attack (which these shooting are), you can't 100% stop them, but you can work and craft legislation etc. that will help minimize them. And remember, these "mass shootings" are but a small fraction of firearm related deaths (some 14,000 in 2017) that such laws could potentially start to address.

Again, I don't want to "take guns away" but firmly believe that people need to put effort into gun ownership and use. And the argument of "but the 2nd precludes any constraint" simply doesn't face the reality that guns are powerful tools and while there is a right enshrined in our constitution regarding them, that should not stop applying normal and intelligent rules in place. We have quite a lot already and they are not inhibiting good honest citizens from having and using firearms. Addressing the holes we have in our laws will not desecrate the constitution, in fact doing so honors it.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 20742
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: NRA warns Trump against universal background checks

Fri Aug 23, 2019 4:42 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
2122M wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:

Every gun purchase through an FFL is already registered.

The only ones that aren't are through private sales. I doubt the guy buying a gun in a back alley cares about registering his gun right now.

Maybe you have a point about someone who has a gun registered to themselves would be more concerned about who is buying the gun from them in a private sale, but that's already the case right now...


'Already the case now'? Am I correct in understanding that there is no national gun registry in the US at the moment? And if I am correct about that, how is this 'Already the case now'.

My point is, if you legally attached a gun to a person in the same way we do with cars, it will be in the best interest of the seller to make sure that title changes hands when it is sold via private sale. Then you make the background check a requirement to transfer the title of a weapon. Private sellers will have a choice: either do a background check to sell a weapon or continue to be liable for a weapon they no longer own.

If I recall, you are a gun owner yourself. Would you sell a gun to anyone but continue to allow yourself to be held liable for that weapon?


Not registered in the same sense as a car, you are correct in that sense. But everything is serialized and easily traced. The guns I own can all be traced back to their origin of purchase. If I were to sell my guns in a private sale, and that gun were used in a crime, it would be traced back to me. It is for that reason that I 1) would not sell my guns in a private sale, and 2) even if I were considering such a private sale, I would 100% ensure they are someone trustworthy and of sane mind and attitude. I would not be able to live with myself if I came to find out that it was used to harm others or themselves.

The truth of the matter is, private gun sales make up a very small portion of gun sales. Vast majority of gun sales happen via a federally licensed gun broker who is mandated by law to perform a background check. Those guns sold are easily traced via their serial numbers to that person with minimal effort. It isn't what I would characterize as a "national gun registry" but it effectively is. I understand why people on my side of politics are against a national gun registry (they think it could be used as a tool for a gun confiscation) but the reality is, if the government wants to take our guns, they already have the tools to do so if they wanted to.


Can you be sure you are selling to who will be the rightful owner or are you selling to a strawman? This is why we need to close private sales.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
2122M
Posts: 1225
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: NRA warns Trump against universal background checks

Fri Aug 23, 2019 4:48 pm

seb146 wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
2122M wrote:

'Already the case now'? Am I correct in understanding that there is no national gun registry in the US at the moment? And if I am correct about that, how is this 'Already the case now'.

My point is, if you legally attached a gun to a person in the same way we do with cars, it will be in the best interest of the seller to make sure that title changes hands when it is sold via private sale. Then you make the background check a requirement to transfer the title of a weapon. Private sellers will have a choice: either do a background check to sell a weapon or continue to be liable for a weapon they no longer own.

If I recall, you are a gun owner yourself. Would you sell a gun to anyone but continue to allow yourself to be held liable for that weapon?


Not registered in the same sense as a car, you are correct in that sense. But everything is serialized and easily traced. The guns I own can all be traced back to their origin of purchase. If I were to sell my guns in a private sale, and that gun were used in a crime, it would be traced back to me. It is for that reason that I 1) would not sell my guns in a private sale, and 2) even if I were considering such a private sale, I would 100% ensure they are someone trustworthy and of sane mind and attitude. I would not be able to live with myself if I came to find out that it was used to harm others or themselves.

The truth of the matter is, private gun sales make up a very small portion of gun sales. Vast majority of gun sales happen via a federally licensed gun broker who is mandated by law to perform a background check. Those guns sold are easily traced via their serial numbers to that person with minimal effort. It isn't what I would characterize as a "national gun registry" but it effectively is. I understand why people on my side of politics are against a national gun registry (they think it could be used as a tool for a gun confiscation) but the reality is, if the government wants to take our guns, they already have the tools to do so if they wanted to.


Can you be sure you are selling to who will be the rightful owner or are you selling to a strawman? This is why we need to close private sales.


Well, whoever you are selling to will pass a background check and the be the responsible party for that weapon. If they then want to hand that gun to someone else, nothing is stopping them, but whatever happens with that gun, they will be held liable. I would image that would be a deterrent to act as 'gun launderer' so to speak.
 
JJJ
Posts: 3322
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: NRA warns Trump against universal background checks

Fri Aug 23, 2019 5:41 pm

Tugger wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
Tugger wrote:

This is a simple and I think one of the most effective ways to start.
Tugg


Still doesn't solve anything. People dodge car registration and insurance requirements all the time. You think people buying and selling guns won't either?

As others have pointed out and I have said, no I don't this will "solve" things. Just as a piece of wood doesn't alone build a house. But over time, law enforcement will go after those gun sales and remove those from circulation and prosecute the people involved and new sales will be more legitimate. Again not saying it will instantly solve things, it is a step by step process. It is not one thing.

Tugg


Exactly. The US has way to many guns in circulation for any measure to be felt in the short term.

It will take a couple decades at least being optimistic.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: petertenthije, zrs70 and 63 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos